Tag: police state

The Globalist Vision: “15-Minute” Prison Cities And The End Of Private Property

As a general rule I find that whenever the public scrutinizes any particular agenda being promoted by governments and globalists their first response is to act indignant, much like a narcissist would do when they are up to no good and they get caught. “How dare you” question their intentions and suggest they might be nefarious? How dare you suggest they are anything other than loving and benevolent? Our “leaders” have only ever wanted the best for us, right? They only want our lives to become safer, more comfortable and more convenient – this is what truly motivates your average elitist, right?

Obviously, history tells us a far different story, and it boggles my mind when anyone tries to argue that things are different today compared to 100 years ago, 300 years ago, or 1000 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun. There will always be tyrants attempting to gain more and more power, and those tyrants will always lie to the public, claiming they are good people with our best interests at heart.

When that doesn’t work and the citizenry remains skeptical, the tyrants go on the attack, accusing the public of “conspiracy theory.” This is meant to mock and shame free thinkers into silence – you don’t want to stand out, right? Why risk being ostracized from society? Why risk becoming a meme?

This tactic is rooted in the notion that the corporate media and government officials represent the mainstream, and therefore they represent the majority, and the majority represents reality.  None of this is true or relevant, of course. Only facts matter. Sophistry is meaningless. Opinions are meaningless. The truth should be the goal, and if it’s not someone’s goal then they must be a purveyor of lies and should not be taken seriously. There are only two paths to take, there is no in-between.

Keep reading

EU Parliament Agrees on Digital ID Introduction and Pro-Censorship Chief Suggests CBDC Integration

The European Parliament (EP) and the bloc’s member-countries have reached a provisional deal on the digital ID framework, and now EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton is reported as suggesting CBDC (central bank digital currency) integration should follow.

The provisional agreement on what’s known as the eID (European Digital Identity) regulation is being presented by the EU Council (that worked on the agreement together with the EP) as a safe and trusted option, and also one that “protects democratic rights and values.”

Opponents, like Dutch EP member (MEP) Rob Roos, took to X, though, to announce the news, and brand it as “very bad.” The reason, according to Roos, is that in the process of striking a deal the two EU institutions “ignored all the privacy experts and security specialists.”

Commissioner Breton wasted no time – perhaps on purpose, building on a momentum that was no doubt difficult to get going – to say that now that there is a Digital ID Wallet, “we have to put something in it.”

Keep reading

Drunks WON’T be able to get into driverless cars after a boozy evening: Ministers dash hopes of the futuristic vehicles acting as chauffeurs following a heavy night

Driverless cars promise motorists hands-off journeys, which many have hoped might allow for a couple more pints at the pub before travelling home.

But those planning to use their autonomous vehicle as a personal taxi service should beware, with the government announcing legislation to make sure it is treated like drink driving.

Being over the limit, going on your phone or having a nap behind the wheel of the futuristic cars will be illegal, according to documents published alongside the Automated Vehicles Bill which was announced in this week’s King’s Speech.

The Law Commission has already drawn up a draft proposal for legislation around the legal use of driverless cars and vehicles on Britain’s roads. 

Motorists must ‘remain in a fit state to drive’ while their car is on the road, and there must be a ‘user in charge’ who is able to take control if the self-driving system requests for them to do so.

Drivers will still need to be sat in the front seat and have a driving licence to operate their vehicles, and failing to do so could open them up to prosecution.

Keep reading

YOUR baby’s DNA is being stored for DECADES in government labs and can be used in police investigations without your permission – and New Jersey parents are now suing for rights to their infants’ blood

Nearly every US-born baby has blood drawn to check their risk of about 60 rare diseases within hours of coming into the world.

What many parents may not know is that these DNA samples can be stored in a government lab indefinitely, allowing law enforcement access to blood for investigations into a child’s relative.

A 1996 cold case was solved last year after New Jersey police collected a baby’s DNA without a warrant to investigate the child’s father, grabbing the attention of some parents who are now suing state health officials over its storage practices.

Hannah Lovaglio, a resident of Cranbury and plaintiff, told DailyMail.com: ‘This is a true parent right’s issue. This is their body; this is their property taken from them from five years of being a minor, and the state is not required to give any justification.

New Jersey can store samples for up to 23 years, while others like California, Massachusetts and Maine are indefinite. 

Keep reading

Is a Cyber 9/11 Coming?

Talk of a “Cyber 9/11” has been circulating for years.  With the next presidential election twelve months away now, some folks are predicting that a major cyber event will happen before then, throwing a monkey wrench into the 2024 election process.

What the heck is Cyber 9/11?

What does Cyber 9/11 mean?  Is there a real risk?  What should we be preparing for?

There are two aspects to the Cyber 9/11 concept.  The first is the disaster itself; 9/11 was a catastrophe that ended the lives of over 3000 people in one day.  There are fears that if power grids were hacked or enough damage was done to logistical centers, the ensuing chaos would cause deaths.

Quite memorably, back in 2000, a disgruntled public works employee in Australia hacked into the water treatment system and caused raw sewage to pour into public areas, flooding a Hyatt hotel.  One man acting alone caused a disgusting, expensive mess. Of course security experts are concerned with what a team of angry individuals could do.

The second aspect to a potential Cyber 9/11 is the change in the regulatory landscape that occurred after 9/11 in 2001.  I remember flying as a teenager in the 90s. So many things changed later.  The airport changes were most obvious to regular citizens, but the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 was far more consequential.  It dramatically changed the way surveillance was conducted.

