Tag: police state

40 Percent of Police Officers Convicted of Child Sex Abuse Don’t Get Prison Time, Investigation Finds

A new investigation from The Washington Post has revealed that over the past two decades, almost 1,800 police officers were charged with crimes related to child sexual abuse. Even worse, of those convicted, nearly 40 percent managed to avoid prison time. 

The investigation revealed a staggering lack of accountability for officers who sexually abuse minors—finding not only that convicted officers often received paltry sentences, but that police departments sometimes rehired officers with child sex abuse convictions.

The Post‘s analysis looked at thousands of court filings, as well as The Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database, the county’s most comprehensive database of police arrests. The authors found that, between 2005 and 2022, around 17,700 police officers were charged with crimes—and 1 in 10 of those were charged with a crime involving the sexual abuse of minors.

The crimes officers were charged with varied, though most charges were for a few specific offenses. According to the Post‘s analysis, 39 percent of officers charged with child sexual abuse crimes were charged with rape. Twenty percent were charged with crimes related to child sexual abuse material (another term for child pornography) and 19 percent were charged with forcible fondling.

Eighty-three percent of charged officers were convicted. However, only 61 percent of convicted officers received prison time. Fifteen percent received local jail sentences, and a striking 24 percent received sentences as light as probation, fines, and community service. 

But even those imprisoned received relatively light sentences. Half were sentenced to less than five years in jail. 

Why did so many officers seem to get off easy for heinous sex crimes? According to the Post, it comes down to how prosecutors and judges treat police officers.

“Prosecutors have broad discretion in the types of charges they bring, the plea bargains they offer and the cases they are willing to take to trial,” the Post‘s analysis reads. “Judges play a critical role at sentencing hearings in determining what punishment officers deserve.”

Police departments also shoulder much of the blame.

Keep reading

Feds Building Massive Detention Facilities IN ALL 50 STATES to Imprison Political Dissidents, Documentary Claims

The US federal government is in the process of building a massive network of internment camps spanning all 50 states intended not to house illegal aliens, but political dissidents, a shocking documentary claims.

Speaking to Redacted’s Clayton Morris, former Customs and Border Protection agent J.J. Carrell revealed a whistleblower in his upcoming documentary, “Treason,” exposes the scheme to build massive facilities that can house tens of thousands of people in every state.

“It’s not for these illegals,” says former federal contractor Kristi Hutcherson in an excerpt from the documentary.

“I believe it’s…kind of like what Nazis did with the Jews, concentration camps, processing facilities. They’re going to need somewhere to process the dissidents,” she says.

The 24-year CBP veteran went on to tell Morris that Hutcherson has access to federal databases where bids are placed for a variety of contracts.

“But… she says to me there’s bids for detention facilities being built in all 50 states in America,” he said.

Carrell notes despite hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the US, he’s been informed by sources that the facilities, many of which are on the southern border, contain as many as 40,000 empty beds.

According to Carrell, Hutcherson explains in the interview the facilities are for dissidents who disobey the federal government, which may include people who refuse to take mandated jabs, defiant MAGA supporters, or members of militias.

Asked what the facilities look like, Carrell described, “I think they’re going to look like just the facilities that we’re seeing where the children are being held in, those FEMA camps.”

“That’s what they’re building. They’re building FEMA camps,” Carrell said, describing soft-sided large white tents surrounded by barbed-wire like those seen in New York City to house the migrant influx.

Keep reading

Connecticut Bar Association Warns Lawyers that Dissenting Opinions on the Trump Bragg Lawfare Suit Will Not Be Tolerated

Newsmax host Greta Van Susteren reported on Monday that the Connecticut Bar warned state lawyers that dissenting opinions in the Alvin Bragg lawfare suit against President Donald Trump will not be tolerated.

This is the latest move by Democrats to silence and control the American people. Unapproved thoughts will not be tolerated.

Of course, Democrats can do this when they control all of the levers of power in the country.

