Tag: police state

Liberal state declares war on small farmers and homesteaders: War on food is spreading in U.S. through land-use restrictions, geoengineering and waves of propaganda

War on food is spreading in U.S. through land-use restrictions, geoengineering and waves of propaganda

Remember, it really is all about depopulation

The World Economic Forum warned us several years ago that its ultimate goal was to destroy the middle class. How else would you explain their slogan: “You will own nothing and learn to like it“?

This mantra is playing out in real time in the state of Oregon, and other states, in various forms which we will get into in this article.

Small farmers are under attack in the Beaver State, which has begun shutting down family farms throughout the state under the guise of water conservation and groundwater protection.

The owner of Yanasa Ama Ranch shared a 20-minute video explaining what is going on in Oregon as bureaucrats erroneously classify small family farms and homesteads as “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs, in order to shut them down. Any feeding area that has a concrete, rock or gravel floor falls into this category, which would include most small dairy or egg farms.

If you have two or three milking cows, the rancher explains, you are now targeted by the state for closure.

The rancher further explains in the video:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they’re actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they’re using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can’t operate.”

The below video is 20 minutes but the most critical information is contained in the first 5 or 6 minutes. Note that he says most of these anti-farming, anti-private property laws start in places like Washington and Oregon but end up spreading to other states over time. That is so true!

Keep reading

Small Town in Maryland Suspends Entire Police Force and Residents Have No Idea Why

The leaders of the small town of Ridgely, Maryland recently suspended its entire police force and to make matters worse, the people who live there have absolutely no idea why this happened.

So much for transparency in government.

This comes at a time when concerns about crime are at an all-time high.

The Associated Press reported:

A small town suspended its entire police force. Residents want to know why

A small town on Maryland’s Eastern Shore has suspended its entire police force pending the results of an investigation by state prosecutors, a largely unexplained decision that has left residents shocked, skeptical and on edge…

With the Ridgely Police Department temporarily defunct, other public safety agencies have agreed to fill the void. But residents of the historic town are concerned about response times should they need assistance. And they remain entirely in the dark about why their police department was shut down.

Keep reading

Lego Lineups: Company Warns California P.D. To Stop Using Lego Heads To Hide Criminal’s Faces

Murrieta is a city in Southern California with just over 100,000 residents. Even though it isn’t a huge city, the Neighborhood Scout, a website that tracks local statistics for potential homebuyers or renters, reported this about the municipality on its website:

The crime rate in Murrieta is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 15 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Murrieta is 1 in 65. Based on FBI crime data, Murrieta is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to California, Murrieta has a crime rate that is higher than 40% of the state’s cities and towns of all sizes.

It’s common for the public to be interested in the details of an arrest, including the crime committed and the appearance of the suspect. However, in California, there is a law that prioritizes the rights of the suspect over the public’s right to know by requiring that the faces of certain suspects be concealed. In Murietta, this law has been taken to an extreme level, where police hide suspects’ faces with Lego heads.

In an Instagram post, the police department explained the new law this way:

On January 1st, a new law went into effect that restricts the how and when law enforcement agencies in California share suspect photos & mugshots. The new law, Assembly Bill 994 & Penal Code 13665, now prohibits law enforcement from sharing suspect photos for nonviolent crimes, unless specified circumstances exist. Additionally, the new law requires agencies to remove suspect mugshots from social media after 14 days, unless special circumstances exist.

The Murrieta Police Department prides itself in its transparency with the community but also honors everyone’s rights & protections as afforded by law, even suspects. In order to share what is happening in Murrieta, we chose to cover the faces of suspects to protect their identity while still aligning with the new law.

Using something so ridiculous minimizes the severity of crimes and turns serious events into cartoons. People may understand the need to comply with the law, but this approach is inappropriate.

Keep reading

Nebraska Lawmakers Approve 100% Tax Rate For CBD And Hemp Products To Help Offset Property Taxes

A Nebraska legislative committee has given preliminary approval to a bill that would tax hemp and CBD products in the state at a whopping 100 percent rate.

