Tag: police state

The USDA’s War on Small Farms

Most students in America are introduced to the writings of Upton Sinclair. While they aren’t shown his incredible cover-up of the Holodomor or his other Soviet apologisms, they are presented with his most famous work: The Jungle. This work tells the tale of Sinclair’s investigation into the wretched working conditions of the meat-packers of its age. Between lost limbs and failed inspections, Sinclair writes about the meat being contaminated and barbarously prepared.

This tale is meant to show the supposed failures of laissez-faire capitalism, with its disregard for workers and health. Readers are supposed to walk away with a firm belief in the need for the regulation of these firms. Hurrah! Here comes the mighty state to provide safety to the masses that would otherwise be made sick by crony corporations. That’s far from the truth.

Murray Rothbard himself documents in The Progressive Era the truth of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation. Rothbard observed that nearly every inspection passed in any form of legislature or bureaucracy was fueled by protectionism from existing firms. These regulations were not there to provide “safety” to consumers but rather to keep competition out of the marketplace by fiat. Rothbard states that the only meaningful definition of monopoly is an exclusive legal right granted by the state. Perhaps then, the only meaningful definition of so-called monopoly powers is a firm’s ability to push regulation that harms their competition through the state.

Even today, the USDA—and its regulations—threaten to crush small farmers under its heel. A small hobby farm, or even one that simply isn’t a factory farm, can hardly stand up to the regulations.

Keep reading

LOS ANGELES COMMITS ANOTHER $1 BILLION TO LAPD DESPITE FALLING VIOLENT CRIME

The Los Angeles City Council approved a contract with the Los Angeles Police Department’s union on Wednesday containing salary increases, increased healthcare pay, and bonuses that will cost the city an additional $994 million over the next four years.

The 12-3 vote followed an outpouring of opposition from Angelenos, who argued during public comment that the police have more than enough funding. Many pleaded with councilmembers to instead invest in other city services, like housing and infrastructure. Councilmembers who voted against the proposal voiced agreement with their constituents.

“When we allocate so much of our city money to just one department, we starve all of our other departments of the money, personnel, and resources that they need to serve Angelenos,” said councilmember Eunisses Hernandez at a press conference before the hearing. Hernandez voted no on the proposal, alongside councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Nithya Raman.

“It is unclear exactly how the city will pay for nearly $1 billion in salary increases over the next four years, despite the fact that we already allocated a quarter of our city’s general fund to the LAPD,” Hernandez added.

Keep reading

Writer C.J. Hopkins Is Ordered To Jail or Pay a Fine For Using Nazi Imagery on Anti-Authoritarianism Book

In a fresh blow to free speech, American satirist and playwright C.J. Hopkins is facing a legal punishment in Germany that could send him to jail for 60 days or slap him with a 3,600 euro fine. The start of this legal tangle is rooted in Hopkins’ critique of the German health minister and using an almost invisible image of a swastika on a mask in a book, all in an attempt to lampoon the worldwide response to the global pandemic crisis.

Hopkins was charged with disseminating propaganda contents intended to further the objectives of an erstwhile National Socialist organization.

The judge, who had already rejected Hopkins’ free speech argument, delivered the punishment order, given the case’s non-jury misdemeanor status. As reported by Racket, Hopkins will, however, have the opportunity to argue for mitigation, though judgment has already been passed.

Keep reading

US GOVERNMENT RAIDS AMISH CATTLE FARMER, SEIZING HIS PROPERTY IN A SHOCKING DISPLAY OF OVERREACH…

Americans are watching in absolute shock and horror as our government, which is supposed to “fear” the people, runs roughshod over everyone and everything deemed an enemy. Whether that’s President Trump, U.S. voters, J6 prisoners, Julian Assange, Douglass Mackey (convicted of ‘conspiracy’ for sharing an anti-Hillary meme), or a harmless Amish farmer simply minding his own business, our government has grown too big for its britches and lost its way. And speaking of the innocent Amish farmer, that’s what this story is about today — a Virginia man who was raided by the government but is fighting back and desperately needs your support.