God help us.

Below is the transcript from the interview:

Greta Van Susteren:  A warning from a lawyers group the Connecticut Bar Association the warning is directed at lawyers who dare to speak out and express disdain for fairness of former President Donald Trump’s trial in New York on Friday.

The Connecticut Bar Association released this message it reads in part quote “Public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a sham a hoax and rigged our justice system is corrupt and rigged the judge was corrupt and highly unethical and at the jury was partisan and precooked.”

It goes on to quote these claims, “These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless. Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch.”

Keep reading

The Hunger Games: A simulation exercise that reveals their strategy for the war on food

In 2015 a two day simulation game was held dubbed by some as the “hunger games” 65 people played out a food crisis simulation set in the years 2020 to 2030.

Do you recall a pandemic simulation held in 2019 called Event 201 that served as a dress rehearsal for the response to the covid “pandemic” in 2020?

Well, it seems such simulations have been used for the war on food as well.  As pointed out by Tracey Thurman, the food crisis simulation, officially called the Food Reaction Game, reveals their strategy for the war on food.

What is the Food Chain Reaction Game?

On 9 and 10 November 2015, Thomson Reuters and other media organisations joined event organisers Cargill, CNA, Mars, World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) and the Centre for American Progress for a simulation of a real-world food-crisis scenario called the ‘Food Chain Reaction Game: A Global Food Security Game’.

The simulation exercise was held at WWF’s headquarters in Washington DC where 65 international policymakers, academics, business and thought leaders gathered to game out how the world would respond to a future food crisis.

Over two days, the players – divided into teams for Africa, Brazil, China, the EU, India, the US, international business and investors and multilateral institutions – crafted their policy responses as delegations engaged in intensive negotiations.

The game was set between 2020 and 2030 and was based on a scenario of a global food crisis caused by population growth, rapid urbanisation, extreme weather events and political crises.

Each team was tasked with responding to the global food crisis by making decisions on food production, trade and policy. The game was played over several rounds, with each round representing a year from 2020 to 2030.

Cargill, of course, has a vested interest in understanding the future of food – where it will be grown, how it will be grown, and how it can be traded efficiently and sustainably. It’s their business.  “Cargill, the world’s largest agribusiness, has been a strong supporter both of this initiative and of WWF’s mission. As one of the organisers of Food Chain Reaction, Cargill provided a critical private-sector voice to the dialogue,” World Wildlife Fund noted.

“The most eye-catching result [ ] was a deal between the US, the EU, India and China, standing in for the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters, to institute a global carbon tax and cap CO2 emissions in 2030,” Cargill noted.

Keep reading

Was George Orwell defending the Left, the Right or was he simply defending freedom?

No writer’s legacy and approval is so fought over as George Orwell, whose final – and most celebrated – work Nineteen-Eighty-Four was published seventy five years ago this month.

The most influential piece of political fiction in history, such is the success of the dystopian novel that its themes have been recited to death by columnists, often by people I imagine he would have loathed (including me). 

Orwell’s nightmare became a particular focus of conservative commentators from the 1990s with the rise of ‘political correctness’, which might be seen as both a form of politeness and at the same time a way of policing opinions by changing the language. As Orwell’s Newspeak was described, it was to ensure that dissent cannot be voiced because ‘the necessary words were not available’. Newspeak, along with thought police and doublethink, has become a part of our political vocabulary, while even the proles have Big Brother to entertain them. No one can doubt that Orwell has won the final victory, and the struggle for the writer’s soul forms part ofDorian Lynskey’s entertaining and informative The Ministry of Truth, a biography of Nineteen-Eighty-Four which was published at the time of the last significant anniversary. 

Lynskey, a hugely gifted writer who specialises in the relationship between arts and politics, is very much on the Left and sees the modern parallels with the Trumpian disdain for truth, although the great man himself is now often more cited by the Right. Indeed the anniversary was recently celebrated by the free-market think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs with a new edition and an introduction by my friend Christopher Snowdon.