The cannabis product tax hike is part of legislation designed to bring in more money to state coffers to offset property tax bills, according to an outline of the plan from Sen. Lou Ann Linehan (R), the legislation’s sponsor, that was posted by a Nebraska Public Media reporter.

The legislature’s Revenue Committee advanced the underlying measure, LB 388, on a 7–0 vote on Thursday, according to a report in the Nebraska Examiner. The state’s full unicameral legislature could take up the bill as soon as Tuesday.

“We are going to tax hemp and CBD at 100%,” Linehan’s document says, adding that, along with other reforms—including removing sales tax exemptions on soda, candy, pet services, advertising revenue over $1 billion and lottery tickets—the change is estimated to bring in $182 million in new revenue for the state.

The changes are not currently reflected in the bill’s language as available online, nor has any relevant amendment been posted to the bill page. Linehan, who also chairs the panel that approved the measure this week, did not immediately respond to emailed questions from Marijuana Moment.

Adam Morfeld, a former Nebraska state senator who co-chairs the advocacy group Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, reacted to the proposal with shock.

“The Legislature is going to tax hemp and CBD at 100 percent!??” he posted on social media.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech

When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering “information” and “advice” to their “partners” in fighting “misinformation.” If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly, and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speech the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security. Some of this “exhortation,” as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of “killing people” by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a “whole-of-society” effort to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation,” which he said might include “legal and regulatory measures.” Other federal officials said holding social media platforms “accountable” could entail antitrust action, new regulations, or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

Those public threats were coupled with private communications that came to light only thanks to their discovery in this case. As Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga noted on Monday, officials such as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty “badger[ed] the platforms 24/7,” demanding that they broaden their content restrictions and enforce them more aggressively.

Those emails alluded to presidential displeasure and warned that White House officials were “considering our options on what to do” if the platforms failed to fall in line. The platforms responded by changing their policies and practices.

Facebook executive Nick Clegg was eager to appease the president. In emails to Murthy, he noted that Facebook had “adjust[ed] policies on what we’re removing”; had deleted pages, groups, and accounts that offended the White House; and would “shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content.”

Facebook took those steps, Clegg said in another internal email that Aguiñaga quoted, “because we were under pressure by the administration.” Clegg expressed regret about caving to that pressure, saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

According to Fletcher, none of this implicated the First Amendment because “no threats happened.” He meant that federal officials never explicitly threatened platforms with “adverse government action” while urging suppression of constitutionally protected speech.

That position is hard to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court held that Rhode Island’s Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth had violated the First Amendment by pressuring book distributors to drop titles it deemed objectionable.

Keep reading

Feds Can Film Your Front Porch for 68 Days Without a Warrant, Says Court

Law enforcement in Kansas recorded the front of a man’s home for 68 days straight, 15 hours a day, and obtained evidence to prove him guilty on 16 charges. The officers did not have a search warrant, using a camera on a pole positioned across the street to capture Bruce Hay’s home. A federal court ruled on Tuesday that it was fine for law enforcement to do so, in what’s potentially a major reduction in privacy law.

“Mr. Hay had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a view of the front of his house,” said the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision on U.S. vs Hay. “As video cameras proliferate throughout society, regrettably, the reasonable expectation of privacy from filming is diminished.”

Hay, an Army veteran, was found guilty of lying about his disability status to collect benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). However, the concerning part of this case stems from how VA officers collected evidence against Hay. The veteran appealed his case, arguing that the months-long surveillance of his home crossed a line. However, the federal court ruled that law enforcement can videotape the outside of your home, partially because of how prominent video cameras have become in society.

The federal court’s decision says that video cameras have become “ubiquitous,” and have therefore diminished our expectations of privacy. Police officers wear body cameras now, cellphones have cameras, and many doorbells record your porch. The court isn’t wrong that cameras are everywhere.

Keep reading

“It’s Enraging”: NYPD Arrest Homeowner For Changing Locks After Squatters Break In

Adele Andaloro, 47, was placed under arrest at her $1 million home in Flushing, Queens, which she inherited from her parents after they died.

