Tag: police state

North Dakota Senate Committee Rejects Bill To Expand Marijuana Decriminalization That Had Already Passed House

A North Dakota Senate committee has defeated a House-passed bill that sought to reduce the state penalty for low-level marijuana possession to a $150 civil fine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday voted 5–2 to reject the bill, HB 1596, from Rep. Liz Conmy (D). While the proposal had support from county prosecutors and defense attorneys in the state, police and sheriffs departments were broadly opposed.

“The voters have spoken on this issue,” Stephanie Ingebretsen, who testified on behalf of the Chiefs of Police Association of North Dakota. “They’re not interested in legalization and would like it to stay a criminal offense.”

While North Dakota in 2019 enacted what advocacy groups refer to as a marijuana decriminalization law that removed the risk of jail time for possessing under a half-ounce of cannabis, possession nevertheless remains a criminal infraction and carries a fine of up to $1,000.

While voters have not weighed in on decriminalization itself, last year they rejected an adult-use legalization ballot initiative that would have created a commercial cannabis market. Voters also rejected an earlier legalization proposal at the ballot box in 2022.

The newly rejected bill, HB 1596, would have made simple possession of up to half an ounce of marijuana a civil citation. That change would remove the need for courtroom appearances, which proponents said would help decongest the state’s clogged court system and free up prosecutorial resources for more pressing concerns.

“To give you an idea of the magnitude of time, energy and resources extended,” sponsor Conmy told colleagues, “between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2024—four years in North Dakota—there were 8,676 marijuana charges, 7,365 cases opened, 17,000 hearings, 2,357 cases with a public defender appointed. And all of these cases were handled by our state’s attorneys.”

More than 90 percent of cases involved possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana, she said.

Keep reading

UK Halts “Legal but Harmful” Censorship Rule Amid US Trade Pressure, But Online Safety Act Still Fuels Free Speech and Privacy Fears

Plans to implement sweeping content moderation powers for tech companies have been put on hold by the UK government, as concerns grow that reintroducing speech controls could disrupt sensitive trade discussions with President Donald Trump’s allies.

The British Government had been exploring a return to the abandoned “legal but harmful” proposal, a measure that would have forced online platforms to purge content deemed “harmful” yet not unlawful. But after internal pushback and a wary eye on Washington’s stance, the idea has been quietly dropped.

The original measure, introduced under Conservative leadership in 2022, triggered significant dissent, including from within the party itself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, then serving as business secretary, dismissed the idea, warning it could mean “legislating for hurt feelings.” The proposal was ultimately replaced with tools that give individuals more choice over the material they encounter online rather than imposing top-down restrictions.

According to reports, the recent move to distance the government from any revival of the censorship clause comes amid Labour’s review of the Online Safety Act, launched after riots last summer linked to false claims about a Southport attacker. While that review sparked fresh debate over “misinformation,” officials have opted not to revisit the “legal but harmful” language, choosing instead to emphasize online protections for children.

Labour appears focused on building upon new safety measures coming into force this summer, including mandatory age checks for adult content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is working on a package aimed at strengthening youth safeguards, though these proposals stop well short of any return to compelled content takedowns.

“We are really committed to keeping children safe,” a government insider said. “Finally, the Online Safety Act is starting to have an impact, and we will see some enforcement action shortly. Age assurance will also be a massive step forward when it comes in the summer, but we’re actively exploring other ways of protecting children.”

​While the UK government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” provision from the Online Safety Act was intended to address concerns over free speech and censorship, significant issues remain. The Act still imposes broad duties on online platforms to assess and mitigate risks associated with user-generated content.

Keep reading

Two MPs ‘astounded’ after being denied entry to Israel

Two Labour MPs say they are “astounded” to have been denied entry to Israel while on a trip to visit the occupied West Bank.

Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang said it was “vital” parliamentarians were able to witness the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory first-hand.

They were refused entry because they intended to “spread hate speech” against Israel, the nation’s population and immigration authority said.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy criticised Israeli authorities, describing the move as “unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning”.

But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Israel had a right to “control its borders”, adding it was “significant” there were Labour MPs other countries did not want to let in.

