Tag: police state

Trudeau Demands Life In Prison For Speech Crimes

To protect children from sexual exploitation, Canada must pass the Online Harms Act, says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. “I am the parent of two young boys,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani. “I will do whatever I can to ensure their digital world is as safe as the neighborhood we live in. Children are vulnerable online. They need to be protected from online sexual exploitation, hate, and cyberbullying.”

But Virani’s bill is totally unnecessary to protect children. Its real goal is to allow judges to sentence adults to prison for life for things they’ve said and for up to a year for crimes they haven’t committed but that the government fears they might commit in the future.

As such, Trudeau and Virani’s Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) is the most shocking of all the totalitarian, illiberal, and anti-Enlightenment pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the Western world in decades.

The Liberal government’s censorship legislation, when considered in the context of Trudeau’s sweeping abuse of governmental powers during and after the Covid pandemic and new subsidies for government propaganda, sets a new watermark in rising totalitarianism in Western societies.

In an unusually long statement in response to a series of questions asked by Public, the Trudeau government’s “Canadian Heritage” department, which regulates the media, tried to ease our concerns.  “Bill C-63 is meant to bolster the rights of Canadians to express their thoughts and opinions,” said the anonymous official, “by creating a safer and more inclusive online space.”

But the government spokesperson went on to confirm the shocking truth about the legislation, which is that it would put people in prison for life for things they’ve said, specifically, “advocating genocide.”

“Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment,” said an unnamed spokesperson for the Canadian government, “and from 2 years to 5 years, on indictment, for the willful promotion of hatred (section 319 of the Criminal Code)” [emphasis added]

This means someone who writes something that a government official decides is “advocating genocide” will face a longer maximum sentence than someone who rapes a child.

And what might count as “advocating genocide”? Today, there are prominent politicians around the world who say that supporters of Israel are advocating the genocide of the Palestinian people and that supporters of Hamas are advocating genocide against Jewish people. Imagine if they were in power. Under Trudeau’s legislation, would they not be able to send their political enemies to prison for life?

Keep reading

The Anti-Democratic Democratic Left

Joe Biden has claimed that his opponents are assaulting democracy on the basis of the January 6, 2020, buffoonish riot.

Aside from the fact that storming the Capitol Rotunda sometimes is apparently deemed permissible – as in the recent pro-Hamas takeover of it – or aside from the fact that disrupting a federal government proceeding is deemed exempt – as in the recent pro-Hamas throng that blocked the route of the presidential motorcade and thus delayed the State of the Union address to the nation by 26 minutes – who really is attacking democracy?

Take the Supreme Court. After the Court went to a 6-3 conservative majority, liberal law professors, progressive activist groups, and many ends-justify-the-means Democrats in Congress began advocating “packing the court” to gain additional new billets for left-wing judges.

In other words, the left had little confidence that it would hold the White House and the Senate when a judicial opening came up, so it sought to force the issue while it had the power in both.

Formerly, any such notion would have been written off as lunatic and dangerous, given that the nine-justice Supreme Court has been canonized for 155 years since 1869. Second, during the last time Democrats attacked the nine-justice Supreme Court over its supposedly too conservative rulings – Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 notorious court-packing scheme – even fellow liberals opposed the toxic gambit. They knew that it would only lead to a tit-for-tat fluid court every time a new administration took power.

Then there was the public demonization of the court, which saw efforts to scare it into “correct” rulings. The effort was multifaceted.

Sometimes the left-wing method was direct intimidation. So in 2020, then Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a throng of pro-abortion protestors to the court’s very doors, threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He was not subtle in his warnings: 

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.” 

Hit you? Pay the price?

Later, when left-wing mobs thronged at the private homes of some conservative judges with the intention of intimidating them and leveraging their decisions—in violation of a 1950 federal law—the Biden administration did nothing. No wonder a potential assassin soon showed up near the home of Justice Kavanaugh, and, fortunately, did not go through with his planned attack.

Nor was the 2022 leaker ever found who illegally disclosed confidential memos on the court’s future rulings on abortion. In the recent State of the Union address, Joe Biden spoke directly to the seated justices and seemed to level yet another threat: “With all due respect, justices, women are not without electoral or political power…You’re about to realize just how much.” In some sense, Biden was following the precedent of Barack Obama, who in his 2010 State of the Union address made a direct attack on the justices of the Supreme Court, many of whom were in attendance.

In sum, during the years of liberal majorities, the left once defended the sacrosanct nature of the third branch of government. Now, when rulings do not always go their way, they seek to discredit and impugn it. And they employ direct intimidation, willful blindness to threats to the justices’ private homes, and plans to alter the makeup of the court to fit their ideological agendas.

Keep reading

Virginia Lawmaker Slams Governor For Vetoing Bill To Protect Marijuana Consumers’ Parental Rights

The House sponsor of legislation in Virginia that aimed to protect the parental rights of lawful cannabis consumers is criticizing Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s decision last week to veto the bill.

If enacted, HB 833 would have prevented the state from using marijuana alone as evidence of child abuse or neglect and, further, established that drug testing in child custody and visitation matters “shall exclude testing for any substance permitted for lawful use by an adult” under the state’s alcohol, cannabis and drug laws.