Under the Fourth Amendment, private citizens are supposed to be protected from warrantless search and seizures.  The Patriot Act really weakened that. Law enforcement is now allowed to delay the notice of search warrants.  They don’t need nearly as much oversight from judges to conduct phone and internet surveillance.

These Constitution-weakening changes occurred after 9/11 in 2001.

Keep reading

State-Licensed Pot Suppliers Say Federal Prohibition Is Unconstitutional As Applied to Them

A lawsuit filed late last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts argues that the federal marijuana ban is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate operations of state-licensed cannabis suppliers. That claim is similar to one that the U.S. Supreme Court decisively rejected in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, which involved state-authorized medical use of marijuana. But the plaintiffs in Canna Provisions v. Garland—a pot shop chain and three other Massachusetts marijuana businesses—argue that several developments since then undermine the logic of that ruling.

In the 2005 case, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, two patients who used marijuana for symptom relief in compliance with California law, argued that Congress exceeded its authority “to regulate commerce…among the several states” when it purported to ban noncommercial production and possession of cannabis that never crossed state lines. Monson grew her own marijuana, while Raich relied on two caregivers who grew it for her.

It may seem obvious that the power to regulate interstate commerce does not cover conduct that is neither commercial nor interstate. But the Supreme Court had held otherwise in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, which involved an Ohio farmer who exceeded his wheat quota under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Although Roscoe Filburn planned to use the extra wheat “wholly for consumption on the farm,” the Court unanimously ruled that the collective impact of such decisions on interstate commerce was enough to justify the rule he violated.

When farmers grow wheat for their own consumption, the justices reasoned, that has “a substantial influence” on the interstate “price and market conditions” that Congress sought to regulate. “Even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce,” Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote for the Court, “it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”

Writing for the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens applied similar reasoning to the federal ban on marijuana. “Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce,” Stevens wrote. Wickard, he said, “establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial,’ in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

Keep reading

He Was Strip-Searched and Jailed for Criticizing Cops. Now He’s Fighting Back in Court.

In July 2017, Louisiana woman Nanette Krentel was shot in the head and left in a burning house. More than two years passed before anyone was arrested. That person, however, wasn’t alleged to be the murderer. Rather, the sole arrest related to Krentel’s death was that of Jerry Rogers Jr. His crime: criticizing the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office (STPSO) for its slow investigation of the case, which remains unsolved.

Naturally, Rogers sued the department for violating his rights. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that his lawsuit against Sheriff Randy Smith, Chief Danny Culpeper, and Sgt. Keith Canizaro may proceed, confirming they violated clearly established law when they punished Rogers for his speech.

In 2019, the STPSO caught wind that Rogers had denounced the lead investigator, Detective Daniel Buckner, whom Rogers characterized in an email as “clueless.” To pore over his messages, the police obtained what was likely an illegal search warrant, as it listed the qualifying offense as “14:00000,” which does not exist.

Police then arrested, strip-searched, and detained Rogers. He was ultimately released on bond, and the Louisiana Department of Justice declined to prosecute the case. But the primary goal was likely retaliation by humiliation: Before Rogers was booked, the cops publicized a press release about his arrest. Canizaro testified that this was the only time he could remember the office following that order of operations. They also filed a formal complaint with Rogers’ employer, another action that Canizaro said the STPSO had never taken.

Lawyers with the district attorney’s office told police it would be unconstitutional to use Louisiana’s criminal defamation statute to arrest Rogers; the statutory language protecting public officials from criticism was rendered unconstitutional decades ago. Despite this warning from prosecutors, officers not only forged ahead with the arrest, they also sought qualified immunity when Rogers sued. This required them to attest that no reasonable officer could have known that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit rejected their argument, and its ruling buttresses the notion that victims are entitled to recourse when the government retaliates against their speech.

Keep reading

Civil Forfeiture Defendants Have the Right to a Jury Trial, Says the Indiana Supreme Court

Civil forfeiture defendants in Indiana have the right to a jury trial, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week, bolstering basic due process protections for those who have assets seized by law enforcement. 

Before the court was the case of Alucious Kizer, from whom police seized $2,435 in cash after a traffic stop where they found drugs in his vehicle. Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to take people’s assets if the government suspects them of criminal activity. Kizer moved to challenge his forfeiture at trial, which the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected, ruling that such defendants “are not entitled to trial by jury.” 

“The State insists that Kizer has no right to a jury trial because civil forfeitures pursuant to Indiana’s drug forfeiture laws are a special statutory procedure intended exclusively for trial by the court,” Justice Christopher M. Goff of the Indiana Supreme Court summarized in an opinion published October 31. “Kizer disagrees, arguing that the State’s theory would effectively deprive Hoosiers of a jury trial when filing suit under any modern statutory scheme.”

The state’s highest court ruled in favor of Kizer. “The historical record—consisting of statutes and judicial decisions reflecting contemporary practice—strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common-law tradition of trial by jury in actions for the forfeiture of property,” wrote Goff. The seizure of assets suspected to be used in the commission of a crime, he added, is “an essentially legal action that triggers the right” to a jury trial. 

That prosecutors in Indiana have successfully denied civil forfeiture defendants this due process, and were close to making it official in the courts, is a reflection of how abusive the practice can be. It’s also unsurprising and shows how governments across the U.S. can deter defendants from challenging such seizures, even when those people haven’t been charged with a crime.

Keep reading