Tag: police state

Arizona Rejects Restrictions on Governor’s Emergency Powers

Arizonans voted against Proposition 135, a ballot measure that would have enshrined an “Emergency Declarations Amendment” to the constitution limiting the ability of their governor to extend emergency declarations among others. 56.8 percent of Arizona voters went against the proposition, with 68 percent of the vote counted as of press time.

Two years ago, Governor Doug Ducey signed a similar bill limiting the duration of a state of emergency to 30-day increments, which are eligible for extensions up to 120 days without the legislature’s approval. Proposition 135 would have set a hard cap of 30 days for states of emergency and prohibited the governor from extending them without approval from state lawmakers. Absent a decision from the state legislature, the declared state of emergency would automatically end after the allotted 30 days.

Under the ballot measure, certain types of emergencies—like a state of war, fire, and floods—would not be subject to the 30-day limit. Additionally, the legislature would have had the authority to alter or limit the governor’s powers when lawmakers extend an emergency declaration.

Apart from the amendment’s effects on emergency declarations, it also required the governor to call a special session upon the petition of “at least one-third of each house of the legislature,” according to the ballot’s language. Under current law, two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers must vote in favor of a special session to force the governor to call one. 

Republican lawmakers holding majorities in both chambers voted in 2023 for the amendment to be included on the 2024 ballot; no Democrats voted to include the ballot measure. The bill’s sponsor, state representative Joseph Chaplik (R–Scottsdale), cited the 700-day plus COVID-19 emergency order as a key reason for his support of the measure, according to The Arizona Republic. Rep. Chaplik told The Arizona Republic that the proposition would have allowed special sessions to occur immediately following a governor’s “abuses [of] their emergency power.”

Opponents of Proposition 135 cited concerns over the state’s ability to respond to emergencies. Requiring legislative approval might have slowed down the resources that states of emergency are meant to help allocate. The allocation of state resources, temporary suspension of regulations, enhanced information gathering, and speedy authorization of stricter public safety measures are all reasons states of emergency are declared.  

Keep reading

Kuwait Warns Foreign Residents of Upcoming Deadline for Compulsory Biometric Registration

Kuwaiti authorities have called on foreign residents in the country to ensure that they complete an ongoing compulsory biometric registration exercise before the government-prescribed deadline at the end of this year.

The deadline for Kuwaiti citizens to comply with the requirement elapsed in September, but aliens have until December 31 to do so.

Col. Thamer Dakhin Al-Mutairi, an official from the Personnel Identification Department, is referenced by Arab Times as saying that all those who do not meet the December deadline will have their transactions disrupted.

Already, the government says citizens who failed to meet the September deadline have a block on some of their transactions such as banking services, although they still have a chance to catch up.

The government indicates that so far, slightly over three million people are already done with the process, while over 754,000 others are yet to do so.

Al-Mutairi has also reminded residents of the points where registration takes place. He says it is safer to book appointments because all those who show up without an appointment may not be attended to by identification personnel.

Kuwait mandated a compulsory collection of fingerprint biometrics from citizens and residents in May last year, saying it is part of efforts to bolster the country’s national security architecture.

Keep reading

Trump criminal cases brought by Jack Smith set to be closed before he enters White House

The two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump are likely to be wound down before he gets into the White House, according to reports hours after his crushing election victory over Kamala Harris.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is in talks with the Justice Department to end the January 6 and classified documents prosecutions, NBC News reported.

The move would confirm the DOJ is sticking with the precedent that no sitting president can be prosecuted.

It’s an enormous blow for Smith who ramped up the cases in the final months of the campaigns and has spent almost three years and more than $35million in taxpayer funds trying to bring the 78-year-old to trial. 

Trump still faces sentencing in the New York hush money trial next month and the election interference case in Georgia headed by District Attorney Fani Wills has been beset by a slew of problems.

Keep reading

The Menace of the State

The election is upon us. We wonder whether we have to have war, tariffs, and deficit spending, regardless of whom we support. What are we to do? Faced with the intractable problems of misgovernment, we need to look deeper. Following the great Murray Rothbard, we should ask, do we need a State at all? Rothbard’s answer was a clear “No.” And not only do we not need a State; the State is a menace.

Following Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock, Rothbard identified the State as a predatory organism. It is the “organization of the political means.” The State produces nothing by itself but takes what other people have produced. Froom this we can deduce a vital fact. Society must have existed before the State. Otherwise, there would be nothing for the State to take.

But you may wonder, how is this possible? Whatever its defects, don’t we need a State to ensure that we have law and order? If we have property rights, don’t we need a legal order defining these rights? The answer is that we do need law and order, and we do need a legal system. But people can establish law and order without the State.

We know this because in any society that consists of a small group of people, certain conventions will naturally tend to arise. People will agree that they shouldn’t kill or assault each other. Otherwise, they couldn’t survive. They will also agree that they need private property, and a simple rule will naturally suggest itself: The first user of unowned land becomes the owner.

What happens, though, if there are disputes over who the first user was or about the boundaries of the land that has been acquired by the first user? The disputants will seek an impartial arbitrator, whose decisions will be respected. After a while, certain natural leaders will emerge from among these judges. But they won’t constitute a State, because they lack the power to extract resources through taxation.