Yang, the MP for Earley and Woodley, and Mohamed, the MP for Sheffield Central, flew to Israel from London Luton Airport with two aides on Saturday afternoon.

The Israeli immigration authority said Interior Minister Moshe Arbel denied entry to all four passengers after they were questioned. It accused them of travelling to “document the security forces”.

The Israeli embassy in London said in a statement on Saturday that the country “will not allow the entry of individuals or entities that act against the state and its citizens”.

It said Mohamed and Yang had “accused Israel of false claims” and were “actively involved in promoting sanctions against Israeli ministers”.

It also said they had supported campaigns aimed at boycotting the country “at a time when Israel is at war and under attack on seven fronts”.

The UK Foreign Office said the group was part of a parliamentary delegation. However, Israel’s immigration authority said the delegation had not been acknowledged by an Israeli official.

Keep reading

Michael G. Seidel — The Face of FBI Corruption

Let’s talk about the man who buries the truth for a living — not in some dark alley, but in broad daylight behind a badge, a clearance, and a stack of sealed affidavits.

Michael G. Seidel, Section Chief of RIDS (Records Management Division, FBI), is not a bureaucrat. He is the regime’s professional liar, the FBI’s high priest of concealment, and the living proof that corruption doesn’t hide — it gets promoted.

He doesn’t serve the law. He smothers it. One FOIA denial, one redacted page, one perjured affidavit at a time.

I. The Architect of Institutional Obfuscation

Michael G. Seidel is not an anomaly. He is the rot at the core of the DOJ and FBI — a man who turned federal authority into a shield for the corrupt and a weapon against the truth. Legalese is his camouflage. Misleading courts is his sport. Burying evidence is his career.
Seth Rich’s case? Seidel didn’t just mishandle it — he buried it under 20,000+ unreleased pages. This isn’t red tape. This is regime protection.

II. The Seth Rich Lie: Perjury in a Suit and Tie

In Ty Clevenger’s FOIA suit, the FBI — through Seidel — claimed they had “no records” on Seth Rich. No laptop. No emails. Nothing. Reality? They were sitting on a motherlode.

When exposed, Seidel didn’t admit to the lie. He pivoted. Suddenly, Rich’s laptop wasn’t a “record.” It was “just evidence” — somehow exempt from FOIA.

This wasn’t a legal interpretation. This was coordinated federal gaslighting.

III. The Redaction Game: How the Truth Dies in Black Ink

Even when forced to release documents, Seidel didn’t comply — he slow-walked, stonewalled, and blacked out critical information. Judges raised their eyebrows. Still, no sanctions. No accountability.

This is not incompetence. It’s policy. A deliberate playbook to protect the Bureau at the cost of justice.

IV. Weaponized Paperwork: FOIA as a Blunt Instrument

Every affidavit Seidel signs is a bureaucratic smoke grenade — engineered not to inform but to obscure. FOIA, under his watch, is no longer a transparency tool. It’s a regime-controlled narrative management system.

His filings aren’t honest attempts to comply with the law. They’re sabotage operations, paper bullets fired at the truth.

Keep reading

A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation

For many Americans, it is an article of faith that a vast and powerful federal government equals a great and strong nation. Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The more powerful the federal government, the weaker the nation. Contrariwise, the smaller and weaker the federal government, the more powerful the nation.

Part of the problem here is that many Americans have been taught to believe that the federal government and the nation are one and the same thing. They aren’t. They are two completely separate and distinct entities.

A good confirmation of this phenomenon is the Bill of Rights. Many Americans believe that it gives Americans their rights. Actually, the Bill of Rights protects the nation — that is, the American people — from the federal government, which confirms that we are dealing with two separate and distinct entities.

The Constitution called the federal government into existence. The type of government it established was what we call a limited-government republic. It was a very small government whose powers were extremely limited — that is, limited to the few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself.

That was how the Framers and our American ancestors wanted it. They wanted a small, weak federal government — one with very few powers.

One of the most important features of this new government was its lack of a vast, permanent military establishment. That was the last thing the Framers and our American ancestors wanted. They knew that a vast-permanent military establishment would convert the federal government into a powerful government. They didn’t want that. They felt that such a powerful government would constitute a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the nation. Thus, they fiercely opposed what they called “standing armies.” That’s why throughout the 19th century, America had a relatively small, basic army.