Townhall:

“They came with a search warrant,” softly spoke Samuel B. Fisher, a mild-mannered cattle farmer operating a 100-acre farm tucked away in Virginia’s heartland. Fisher’s bread-and-butter, Golden Valley Farms, carves out the scenic countryside that’s a hop, skip, and a jump away from historic Farmville, a postcard-perfect small Southern town with classical Main Street charm.

The father of five had graciously invited us down to his idyllic pasture to rehash the whirlwind of unforeseen events that unfolded over the cruel summer. It was a tumultuous time on the Fisher farm, an upheaval that threatened to upend the man’s livelihood.

“Then, they tagged the meat, so that we can’t touch it; we can’t sell it; we can’t feed our family with it,” Fisher told Townhall.

The government overreach began when Big Brother discovered that this health-conscious, all-natural farmer was avoiding the sometimes rather questionable “USDA” process.

The firestorm of Big Government saber-rattling ignited in mid-June when an inspector with the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS), without warning, paid the Fisher family a visit. Fisher has “no idea” what could have prompted VDACS’s impromptu inspection on June 14, except “maybe they just finally found us through word of mouth,” he speculated.

What was clear: The state sought to penalize Fisher for selling meat that was not processed by a USDA-inspected facility (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Fisher processes—an industry euphemism for butchering—his farm-raised meat on-site and sells it directly to his customers, feeding about 500 consumers and their families, who are part of a buying club. As members enrolled in the Golden Valley Farms membership program, they’ve bought into Fisher’s herd of 100% grass-fed golden Guernsey cows.

“They own part of the business. They own some of the herd,” Fisher explained. “My thinking was […] We can butcher their cows, process it, and sell it to them. I told the state all of this, but they said, ‘No, there’s no way around that. You can’t do that.’ They asked permission to get in here” to search the farm, a request Fisher denied. “And, they told me, ‘We’ll be back,’ and left.”

They came back, alright… this time with a sheriff, and they unleashed a full-scale raid that lasted about three hours. And as the Townhall piece goes on to point out, there is nothing illegal about Fisher processing his own meat for his own consumption.

Keep reading

POLICE ARE GETTING DNA DATA FROM PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY OPTED OUT

CECE MOORE, AN actress and director-turned-genetic genealogist, stood behind a lectern at New Jersey’s Ramapo College in late July. Propelled onto the national stage by the popular PBS show “Finding Your Roots,” Moore was delivering the keynote address for the inaugural conference of forensic genetic genealogists at Ramapo, one of only two institutions of higher education in the U.S. that offer instruction in the field. It was a new era, Moore told the audience, a turning point for solving crime, and they were in on the ground floor. “We’ve created this tool that can accomplish so much,” she said.

Genealogists like Moore hunt for relatives and build family trees just as traditional genealogists do, but with a twist: They work with law enforcement agencies and use commercial DNA databases to search for people who can help them identify unknown human remains or perpetrators who left DNA at a crime scene.

The field exploded in 2018 after the arrest of Joseph James DeAngelo as the notorious Golden State Killer, responsible for more than a dozen murders across California. DNA evidence collected from a 1980 double murder was analyzed and uploaded to a commercial database; a hit to a distant relative helped a genetic genealogist build an elaborate family tree that ultimately coalesced on DeAngelo. Since then, hundreds of cold cases have been solved using the technique. Moore, among the field’s biggest evangelists, boasts of having personally helped close more than 200 cases.

The practice is not without controversy. It involves combing through the genetic information of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in search of a perpetrator. And its practitioners operate without meaningful guardrails, save for “interim” guidance published by the Department of Justice in 2019.

The last five years have been like the “Wild West,” Moore acknowledged, but she was proud to be among the founding members of the Investigative Genetic Genealogy Accreditation Board, which is developing professional standards for practitioners. “With this incredibly powerful tool comes immense responsibility,” she solemnly told the audience. The practice relies on public trust to convince people not only to upload their private genetic information to commercial databases, but also to allow police to rifle through that information. If you’re doing something you wouldn’t want blasted on the front page of the New York Times, Moore said, you should probably rethink what you’re doing. “If we lose public trust, we will lose this tool.”