Keep reading

Post-Election Truths: The Things That Won’t Change (No Matter Who Wins)

“If voting could ever really change anything, it’d be illegal.”— Thorne, Land of the Blind (2006)

After months of handwringing and mud-slinging and fear-mongering, the votes have finally been cast and the outcome has been decided: the Deep State has won.

Despite the billions spent to create the illusion of choice culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, when it comes to most of the big issues that keep us in bondage to authoritarian overlords, not much will change.

Despite all of the work that has been done to persuade us to buy into the fantasy that things will change if we just elect the “right” political savior, the day after a new president is sworn in, it will be business as usual for the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs the government.

War will continue. Drone killings will continue. Surveillance will continue. Censorship of anyone who criticizes the government will continue. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists will continue. Police shootings will continue. SWAT team raids will continue. Highway robbery meted out by government officials will continue. Corrupt government will continue. Profit-driven prisons will continue. And the militarization of the police will continue.

These problems have persisted—and in many cases flourished—under both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent years.

The outcome of this year’s election changes none of that.

Indeed, take a look at the programs and policies that will not be affected by the 2024 presidential election, and you’ll get a clearer sense of the government’s priorities, which have little to do with representing the taxpayers and everything to do with amassing money, power and control.

Keep reading

UK government’s tax plans will destroy family farming; farmers to gather in London to protest

A rally is being held in London to protest against the UK government’s agricultural policies.  Organised by the National Farmers’ Union (“NFU”), which represents more than 46,000 farming and growing businesses, the rally is taking place on 19 November.

In a vlog published on Friday, NFU President Tom Bradshaw outlined the plans and urged NFU members to send in their videos to demonstrate the impact that the Budget announcement will have on their business.

Bradshaw began, “Members, farmers, I know that today many of you are feeling angry and betrayed. And we absolutely share that frustration. We understand what the impact of the removal of APR [agricultural property relief], or this family farm tax, which has been implemented could have on you, your farm and your family. We want you, our members, to be involved in the next steps.”

Farmers have also been posting videos on social media, see HERE and HERE.

Agricultural Property Relief (“APR”) is a relief from inheritance tax on the transfer of agricultural property.  In her budget,  Rachel Reeves announced significant changes to the UK Inheritance Tax regime. Business Property Relief (“BPR”) and APR claims will be capped at £1m per taxpayer with inheritance tax of 20% applying on the full value of farms and rural estates above £1m.  The tax is effective from April 2026.

The cuts to APR potentially jeopardise thousands of family farms by increasing the Inheritance Tax burden. APR provides critical relief on the transfer of agricultural property, allowing farming families to pass their established food-producing business down to future generations.

This change could force family farms to sell off land to pay inheritance tax, potentially breaking up family businesses and destabilising food security. Why should non-farmers care? “Preventing farms from being sold or broken up is a public interest issue, too. Food security in the UK is declining in several sectors, making the country more dependent on imports,” The Guardian reported.

The Country Land and Business Association will be making urgent representations to the Treasury on how this will affect 70,000 farms.

Keep reading

Washington Braces for Potential Unrest With New Fences Encircling White House and Harris Residence

Protective structures have been installed around the White House, Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence, and several other institutions, while business owners have started boarding up windows and doors amid potential unrest related to the US presidential election, the Washington Post reports.

“Rings of new security fencing enveloped the White House, US Capitol and Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence on Sunday as federal and District authorities brace for potential unrest in Washington following Tuesday’s presidential election,” the publication writes.

It is noted that the Secret Service erected new high metal barriers around the White House complex, the Department of the Treasury, and adjoining parts of Lafayette Square, as well as outside the Naval Observatory and Harris’s residence.

Keep reading

Hands Off My Social Media!

Democrats have found a new superstar to help get out the progressive vote: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. Khan has done town halls with Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Mark Pocan (D-WI), Senate candidate and current Representative Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Khan’s appearances are official government events—not campaign rallies. However, politicians would not appear at an event in an election year unless they where sure it would appeal to a key constituency. It may seem odd that politicians would consider it helpful to appear with an FTC chair. However, Lina Khan is no ordinary agency head. Khan has been a star in progressive circles since, while still a law student, she penned “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” This article argued that the rise of Big Tech companies like Amazon and Google required government to take a more aggressive approach to antitrust. Khan has brought high-profile antitrust cases against Amazon and META (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and What’s App), as well as attempts to block mergers and acquisitions in areas ranging from  handbags to grocery stores.

Khan advocates a “holistic” approach to antitrust that recognizes how “workers and independent businesses, in addition to consumers, can be harmed by antitrust and consumer protection violations.” She has also called for the FTC to consider how certain business practices can help facilitate antitrust violations. This holistic approach gives federal antitrust enforcers justification for second-guessing almost any decision made by almost any American business.

The FTC chair has a number of fans on the “populist-nationalist” right. These “Khanservatives” want Republicans to embrace a Lina Khan-like approach to antitrust. Khanservatives want to use antitrust to punish Big Tech for manipulating their algorithms to suppress conservative news and opinions. Some Khanservatives believe the Big Tech companies influenced the outcome of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

The most prominent Khanservative is Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. Senator Vance (R-OH) has publicly praised Khan and, before being picked as Donald Trump’s running mate, suggested that if Trump returns to the Oval Office he should “use the administrative state” to advance a conservative agenda. Senator Vance has also called for the government to break up Google because “the monopolistic control of information in our society resides with a progressive company.”

Keep reading