Tag: police state

Lula’s Leftist Party, PT Brasil, Continues to Post on X Despite Ban of Ordinary Citizens Using the Platform in the Country

The hypocrisy of these leftists never ceases to amaze… but wow, Lula’s government may have just taken the cake.

In one of the most brazen examples of “rules for thee, but not for me,” Brazilian President Lula’s ‘Workers Party’ continues to post repeatedly on X, despite yesterday’s implementation of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ nationwide ban against the social media platform.

Hundreds of millions of citizens are now blocked from accessing their accounts after Lula’s feud with Elon Musk reached a tipping point on Friday when the socialist tyrant implemented the ban. Supposedly, the only way around this firewall is by using a VPN, however, if anyone is caught accessing the platform, they face heavy fines.

The ruling specifically mentioned Proton VPN, Express VPN, NordVPN, Surfshark, TOTALVPN, Atlas VPN, and Bitdefender VPN. De Moraes imposed fines of up to $8,874 a day for any user found using VPNs in Brazil.

Repeat offenders would likely face even worse repercussions. As has been demonstrated thoroughly, Brazil’s current government has proven it will go that extra mile to silence dissent.

This, however, is of no concern to the tyrants within the Lula regime. Since going into effect, ‘PT Brasil‘, the X account representing the ruling socialist party, has not skipped a beat in delivering its regularly scheduled lineup of propaganda.

Keep reading

Backyard Privacy in the Age of Drones

Police departments and law enforcement agencies are increasingly collecting personal information using drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles. In addition to high-resolution photographic and video cameras, police drones may be equipped with myriad spying payloads, such as live-video transmitters, thermal imaging, heat sensors, mapping technology, automated license plate readers, cell site simulators, cell phone signal interceptors and other technologies. Captured data can later be scrutinized with backend software tools like license plate readers and face recognition technology. There have even been proposals for law enforcement to attach lethal and less-lethal weapons to drones and robots. 

Over the past decade or so, police drone use has dramatically expanded. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance lists more than 1500 law enforcement agencies across the US that have been reported to employ drones. The result is that backyards, which are part of the constitutionally protected curtilage of a home, are frequently being captured, either intentionally or incidentally. In grappling with the legal implications of this phenomenon, we are confronted by a pair of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1980s:California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley. There, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless aerial surveillance conducted by law enforcement in low-flying manned aircrafts did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy from what was visible from the sky. Although there are fundamental differences between surveillance by manned aircrafts and drones, some courts have extended the analysis to situations involving drones, shutting the door to federal constitution challenges.

Yet, Americans, legislators, and even judges, have long voiced serious worries with the threat of rampant and unchecked aerial surveillance. A couple of years ago, the Fourth Circuit found in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department that a mass aerial surveillance program (using manned aircrafts) covering most of the city violated the Fourth Amendment. The exponential surge in police drone use has only heightened the privacy concerns underpinning that and similar decisions. Unlike the manned aircrafts in Ciraolo and Riley, drones can silently and unobtrusively gather an immense amount of data at only a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional aircrafts. Additionally, drones are smaller and easier to operate and can get into spaces—such as under eaves or between buildings—that planes and helicopters can never enter. And the noise created by manned airplanes and helicopters effectively functions as notice to those who are being watched, whereas drones can easily record information surreptitiously.

Keep reading

The Biden/Harris corrupt DOJ has a nasty trick up its sleeve for J6 political prisoners…

In case you’re wondering just how weaponized and evil our so-called “justice department” has gotten under the Biden/Harris regime, we’ve got proof of the Marxist transformation of our once highly respected court system, all in the name of punishing political dissent. The latest move involves the regime’s favorite target: J6 political prisoners.

As you know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the J6 defendants in the recent Fischer case. If you need a refresher, here’s what happened.

Lawfare Media:

On June 28, in a six-to-three ruling, the Supreme Court found that to prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding or attempted to do so” in Fischer v. United States.

The Court’s decision reverses that of the D.C. Circuit’s, which had adopted a much broader interpretation of the statute.

At issue in the case was the charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Joseph Fischer, an alleged Jan. 6 rioter, was indicted on seven charges, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) in 2021. Fischer later filed a motion to dismiss several of the charges against him, including the count under § 1512(c)(2), arguing that the statute “does not criminalize the obstruction of legislative action by Congress” and that any “alleged obstruction of the certification of the Electoral College vote is simply outside the scope” of the statute.