Youngkin vetoed the bill on Friday, writing in a message that “the proposed legislation, aiming to address a non-existent problem, has potential consequences that may expose children to harm.”

Del. Rae Cousins (D), the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement on Monday that the governor “is turning his back on the needs of our children and neglecting their well-being by encouraging the courts to move forward with unnecessary family separations.”

“We have seen how this is playing out in our courts; with Black and Brown families receiving harsher mandates from our judges for legal and responsible substance use,” the lawmaker said. “Family separation has devastating effects both on our communities and on the well-being of children, and by vetoing this legislation, Governor Youngkin is telling our courts that they can continue to unnecessarily tear children away from their parents.”

On its path to the governor’s desk, the legislation won unanimous or near-unanimous approval in votes on the Senate floor. The House was more divided, with Democrats generally in favor, though the proposal garnered some Republican votes, as well.

“I am deeply disappointed in Governor Youngkin’s decision to veto this bipartisan, commonsense bill that simply helps families stay together,” Cousins said.

The bill now returns to the legislature, where two thirds of both houses will have to approve it in order to override Youngkin’s veto. A companion Senate version of the measure, SB 115, also passed the legislature this session but has not yet been transmitted to the governor’s desk.

The proposal says a person’s “lawful possession or consumption” of state-legal substances would “not serve as a basis to restrict custody or visitation unless other facts establish that such possession or consumption is not in the best interest of the child.” An enactment clause would have directed the state Board of Social Services to amend its regulations, guidance documents and other materials to comply with the provisions of the bill.

Cousins, in the statement from her office, noted that courts “would still have full ability to assess what is in the best interests of the child, including the risk of physical or mental harm.”

Advocates have said they’re disappointed with Youngkin’s veto decision but pledged to continue pushing for the policy change.

“Disappointed doesn’t describe how it feels for the veto to come down after two years of pushing this proposal,” Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of the group Marijuana Justice, told Marijuana Moment last week, adding that organizers “will be back next year and every year until we get it right.”

Keep reading

Social media platform X bans account promoting a forthcoming documentary about FBI’s role in Whitmer ‘kidnapping plot’

In yet another example of how alleged “free speech” platform X (formerly Twitter) is anything but, a small team of independent documentary filmmakers have had their account “permanently” suspended this week as they prepare to release a documentary that they’ve been working on for over a year.

The topic: The 2020 “plot to kidnap and kill” Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the FBI’s extensive involvement therein.

The account was set up to promote the film, entitled Kidnap and Kill: An FBI Terror Plot, 14 months ago, in January of 2023.

“I paid for the account for over a year and even paid to promote the trailer on X buying twitter ads,” said director Christina Urso (also known as Radix Verum) in a post on Saturday.

“No email – nothing saying we violated TOS. We only used it to promote the trailer for the documentary.”

Keep reading

Minnesota Regulators Launch Effort To Catch Retailers Selling Illegal Marijuana As ‘Hemp’ Flower

It has been an open question—until now—whether registered hemp retailers in Minnesota are selling raw cannabis flower that crosses the line between legal hemp and illegal marijuana.

Marijuana use is legal in Minnesota, but legal sales haven’t started yet outside of tribal reservations. That means a raw cannabis flower purchased in the Twin Cities that recently tested above the legal limit isn’t supposed to be sold in the state.

Because of a gap in the state’s new recreational cannabis law, no state regulators had either the legal authority or the inspectors to sample the flower being sold to check whether it exceeded the federal and state definitions for hemp. That is, is the flower being sold in some stores legal or illegal? Does it contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC, the intoxicating compound in marijuana?

Turns out, it does. The sample purchased from a registered hemp store by a private person tested at levels that are illegal under the law, according to the results from a California-based cannabis testing lab. MinnPost agreed not to name either the raw flower purchaser or the lab but has verified the identities of both.

The lab reported the flower showed a potency of 1.1 percent delta-9 THC, three times the limit under state law. The same sample showed that the bud had total THC content of 29.99 percent. Total THC is a measure of all different types of THC in the flower and 29.99 percent is similar to the types of flower sold in legal recreational marijuana states.

The retail sample tested is actually more potent than a cannabis sample purchased on the illicit market in Minnesota and tested by the same lab. That sample showed 1.38 percent delta-9 THC and 25.36 percent total THC.

Keep reading

Florida Lawmakers Vote To Raise Stripping Age to 21

Florida celebrated International Women’s Day last week by treating the state’s young women like children. On Friday, state lawmakers approved a bill banning 18- to 20-year-olds from being strippers or from working in any other capacity at an adult entertainment venue.

Like a similar bill passed in Texas in 2021, the Florida bill claims to be a blow against human trafficking. As with so many attempts to “protect” people from sex work, this one has major potential to backfire and make abuse and exploitation worse.

It’s also part of a growing movement across the U.S. to push up the boundaries of childhood, making all sorts of things once legal for 18- to 20-year-olds now off limits

Under the new measure, Florida adults under age 21 will be barred from working at strip clubs, burlesque establishments, adult bookstores, or any other businesses that fit under Florida’s definition of adult entertainment. Currently, people can do so legally upon turning 18.