Orwell was a paradoxical man, contradictory, sometimes hypocritical (aren’t we all?). In the preface to his book, publisher Victor Gollancz wrote that ‘The truth is that he is at one and the same time an extreme intellectual and a violent anti-intellectual. Similarly he is a frightful snob – still (he must forgive me for saying this), and a genuine hater of every form of snobbery.’

As Lynskey writes: ‘Until the end of his life, Orwell acknowledged that microbes of everything he criticised existed in himself. In fact, it was this awareness of his own flaws that inoculated him against utopian delusions of human perfectibility.’

Such awareness is surprisingly rare among intelligent journalists and commentators, especially when ideology takes a grip – and Orwell was introduced to this reality in quite brutal form.

Keep reading

California introduces tax-by-the-mile plan as state revenue from fuel tax drops due to electric vehicle usage

Buyers of electric cars in California may not have been aware of the new tax-by-the-mile plan before they decided to purchase their vehicles.Had they known about the potential added cost, they may have made a different decision.But regardless of personal choice, California law mandates that all new car sales be electric by 2035.

“This pay-to-drive scheme essentially turns your car into a rental,” Patrick Wood said.  After quoting from a course on technocracy in 1934, he added, “Don’t tell me that Technocracy is not in play here.”

We would add, do you remember the World Economic Forum’s threat “you will own nothing”?

California has the highest income tax rate in the USA (top tier of 14.4 per cent), the highest statewide sales tax rate (7.25 per cent, plus local sales taxes), and the highest fuel tax rate ($0.78 per gallon).   The old joke is that California would tax the air we breathe if it could. Well, California’s latest tax proposal comes close. The state is recruiting drivers for a pilot program to track and tax the miles they drive.

The plan is borne from the fact that Californians have switched to electric and hybrid vehicles at a faster rate than other US states because of the state’s green initiative which has convinced Californians to switch to hybrid or electric vehicles from combustion engine vehicles.

While electric vehicles are more expensive, Californians were enticed to buy them because of the subsidies and savings they would enjoy by no longer having to buy gas. But like most government programmes, this was not well thought out. California has lost millions in tax revenue because of this scheme and now needs to make up for that. From the many options available to it, it has chosen a plan to begin tracking drivers with GPS monitors.

Under the new plan, according to Caltrans, mileage could be tracked by plugging an electronic device into a vehicle or using the vehicle’s tracking system.

There’s no telling what the government may use this new information for. The main page of the Caltrans website for the program, entitled “California Road Charge,” presents the tagline “Funding transportation in an equitable way.” There’s that word again. Government-imposed “equity” can take any number of forms. On the next page, it states that the charge is “Fair. Transparent. Sustainable.”

By charging an exorbitant fee per mile, it could effectively reduce the number of cars on the road to reduce climate change. It could also easily charge varying fees based on driver income to impose “equity.”

It could also charge varying fees based on miles driven, penalising those who the government determines drive too much.

Keep reading

Australian Premier Creates Ministry In Charge Of ‘Changing Men’s Behavior’

The development of totalitarian governments always coincides with sweeping efforts to socially engineer the population to adhere to less rebellious behaviors.  Specific groups that present a threat to the regime are usually identified and targeted with propaganda or indoctrination.  In tandem, the rest of the population is also conditioned to fear those groups and treat them with suspicion.  In this way the establishment elites mold the more submissive public into a shield that protects them from the revolutionaries that might dethrone them.

But what happens when the social engineers want to create tyranny on a global scale?  The list of possible rebels grows exponentially larger and efforts to control them all or demonize them all become far more complex.  How can the elites simplify their agenda and suppress the public with more efficiency?  

The only answer is to attack and cripple the largest subset of the population that is most likely to give them problems in the future.  Which monolithic group is more likely to fight back against the system?  Obviously, the answer is masculine men.  Therefore, this new global regime seeks to undermine and sabotage men, labeling masculinity an existential danger to society, like nuclear weapons or global warming.

