Tag: police state

FBI Whistleblower Alleges Plan to Deploy Plainclothes FBI Agents to Maricopa County Polling Stations to Monitor Trump Voters — FBI Responds

A bombshell report from a whistleblower has set off alarms among Arizona’s voters and political leaders, as new revelations have surfaced about an alleged plan by the FBI to deploy plainclothes agents to polling stations in Maricopa County.

According to a whistleblower who attended a recent security briefing, the FBI’s primary objective with this operation is to monitor Trump voters during the upcoming election—a disturbing indication of federal interference aimed at intimidating those who dare to support the 45th president.

Representative Alexander Kolodin (R-AZ) was quick to act, sending a forceful letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, warning that such actions would not be tolerated.

In the letter, Kolodin made it clear that the House is prepared to take immediate action against any attempts by federal agents to intimidate or censor voters in Arizona.

“I sincerely hope that this disturbing allegation is false. Rest assured, however, that if your agents are here for any other purpose than ensuring that every lawful voter is able to cast a ballot, the House is prepared to take immediate action to secure all Arizonans the equal protection of the laws,” Kolodin wrote.

The letter expresses deep concern over the alleged deployment of FBI agents in Maricopa County polling stations, with the intent to monitor and intimidate Trump voters specifically.

The whistleblower claims that the agents were tasked with making sure Trump voters “don’t get out of line,” a vague but menacing directive that could lead to widespread voter suppression.

Keep reading

Guantanamo: Deal or No Deal?

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
~ Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

The case of the Gitmo plea agreement keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

A few weeks ago, we learned that a plea agreement had been entered into by way of a signed contract between the retired general in the Pentagon who is supervising all Gitmo prosecutions, the Gitmo defendants and defense counsel, and the military prosecutors. The agreement, as we understand it from sources who have seen it, provides that in return for a guilty plea, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others will serve life terms at Gitmo, rather than be exposed at trial to the death penalty. The guilty plea is to include a public and detailed recitation of guilt.

Stated differently, Mohammed agreed to reveal under oath the nature and extent of the conspiracy that resulted in the crimes of 9/11.

So far, this is straightforward. While the trial judge may have given his nod of approval to the terms of the agreement, under the federal rules of criminal procedure, the agreement is not final until the judge hears the defendants actually admit guilt under oath in a public courtroom and then accepts the plea in a written order.

That admission has not yet taken place because the Secretary of Defense, who learned of the plea agreement while traveling in Europe, removed the authority of the retired general supervising the prosecution to enter into plea agreements without his express approval.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Governor Uses Emergency Powers To Fast-Track Sweeping Gun-Control Law

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has signed an emergency preamble to the state’s sweeping gun control bill, fast-tracking its implementation and halting an ongoing effort by gun rights activists to delay its effects.

The law, H.4885, was originally scheduled to take effect on Oct. 23, or 90 days after Healey signed the bill in July, but her decision to proceed with signing the emergency preamble means it goes into effect immediately.

Under Massachusetts law, governors have the authority to issue an emergency preamble to expedite legislation when “the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or convenience” is deemed necessary.

The law’s expedited enactment was praised by gun control groups but sharply criticized by gun rights advocates, who had hoped to gather enough signatures to delay its implementation until a potential 2026 referendum.

H.4885 expands Massachusetts’ already strict gun regulations, in part as a response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed an individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

The expedited law includes provisions banning untraceable “ghost guns,” expanding restrictions on “assault-style” firearms and large-capacity magazines, and tightening the state’s “red flag” rules. It also mandates that firearm license applicants pass a standardized safety exam and complete live-fire training, while also providing mental health information to local licensing authorities.

“This gun safety law bans ghost guns, strengthens the Extreme Risk Protection Order statute to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or others, and invests in violence prevention programs. It is important that these measures go into effect without delay,” Healey said in an Oct. 2 statement to media outlets.

The governor’s decision to fast-track the law has drawn swift condemnation from gun rights organizations. Tody Leary, owner of Cape Cod Gun Works and a leader of the grassroots Civil Rights Coalition, sharply criticized the move, accusing Healey of bypassing the democratic process.

Keep reading

Jury Returns Mixed Verdict For 3 Former Memphis Officers Convicted in Fatal Beating of Black Motorist Tyre Nichols

A jury on Thursday returned a mixed verdict for three former Memphis police officers convicted in Tyre Nichols’ fatal beating.

Last September five ex-Memphis police officers were indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the fatal beating of black motorist Tyre Nichols.

Last year, the state charged the five police officers with second-degree murder and kidnapping in the death of Tyre Nichols.

The officers, Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr. and Justin Smith – were fired after Tyre Nichols died following a violent confrontation during a January 7 traffic stop.

Three of the officers, Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith, were convicted of witness tampering but acquitted of federal charges.

Officers Bean and Smith were acquitted of civil rights charges.

Two of the officers, Emmitt Martin III and Desmond Mills Jr., previously pleaded guilty to the same charges.

Keep reading

Minnesota ‘Acting as a Ministry of Truth’ With Anti-Deep Fake Law, Says Lawsuit

A new lawsuit takes aim at a Minnesota law banning the “use of deep fake technology to influence an election.” The measure—enacted in 2023 and amended this year—makes it a crime to share AI-generated content if a person “knows or acts with reckless disregard about whether the item being disseminated is a deep fake” and the sharing is done without the depicted individual’s consent, intended to “injure a candidate or influence the result of an election,” and either within 90 days before a political party nominating convention or after the start of the absentee voting period prior to a presidential nomination primary, any state or local primary, or a general election.