This unusual governmental structure brought into existence the most unique economic and political system in the history of man. By the time the 1880s arrived, the United States was a land of no income taxation or IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, Federal Reserve, paper money, (minimal) immigration control, gun control, drug war, minimum-wage laws, occupational licensure, (minimal) economic regulations, national-security state, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, torture, indefinite detention, compulsory school-attendance laws, (minimal) public (i.e., government) schooling systems, war on terrorism, foreign wars, foreign aid, foreign interventions, and state-sponsored assassinations.

The result of this unique governmental structure and economic and political system was the most powerful nation in history. The American people were characterized by a strong sense of independence, toughness, self-reliance, and can-do. They put their faith in themselves, in others, in free markets, in voluntary charity, in their families, and in God. They were fearless. No one dared to attack and invade the United States because to do so would be like swallowing a porcupine. The American people were simply too strong, precisely because their government was so small and weak.

It’s worth noting that this one-of-a-kind-system brought into existence the most prosperous and the most charitable nation in the history of mankind. From 1880-1910, real wage rates increased by 50 percent. When people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of weath, the result was the greatest amount of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen. One man — John D. Rockefeller — actually gave away $500 million in his lifetime.

Keep reading

Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI

A district court judge awarded $6.6 million combined to four whistleblowers who sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on claims he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI.

Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar notified Paxton and his office on Oct. 1, 2020, that they had reported him to the FBI for allegedly abusing his office. The four were all fired by mid-November.

Travis County Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled Friday that by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the whistleblowers proved liability, damages and attorney’s fees in their complaint against the attorney general’s office.

The judgment says the former aides made their reports to federal law enforcement “in good faith” and that Paxton’s office did not dispute any claims or damages in the lawsuit.

“Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and otherwise retaliating against the plaintiff for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken Paxton and OAG, the court hereby renders judgment for plaintiffs,” Mauzy wrote in her judgment.

The court found that the four former aides of the attorney general were fired in retaliation for reporting allegations that he was using his office to accept bribes from Austin real estate developer and political donor Nate Paul, who employed a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.

Paxton has denied allegations that he accepted bribes or misused his office to help Paul.

“It should shock all Texans that their chief law enforcement officer, Ken Paxton, admitted to violating the law, but that is exactly what happened in this case,” Tom Nesbitt, an attorney representing Brickman, and TJ Turner, an attorney representing Maxwell, said in a joint statement.

Keep reading

WOKE SCANDAL IN COLORADO: Democrats attack families, and parents could lose custody for calling their children by their birth name!


Colorado House Democrats have just passed HB25-1312, cynically dubbed the “Kelly Loving Act,” which classifies “misgendering” or “deadnaming” a child as child abuse. Among its provisions, it establishes that in custody decisions, the intentional use of a minor’s birth name (known as “deadnaming”) or pronouns that do not align with their gender identity (“misgendering”) can be considered forms of “coercive control,” potentially influencing parental custody determinations.

This means that if a parent refuses to “affirm” the gender identity their child has chosen, they could lose custody immediately.

The legislation, driven by the radical left, defines the use of the “wrong” name or pronoun as “coercive control” in custody disputes, as detailed in the official text. It also prohibits Colorado courts from cooperating with laws in other states that penalize parents for allowing “gender-affirming” treatments for their children.

Keep reading

City in Colorado Will Seize Residents’ Pets If They Violate Strict Animal Ownership Limits

A Colorado municipality will soon authorize the seizure of cats and dogs from residents who exceed a new cap on animal ownership.

Denver7 reports that starting in August, the city of Northglenn, located roughly 40 minutes from Denver, will impose a strict rule prohibiting residents from keeping more than four animals in total.

This includes cats, dogs, or any combination thereof, with the total “not exceeding four.”

According to the city, the ordinance was passed by the council “at the request of residents and after extensive research and discussion.”

Officials say the decision follows complaints from community members about “excessive noise and waste caused by a high number of pets in some neighborhoods.”