On March 15, 2022, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols granted Fischer’s motion to dismiss his obstruction charge. The judge’s ruling essentially found that the government could not charge Fischer with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding under § 1512(c)(2). The government subsequently appealed the decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

After the ruling, the DOJ was forced to drop obstruction charges against many J6ers, including Fischer himself. But, sadly, this story doesn’t end there—not with this corrupt, tyrannical regime. Now, the crooked Biden/Harris DOJ is looking to retry J6ers who have already endured the horrific ordeal of a trial, sentencing, and conviction, all because they ruffled some papers.

Keep reading

Medical Fascism

Medical fascism is when there is a corrupt merger of state and corporate entities in the health care industry — to borrow a turn-of-phrase from RFK Jr. Because of the inefficiency and lack of patient-centered care under medical fascism, you see a divergence between how much healthcare money is spent vs. the health of the people…

The USA spends 15 times as much on healthcare as Thailand does. The results? …

USA life expectancy:
77.01

Thailand life expectancy:
77.33

Evidence suggests that there is medical fascism in the USA and that the medical corruption is worse here than it is in any other nation in the world. U.S. citizens should instead enjoy medical freedom, getting the doctor they want and even the treatment that they want — with no entity getting between doctor and patient.

Keep reading

SHOCKING: Over 50,000 British Citizens Have Been Charged For Using “Illegal Words Or Writing”

Over the last month, the United Kingdom has been hit hard by a wave of protests following the gruesome stabbing murder of three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England on July 29, 2024.

 Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old male and the son of Rwandan nationals, murdered these young girls in cold blood. Protests immediately popped off the next day in Southport and spread across the UK. 

The frustration expressed by protesters represents a general hostility towards the overwhelming wave of non-white immigration that has landed on Albion’s shores in the last 70 years. 

As a result of these protests, the regime of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has started to arrest people for making posts on social media that explain uncomfortable truths about the troubling demographic situation in the UK and the harsh realities of non-white crime.

Before the Southport protests kicked off, X user ~~datahazard~~ noted on March 5, that “3300 people [were] arrested in Britain last year for saying naughty words online.” 

X owner Elon Musk was surprised by these revelations which he responded to in a tweet in disbelief saying, “3300?”

~~datahazard~~ then responded with an even more revealing analysis of these prosecutions, by posting a bar chart noting that “Over 50,000 Brits in the past decade have been charged with Illegal Words or Writing (Race/Religion subset)”

Keep reading

NO FAKES – A Dream for Lawyers, a Nightmare for Everyone Else

Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion draft” back in April, to no avail: the final text has been released, and it’s even worse.  

Under NO FAKES, any human person has the right to sue anyone who has either made, or made available, their “digital replica.” A replica is broadly defined as “a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice or visual likeness” of a person. The right applies to the person themselves; anyone who has a license to use their image, voice, or likeness; and their heirs for up to 70 years after the person dies. Because it is a federal intellectual property right, Section 230 protections – a crucial liability shield for platforms and anyone else that hosts or shares user-generated content—will not apply. And that legal risk begins the moment a person gets a notice that the content is unlawful, even if they didn’t create the replica and have no way to confirm whether or not it was authorized, or have any way to verify the claim. NO FAKES thereby creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down.  

The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”?  

These are just some of the many open questions, all of which will lead to full employment for lawyers, but likely no one else, particularly not those whose livelihood depends on the freedom to create journalism or art about famous people. 

Keep reading

Court Says ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Can Be Censored By School

A federal court ruling has allowed a school to censor “Let’s Go Brandon,” preventing students from wearing the popular social media meme on shirts.

But a constitutional expert warns that it’s a “dangerous precedent” that will move the nation established on the basis of free speech the wrong direction.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even represented members in court.

He cited the case of “D.A.” in Michigan, a student ordered to remove his sweater with the phrase on it.

That decision was from Judge Paul Maloney.

“Maloney rejects the free speech claim and rules that school officials can punish a student for wearing a ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ T-shirt. I believe that he is wrong and that the case sets a dangerous precedent,” Turley wrote.

Keep reading

Elon Musk Fires Off Warning to Americans After Brazil Bans X

Elon Musk fired off a warning to Americans after radical Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes blocked X in Brazil.

The Brazilian Supreme Court Justice claimed he is banning X from Brazil because Elon Musk refused to name a legal representative to the country.