On March 5, the Florida Senate voted nearly unanimously to raise this minimum age to 21. Only three senators voted no. A few days later, only three members of the Florida House voted against it.

The measure is now with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. If he signs it, the law will take effect July 1.

Young adult strippers and adult venue staff would not themselves be subject to penalty. Rather, the bill would make it a crime to knowingly employ, contract with, or otherwise permit someone under age 21 to work in these businesses.

Keep reading

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

“The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Officials Eye Regulation Of THC-Infused Hemp Products Sold In Liquor Stores And Smoke Shops

Beacon Hill is waking up to a regulatory loophole that has allowed hemp drinks and gummies with intoxicating doses of THC—the same high-inducing ingredient found in cannabis—to show up in liquor stores, smoke shops and restaurants across Massachusetts.

At a legislative hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Michael Moore (D-Millbury) asked the commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture Resources what she was doing about the spread of these unregulated products. The commissioner, Ashley Randle, said her agency is aware of the problem and working with the Department of Public Health to put out new guidance next month on how these products should be treated.

That was a big step forward. The products are technically illegal in Massachusetts, but neither the Agricultural Department, which regulates hemp, nor the Department of Public Health, which regulates food products, has stepped up with any enforcement. The agencies have left that job to under-resourced local boards of health which have taken no action.

Moore said the current situation isn’t working. “This is a product that people are going to be consuming. When I say people, this could be adults, it could be minors,” he said. “I think we need to have some review just to determine what’s safe.”

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS: FDNY Firefighters Who Booed Tyrant AG Letitia James Ordered to Surrender or Risk Being Hunted Down — Will Face Punishment and Reeducation

Members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) who are fed-up with Trump-hating fascist attorney general Letitia James during a recent promotion ceremony are now facing severe consequences.

The Gateway Pundit first reported the incident wherein a wave of boos and chants supporting President Trump overshadowed the event.

A large group of firefighters made their stance perfectly clear during Thursday’s New York Fire Department (FDNY) promotion ceremony regarding James’s inquisition of President Trump.

After honoring FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, James’s speech was effectively drowned out by LOUD pro-Trump chants in the crowd. She struggles a bit to find her words amidst the commotion.

You can also hear a few boos and heckles from the crowd as well in the video.

Upon beginning her speech, many in the crowd loudly booed James. The triggered attorney general responded to the dissenters by saying “Come on, we’re in a house of God…simmer down,” according to Newsweek.

James should look in the mirror and take her own advice. Her treatment of Trump is certainly not God-approved.

In response to the incident, FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh has initiated a hunt for those responsible for the outburst. FDNY Chief of Department John Hodges sent an email to the department’s leadership, stating that the Bureau of Investigation and Trials (BITS) would be conducting an investigation into the matter.

He urged those involved to come forward voluntarily, implying that consequences would be less severe for those who did not wait to be “hunted down.”

“BITS is investigating this so they will figure out who the members are. I recommend they come forward. I have been told by the Commissioner It will be better for them if they come forward and we don’t have to hunt them down,” the email reads.

“The DC’s shall direct the Captain of the Company to make a list of those that come forward and send it directly to John and Kevin in Operations. I realize members might not come forward but they should know that there is clear video of the entire incident and they will be contacted by BITS if they don’t,” it added.

Keep reading

COVID Showed Us Who Really Rules America

This month marks the fourth anniversary of one of the most disastrous assaults on human rights in American history. It was on March 16, 2020 that the President Trump issued “guidelines” for “15 days to slow the spread” which stated that “Governors of states with evidence of community transmission should close schools in affected and surrounding areas.”

The administration instructed all members of the public to “listen to and follow the directions of your state and local authorities.”

It was at this time that an American president, for the first time in American history, introduced the idea that it was possible—and perfectly legal—for government institutions to “close down” the economy by forcibly shutting, en masse, countless businesses, schools, and churches. Trump stated repeatedly in press conferences that it was up to government officials to decide “if we open up.” It quickly became standard procedure for health bureaucrats, governors, and media figures to casually speak of “closing the economy” or “opening up” as if we were talking about a coffee shop deciding on closing time.

Meanwhile, across the country, local law enforcement officers willingly worked to arrest or harass business owners, worshipers at church, soccer moms at the park, and anyone else with the temerity to venture outdoors for activities not approved by the ruling class. 

The small minority of Americans that remained committed to human rights and private property soon discovered how powerless they really are. Many dissenters were dismayed by a lack of action from the courts, and how elected officials were apparently unwilling or unable to rein in the vast new powers of “health” officials. Was there nothing that could limit the state’s power? This was confusing for many people because many have been (and remain) enamored of the idea that written constitutions limit state power when it matters most. 

Many dissenters learned a valuable lesson from the experience, however: during the Covid Panic of 2020 and 2021, it became abundantly clear how little constitutional government and the so-called “rule of law” actually limit a regime’s power in times of perceived emergency. It is during emergencies, in fact, when we learn who really holds political power, and how ineffective are constitutional measures designed to limit it.

Keep reading