Those who currently own more than the permitted number of animals have the option to apply for a “previously owned pet exception” prior to the law’s enforcement date.

If submitted in time, the exemption allows Northglenn residents to keep their “existing pets” and avoid having them confiscated by authorities.

The application requires pet owners to provide details, including the animal’s name, breed, sex, age, and the date it entered the household.

Failure to comply with the rule, including failure to report animals exceeding the new threshold, could result in “enforcement action,” which may involve “a potential court order requiring pet removal.”

“Our goal is to work with residents to ensure compliance through education and outreach before any enforcement action is taken,” the city stated.

‘Pets bring joy and companionship to our lives, but they also come with responsibilities.”

”By establishing reasonable pet limits, we aim to ensure that everyone living in Northglenn, both pet owners and non-pet owners, can enjoy their homes and neighborhoods.”

Granting the government the authority to seize pets raises serious concerns about property rights, due process, and overreach into private life.

While both New York and Los Angeles have limits on pet ownership, violators are typically punished through citations and eviction from rental properties.

The other place where animal confiscation is normalized is in communist China, where a controverisal one-dog policy once allowed authorities to confiscate dogs exceeding the size or number limits.

Keep reading

After Years in Court, Canadian “Freedom Convoy” Leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber Found Guilty of Mischief

On Thursday, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, the federal judge overseeing the trial of Canadian “Freedom Covoy” leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, delivered her verdict.

The two organizers were each charged with six counts, including mischief, obstruction, intimidation, and counseling others to commit mischief and intimidation.

Ottowa Citizen reported: 

Lich and Barber were also found not guilty of obstructing police and counselling someone to obstruct police. Both were arrested without incident ahead of a mass police enforcement operation that began on Feb. 18, 2022, to end the protest entirely.

Barber was found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order for telling people to ignore an injunction issued by a judge directing convoy participants to stop honking their truck horns in downtown Ottawa. Lich was not charged with that offence.

Another charge of counselling others to commit mischief was stayed at the request of the Crown because it was no longer necessary due to the mischief conviction. Justice Perkins-McVey had enough evidence to render a guilty verdict.

Maxime Bernier, the leader of The People’s Party of Canada decried the verdict.

Bernier wrote on X, “It is disheartening to learn that two of the heroes of the Freedom Convoy, @LichTamara and @ChrisBarber1975, have been found guilty of mischief in the longest and one of the costliest trials in Canadian history.”

“This clearly was a political witch hunt.”

“Meanwhile, Trudeau and his ministers who illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and violated basic rights will go unpunished.”

“Our justice system is corrupt to the bones.”

Keep reading

Who Needs Vaccine Data When You Have Vaccine Mandates?

FDA Gene-Editing mRNA Vaccine Chief – Peter Marks – has always been a strong proponent of vaccine mandates. Marks also has as a history of overruling large expert panels for FDA approval of gene therapies at the agency.

STAT News reported that “Marks was one of the architects of Operation Warp Speed, the $18 billion U.S. effort to speed development of Covid-19 vaccines. He regularly embraced regulatory flexibility. And he spoke not infrequently about the importance of accelerated approval for next-generation treatments, including with those whose potential benefits weren’t always crystal-clear in clinical trial data.”

“Vaccine Mandates Are Not Going to Get Us THERE. It’s Got to Be Compelling Evidence.” – Vaccine Chief Peter Marks

During a 4-hour Public Health Workshop hosted by Duke University on March 20, 2025, Marks alluded to having contentious disputes with the higher-ups of the new Health & Human Services (HHS) administration (aka – Secretary Kennedy) over ‘the need for vaccine efficacy and vaccine safety data’ when FDA-approved vaccines can just be mandated.

“How We Generate Evidence Going Forward”

Throughout the 4-hour workshop, Marks and his colleagues strategically avoided discussing retrospective data analyses (i.e. analyzing the adverse events of vaccines in the US government databases) and the specifics on how to measure safety data going forward.

“By Definition, Vaccines Are Very Safe Medical Products”

“By definition, when we are developing vaccines for broad use, one of their direct benefits has to be that they are very safe medical products. That just goes without saying, because that goes to getting acceptance for the individual’s direct benefit.”

Keep reading