“It’s enraging,” Andaloro told the NY Post. “It’s not fair that I, as the homeowner, have to be going through this.“

Andaloro claims the ordeal erupted when she started the process of trying to sell the home last month but realized squatters had moved in — and brazenly replaced the entire front door and locks.

Fed up, she recently went to her family’s home on 160th Street — with the local TV outlet in tow — and called a locksmith to change the locks for her. -NY Post

The spat with the squatters, which was caught on camera, rapidly erupted into a verbal altercation until the cops showed up and led Andaloro away – charging her with ‘unlawful eviction.’

As the Post notes, people can claim “squatter’s rights” if they’ve been squatting for just 30 days at a property. This makes it illegal for homeowners to change the locks, turn off the utilities, or remove the squatters’ belongings.

Keep reading

102-Year-Old Oakland Man Ordered to Clean Up Graffiti on the Back Fence of His Home or Face Hefty Fine

The City of Oakland, California has ordered a centenarian resident to clean up graffiti from his property or face a substantial fine, KTVU reported.

Victor Silva Sr., a 102-year-old wheelchair user who has lived and paid taxes in his Oakland neighborhood for 80 years, was shocked to receive a violation notice earlier this month ordering the cleanup by March 19th.

If he fails to comply, he faces a $1,100 penalty, with additional charges of $1,277 for each re-inspection that finds the graffiti still in place.

His daughter-in-law, Elena Silva, expressed disbelief at the city’s citation: “It was so absurd, it’s like a joke. If you drive around the city and see the graffiti everywhere, it’s just I don’t know what to say.”

The centenarian, who is approaching his 103rd birthday, reminisced about the times he could handle the cleanup himself. “Just had a roller and a paintbrush and just painted it. It was very easy because I was a contractor, you know. I’ll be 103 in two months or so. That slowed it up a little bit,” Silva Sr. told to KTVU.

Now, the responsibility of maintaining the fence graffiti-free falls on his 70-year-old son, Victor Silva Jr. He finds the task increasingly futile: “It’s hard to keep up with it because as soon as we get it painted, It’s gonna be graffiti on it again, and it won’t last.”

The Silva family also owns a nearby commercial property that has been broken into three times over the last year, exacerbating their frustrations with city services. When Silva Jr. tried to report these incidents, he found himself consistently on hold with 911.

“And I’m put on hold every time. So it’s hard to understand where our tax dollars are going. They can’t answer 911, but they can come out and hassle you about a fence?”

In response to the public backlash and media inquiries, a city inspector from Oakland contacted KTVU, indicating an immediate re-inspection would take place, with the implication that the citation would likely be rescinded.

Keep reading

‘Emergency’ Spending Is Out of Control

Emergencies are, by definition, unexpected and urgent situations requiring immediate action—except in Congress, where the term is increasingly used to justify spending decisions that should be part of the normal budget process.

Congress has authorized more than $12 trillion in emergency spending over the past three decades, according to a report released in January by the Cato Institute. About half of that total was spent in direct response to the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, but much of the other half was used for purposes that strain the definition of emergency.

Keep reading

Growing secrecy limits government accountability

When I started covering crime as a reporter for small newspapers in the 1980s, I was assigned to walk to the police department lobby each morning and look through all of the previous day’s police reports, clipped to a board on the counter, containing all the details laid out for anyone to see. We were able to report to the community each day on the major events in town – to explain why people heard sirens, or saw a smoke plume.

By the 1990s, the clipboards were moved out of the lobby, so we asked at the counter to see them. Then we were told we had to review them with the sergeant on duty. Then we were told we couldn’t see them – we had to ask the police what they felt was newsworthy. Then we were told to submit a public records request, and wait for days or weeks – if we got them at all.

For decades, journalists and civic activists have lamented the increasing secrecy of government – the times, they were denied government information, particularly from public records requests. Reports have shown secrecy getting worse at the federal, state and local government levels.

But those were usually anecdotal reports of problems. Now, there is data that brings those refusals into focus and which provides a fuller picture of government agencies hiding their work from the public they ostensibly serve.

Keep reading