Despite those words of caution, Moore is one of several high-profile genetic genealogists who exploited a loophole in a commercial database called GEDmatch, allowing them to search the DNA of individuals who explicitly opted out of sharing their genetic information with police.

Keep reading

Ohio’s Local Health Departments Join Marijuana Legalization Opposition Campaign Ahead Of November Vote

An association representing Ohio’s 112 local health departments is opposing a marijuana legalization ballot measure set to go to voters in November, claiming the policy change would only contribute to drug-related problems in the state.

“Making marijuana more accessible through legal recreational use and retail sales hurts Ohio, creates serious new risks for children’s health and makes our workplaces and highways less safe,” the Ohio Association of Health Commissioners warned in a statement Tuesday. “With Ohio’s rates of opiate abuse and overdoses still among the highest in the country, we need to be helping Ohio find solutions to addiction, not facilitating it or the interests of an industry that profits from it.”

Ohio’s secretary of state’s office announced last week that advocates for the legalization measure turned in enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, which prompted statements of support—and opposition—from stakeholders across the state. The health commissioners join the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association and Adolescent Health Association, as well as law enforcement and some business groups, in advocating against the change.

Many of the new opposition group‘s claims treat as settled science issues that other say demand further investigation. For example, a recent federal research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that teen marijuana use has actually been in decline since legal retailers began opening. And a number of studies have associated cannabis use and legalization with reductions in the use of unregulated opioids, prescription drugs and other regulated substances.

Ohio currently ranks seventh among all U.S. states in terms of drug overdose death rates, after West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Delaware and New Mexico.

The campaign backing the measure, the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday that it’s “confident that Ohioans, just like voters in the states that have come before us, will see through these tired, debunked talking points.”

“Ohio’s current system of prohibition does not work,” said campaign spokesman Tom Haren. “We know that there is an adult-use market in Ohio today. It is called the illicit market. It is completely unregulated, products are not tested and products are not taxed. Also, drug dealers in the illicit market are happy to sell to children without ever checking for ID. This is a reality that is bad for the health of Ohioans.”

In states that have legalized, Haren added, “We know that usage among minors and adolescents does not change. We know that regulation does not adversely affect the workforce, and we also know that it is a boon for state tax revenue.” The measure’s 10 percent proposed tax, for example, “will generate more than $100 million every year to fund substance abuse and addiction treatment.”

In fact the state could see between $257 million and more than $400 million annually in tax revenue through legalization, according to a recent analysis from Ohio State University researchers.

Voters, for their part, appear to be leaning in favor of legalization. A USA TODAY Network/Suffolk University poll published in July found that about 59 percent of Ohioans supported legalizing the possession and sale of cannabis for adults 21 and older. Just 35 percent were opposed.

Republicans officials in Ohio remain divided on the issue. Gov. Mike DeWine said last week that he believes “it would be a real mistake for us to have recreational marijuana,” adding that he visited Colorado following its move to legalize in 2012 and saw what he argued is an “unmitigated disaster.”

Keep reading

St. Louis mayor wants to ban AR-15s, AK-47s on city streets

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones will introduce new legislation that would ban AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar “military-grade” weapons on city streets.

In a Tuesday morning press conference, Jones announced her intent to introduce new gun safety regulations with support from the Board of Aldermen.

Jones said the legislation would be designed to:

  • Prohibit military-grade weapons on city streets
  • Prevent the transfer or sale of guns to minors
  • Take action on military-grade guns and similar untraceable firearms
  • Prepare St. Louis for the passage of Blair’s Law to ban celebratory gunfire
  • Prohibit anyone convicted of insurrection or hate crimes from having guns in St. Louis

“My daughter was killed with a military-style weapon, which was an AK-47. People of the military know what type of impact those type of weapons do,” said Erica Jones, whose daughter, Whitney, was murdered on Aug. 13, 2015, in the Walnut Park area.

She said Whitney, 24, was the mother of a five-year-old. She was studying to become a nurse and worked two jobs.

“Her oldest sister held her when she took her last words,” Erica Jones said. She said the crime remains unsolved.

“What do you tell a 13-year-old young man who cannot see his mother, he cannot smell her, he cannot touch her?” she said.

Jones was one of many advocates who shared their stories at a listening session hosted by Mayor Jones on Tuesday.