In recent years Australia has been at the forefront of many authoritarian experiments.  Their egregious violations of citizen liberties during the covid hysteria were astonishing.  Perhaps even worse has been the complete takeover of DEI within the Australian government along with the infestation of radical feminism.  Australia, it would seem, is all but lost to the nightmare of the woke religion.  

That’s why it’s not at all surprising that the the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria has created a new ministry tasked with the purpose of changing and perhaps even controlling men.

Jacinta Allan announced this month that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change – the first position of its kind in the country.  The appointment was in response to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling gender-based violence a “national crisis” and promising greater government action.  First, Australia blamed guns for violent crime; now they are blaming men in general.

Keep reading

The Censorship-Industrial Complex and How It has the Internet in its Grip

Since the 1960s, the military-industrial complex has influenced and driven American policy to profit cynically from conflict and war.  But in this decade, a new complex has arrived, one that is far more dangerous to American values.  It is the censorship-industrial complex (CIC), which has gained tremendous control over the internet.

When the internet-backed World Wide Web was created in 1989, it democratized information and connectedness.  Through rapid commercialization, it unleashed unlimited possibilities and economic growth.  Equally, it became a haven of free expression, debate, and creativity.  These ideals crystallized into the five principles of the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom: non-censorship; universal access; freedom to connect and create; the right to privacy and control of personal information; and protection for technology and innovation.

But governments and the elites that control them were quick to move in, sensing the threat to their authoritarian instinct.  At work since 2016, the pernicious CIC gained strength during the Covid-19 pandemic, amplifying government-approved narratives that favored the agenda of the elites.  Furthering the advance to the Great Reset, it now works to color content and discourse in the leftist hues that disguise the intent and operations of the global elites.

Mike Benz, a former State Department official who now heads the Foundation for Freedom Online and is a staunch campaigner against the CIC, reveals that the complex is controlled by the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, MI6, and Brussels.  The turning points, according to him, were the Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump, and elections in the Philippines, in all of which the internet played an important role.  Therefore, it was decided to end free speech on the internet and control the flow of information.  Since the American government was hamstrung by the First Amendment, NGOs and fronts were enlisted for “doing the dirty work.”

The Biden administration continues on that path.  In 2022, days after Elon Musk committed to a pro-free speech vision on acquiring Twitter, the White House issued the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, in direct contradiction with the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom.  The language, of course, answers to all the shibboleths of freedom.  But while criticizing the policies of “authoritarian” governments, the declaration calls for curbing “disinformation” and “harassment” in the pursuit of “reclaiming the promise of the internet.”  It expresses concern about online platforms that spread “illegal or harmful content,” threaten safety and foment violence, and undermine “respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.”

The question, obviously, is who decides what amounts to disinformation, harassment, and illegal or harmful content. 

Keep reading

Schumer Seeks Bill to Ban Bump Stocks After Supreme Court Ruling

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on June 14 called for legislation to outlaw bump stocks after the Supreme Court struck down a President Donald Trump-era ban on the gun accessory.

A 6–3 opinion by the high court found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it interpreted a federal firearms statute to outlaw the use of bump stocks. Bump stocks are attached to the butt end of a rifle, causing them to fire again by bumping against the finger on recoil.

“As I warned the Trump administration at the time, the only way to permanently close this loophole is through legislation. Senate Democrats are ready to pass legislation to ban bump stocks but we will need votes from Senate Republicans,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.

The ATF in 2018, with the support of President Trump, reversed its earlier position and declared bump stocks illegal in response to the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, in which a gunman used firearms equipped with bump stocks to fire multiple guns more rapidly, killing 60 and leaving hundreds wounded.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurrence on June 14 that emphasized Congress’s role. “There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns,” he said. “Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,called the Supreme Court decision “deeply disappointing.” 

Keep reading