X’s Global Affairs disputed this Thursday evening.

“Soon, we expect Judge Alexandre de Moraes will order X to be shut down in Brazil – simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents. These enemies include a duly elected Senator and a 16-year-old girl, among others,” X’s Global Affairs said.

“When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts. Our challenges against his manifestly illegal actions were either dismissed or ignored. Judge de Moraes’ colleagues on the Supreme Court are either unwilling or unable to stand up to him,” Global Affairs said.

Keep reading

The U.S. Regime’s Plans to Control the World

The U.S. Government’s plans to control the world are displayed not merely by its lie-based invasions, such as against Iraq in 2003, and against Libya in 2011, and against Syria in 2012; but also by its coups, such as against Honduras in 2009, and against Venezuela in 2012 and again in 2019, and against Ukraine in 2014; and by its sanctions, such as against Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, and Syria; all of which kill and destroy millions of people, and produce tens of millions of refugees, etc.

An excellent example of the planning that the U.S. Government devotes to expanding still further its empire — the lands that it controls, America’s colonies or ‘allies’ — was provided in a 28 February 2023 hearing by the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on ‘Defense’ (Aggression):

Betty McCollum, the leading Democrat on the Subcommittee, addressed the U.S. Secretary of ‘Defense’ (Aggression), Lloyd Austin: 

As General Milley [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, we don’t go to war alone. So if we include Australia, Canada, NATO, you know, all the great powers that we work with, we would have a multiplying effect that neither China or Russia has.

    Would that be a fair statement, Secretary Austin or General Milley?

    Secretary Austin: That is, in fact, correct, Ranking Member McCollum. We will always fight with our allies and partners. And, again, the capability that they bring to the table magnifies our overall capability. So you could expect that in any instance we would be able to draw upon some of their capability as well. So we work on a routine basis to make sure that we are interoperable and make sure that—-

    Ms. McCollum: Thank you. Thank you.

    I would like you to, a little, go into more importance on the recent–on February 2, the agreement that you signed with the Philippines, whichever one of you gentlemen want to answer that.

    President Marcos seems to have made some deliberate decisions to align more closely with the United States’ interests and away from China. Could you kind of tell the committee more about this agreement with the Philippines and how you see it enhancing our efforts in the region, because I think this goes back to the whole question of the multiplying effect of having resources that China and Russia do not have, and if there are any other nations in Indo-Pac that you see wanting to align more closely with the United States. …

    Secretary Austin: Well, I was, as a matter of fact, out in the Philippines and engaged the President on this particular issue. And I was really pleased that the President made the decision to move forward and increase the number of sites where we could work along with the Philippine forces to increase interoperability and develop their skills as well. And it is actually a benefit to them, as you know. So this really is a significant movement forward. …

    General Milley: Just two points. One is you are correct on the allies and partners, Australia, Japan, but there are many other countries there as well, to include European countries. We have done exercises with the Brits and the French also in the Asia-Pacific region. So they are force multipliers.

    Secondly is our sub force, which is rarely talked about, and I am not going to talk about it in detail right now, but our sub force is incredibly–submarine force–incredibly capable and very deadly and extremely lethal. So those two pieces I think would make a huge difference and help deter any kind of aggression by China.

    The last thing is the Philippines, but the Philippines and other countries in that region, they sit astride the key sea lines of communication that China relies on for their international access to the Middle East oil, et cetera, et cetera.

    So those allies and partners of ours are fundamental. …

Keep reading

Biden-Harris Administration is Probed for Potential Role in Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest

America First Legal (AFL) is attempting to shed light on the role that the Biden-Harris administration may have played in the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov.

The French-Emirati citizen was arrested in France and charged with a large number of alleged crimes – in effect, failure to censor third-party content that can be qualified as criminal behavior. However, there is suspicion that the real reason is to force Telegram to censor all content, in the style of Google or Meta. The charges also attack encryption.

Announcing its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the US State Department’s possible involvement in the arrest, AFL noted that the encrypted app is one of the world’s largest, based on the premise of protecting its users’ free speech from what the non-profit dedicated to promoting the rule of law calls “government-sponsored” censorship.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

AFL cites statements made by Mike Benz, founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online and former State Department official, as the reason to suspect the current White House either had advance knowledge or has had its hand in the highly controversial arrest.

Keep reading