“Gun violence is a plague. And it’s painful touch has stung families across our region,” the mayor said.

She said on average, 1,351 people die from guns in Missouri each year. Jones said this push comes in an effort to tackle gun violence in St. Louis City.

“Gun violence is a public health crisis that impacts families and communities in every neighborhood across our city,” she said. “We’re coming together around a shared vision: A safer, stronger St. Louis that is ready to stand up for our values.”

Keep reading

U.S. Emulates Communist China in New TikTok Draft Agreement

TikTok asked to pledge allegiance to U.S. security over corporate profits. To avoid being banned, TikTok might have to give the government “unprecedented control over essential functions that it does not have over any other major free speech platform,” reports Forbes, which reviewed a draft agreement between the company and the feds from last summer.

The situation is sadly ironic, considering that the ostensible concern U.S. lawmakers have about TikTok is that it could be subject to too much government surveillance and control by the Chinese government.

Of course, U.S. lawmakers and politicians have never actually been strictly opposed to government snooping on digital communications or strong-arming tech companies. Just look at the Snowden revelations or the Facebook Files. They just don’t like it when they’re left out of the game.

And spreading unproven tales about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might access TikTok’s U.S. user data served the dual purpose of stirring up anti-China sentiment (always a win for a certain strain of hawkish Republican) and giving American authorities a pretense to grab more control of TikTok themselves (a bipartisan desire).

Keep reading

Tracking Orwellian Change – The Aristocratic Takeover of ‘Transparency’

“Transparency” was one of America’s great postwar reforms. In 1955, a Democratic congressman named John Moss from California — who served in the Navy in World War II, was nominated for office by both Democrats and Republicans, and was never defeated in any election for public office — introduced legislation that would become one of the great triumphs of late-stage American democracy.

The Freedom of Information Act took a tortuous path to becoming law, opposed from the start by nearly every major government agency and for years struggling to gain co-sponsors despite broad public support.

In a supreme irony, one of Moss’s first Republican allies was a young Illinois congressman named Donald Rumsfeld. After a series of final tweaks it eventually passed the House 307-0 in 1966, when it landed on the desk of Lyndon Johnson, who didn’t like the bill, either. Johnson signed it, but decided not to hold a public ceremony, electing instead to issue a public statement crafted by none other than Bill Moyers, which concluded, “I signed this measure with a deep sense of pride that the United States is an open society.”

The Freedom of Information Act gave reporters and citizens alike extraordinary power to investigate once-impenetrable executive agencies that conduct the business of government. FOIA requests gave windows into the affairs of the Hoover-led FBI, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the “Afghan logs” story made public after a bitter fight put up by the National Security Archive and the Washington Post. The irony alert here was this last FOIA lawsuit ultimately revealed behaviors unflattering to none other than Donald Rumsfeld.

Keep reading

Australia’s Misinfo Bill Paves Way for Soviet-Style Censorship

The Australian Government’s proposed new laws to crack down on misinformation and disinformation have drawn intense criticism for their potential to restrict free expression and political dissent, paving the way for a digital censorship regime reminiscent of Soviet Lysenkoism.

Under the draft legislation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will gain considerable expanded regulatory powers to “combat misinformation and disinformation,” which ACMA says poses a “threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy.”

Digital platforms will be required to share information with ACMA on demand, and to implement stronger systems and processes for handling of misinformation and disinformation.

ACMA will be empowered to devise and enforce digital codes with a “graduated set of tools” including infringement notices, remedial directions, injunctions and civil penalties, with fines of up to $550,000 (individuals) and $2.75 million (corporations). Criminal penalties, including imprisonment, may apply in extreme cases.

Controversially, the government will be exempt from the proposed laws, as will professional news outlets, meaning that ACMA will not compel platforms to police misinformation and disinformation disseminated by official government or news sources.

As the government and professional news outlets have been, and continue to be, a primary source of online misinformation and disinformation, it is unclear that the proposed laws will meaningfully reduce online misinformation and disinformation. Rather, the legislation will enable the proliferation of official narratives, whether true, false or misleading, while quashing the opportunity for dissenting narratives to compete.

Keep reading