Christopher Kohls, a content creator who goes by Mr. Reagan, and by Minnesota state Rep. Mary Franson (R–District 12B) argue that the law is an “impermissible and unreasonable restriction of protected speech.”

Violating Minnesota’s deep fake law is punishable by up to 90 days imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000, with penalties increasing if the offender has a prior conviction within the past five years for the same thing or the deep fake is determined to have been shared with an “intent to cause violence or bodily harm.” The law also allows for the Minnesota attorney general, county or city attorneys, individuals depicted in the deep fake, or any candidate “who is injured or likely to be injured by dissemination” to sue for injunctive relief “against any person who is reasonably believed to be about to violate or who is in the course of violating” the law.

If a candidate for office is found guilty of violating this law, they must forfeit the nomination or office and are henceforth disqualified “from being appointed to that office or any other office for which the legislature may establish qualifications.”

There are obviously a host of constitutional problems with this measure, which defines “deep fake” very broadly: “any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof” that is realistic enough for a reasonable person to believe it depicts speech or conduct that did not occur and developed though “technical means” rather than “the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual.”

Keep reading

Held Hostage Overseas? The IRS Wants Your Back Taxes.

Many Americans who return home after being illegally detained overseas arrive to find they’ve been billed thousands of dollars by the IRS—including late fees for unpaid taxes.

That’s the bizarre situation in which hostages Evan Gerskovich, Paul Whelan, and Vladimir Kara-Murza found themselves after they were released from detention in Russia last month. All three men say they faced a battery of surprise financial issues after returning home, including tax charges and hits to the credit stemming from bills they were unable to pay while behind bars.

“I got one of those bills from the IRS saying, you owe this much on this year, you owe this much on this year because of failure to pay on time—here’s the interest that’s accrued,” Washington Post reporter and former hostage Jason Rezaian told NPR. He faced more than $6,000 in fees for unpaid taxes after his release, following 544 days of detention in Iran. “This is an oversight that nobody really thought about.”

And they’re not alone. Right now, between 40 and 60 American nationals are being illegally detained by other nations, according to NPR. Many of these Americans will return home to face startling financial penalties stemming from their unjust imprisonment.

Keep reading

DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’

In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.

The brief, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a case filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical marijuana patient in the state. Greene teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file suit in January against the government, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.

The original suit says that while Greene “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes,” he’s forbidden from doing so because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.

In DOJ’s latest filing, the government says that’s by design. Its motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case.

“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms,” it says, “and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgement about whether to use firearms.”

It also notes that possession of even state-legal medical marijuana remains a federal crime. The government, however, has not prioritized enforcement of prohibition against state-regulated medical cannabis programs, and a federal budget rider prevents the use of funds to interfere with the state-legal programs.

Keep reading

No matter who wins the election, the UN is still planning to unleash a new “global order” based on totalitarianism

Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024, is a day that will go down in infamy because of what the United Nations (UN) did while nobody was watching.

The UN’s long-awaited “Pact for the Future” was unveiled, and its contents are harrowing for anyone who values freedom and liberty. In short, the UN plans to control every single thing that every person does, all in the name of stopping “climate change” and achieving “sustainable development.”

World leaders affixed their signatures to the document, which contains the infamous Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. It took years to forge – and if implemented, the pact will forever change the way people live, likely for the worse.

Despite being dubbed as “the most wide-ranging international agreement in many years,” almost no media outlets are covering the pact. They are apparently too busy talking about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, along with wars in the Middle East and eastern Europe, to care.

The UN says its new Pact for the Future, including the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations, will “open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” as well as “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

“The Pact covers a broad range of issues including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance,” the UN indicated in a press release.

Keep reading

The UK’s “Chicken License” Rebellion – the GOOD way to deal with BAD laws

As of today, the UK’s “Chicken License” is in full effect. October 1st marked the deadline for registering your chickens with the proper authority.

Moving forward anyone caught with an unlicensed chicken will be in breach of the law and subject to fines and poultry reclamation.

I am entirely serious.

Back in March the UK govt’s “Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs” (DEFRA) announced changes to the poultry registration laws, essentially redefining a “flock” from “50 birds or more” to 1.

So, from now on, everybody in the country who keeps even a single bird – not just chickens, all outdoor birds – has to register as a poultry keeper.

You understand, this is all about protecting birds and the public from avian influenza, not at all about increasing government monitoring with the final aim of stamping down on self-sufficiency.

Banish that cynical thought from your head.

Fortunately, the people of the UK have a tried-and-tested method of dealing with absurdity—more absurdity.

Keep reading

Student Wearing Black Paint On Face Isn’t Protected By First Amendment: Judge

A middle school student who wore black paint on his face during a California football game is not protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, according to a federal judge.

The student, dubbed J.A. in court papers, his parents, and his lawyers have not shown that wearing the black paint is expressive conduct shielded by the First Amendment, U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez said in a Sept. 30 ruling.

J.A. said he put on the paint during the game to show team spirit, but that doesn’t meet the bar established in other rulings, including a 2019 decision that found “First Amendment protection is only granted to the act of wearing particular clothing or insignias where circumstances establish that an unmistakable communication is being made,” Lopez wrote.

“Based on the current record, it is not likely that [the] plaintiff can prevail on the merits of his First Amendment claim, nor are there serious questions about it. It ‘is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes,’ such as ‘walking,’ ’meeting one’s friends,‘ or ’coming together to engage in recreational dancing‘ and other sports, ’but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment,’” she added later, citing from other rulings.

J.A. was suspended for two days by Muirlands Middle School, which said he was wearing blackface despite the black paint being used often by athletes, and accused him or his friends of uttering racial slurs during the October 2023 game.

Keep reading