Tag: police state

Increasingly Authoritarian Zelensky Prepares for Future Elections by Targeting Rivals – After Ousting Odessa Head, Now He Sets His Sights on Kiev Mayor and Former Boxer Klitschko: REPORT

The authoritarian behavior of Volodymyr Zelensky has become impossible to ignore.

An article written by Pavel Lokshin for the German newspaper WELT sharply criticizes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his increasingly authoritarian tendencies.

The report shows how the man lionized by the MSM as ‘a second Churchill’ is in fact consolidating his power through the suppression of political opponents.

Welt reported (translated from the German):

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is consolidating his power. Anyone who stands in his way must give way – most recently the freely elected mayor of the city of Odessa. Zelensky is thus sending a clear signal to other opponents.”

The article comments on the recent dismissal of the elected mayor the of the important Black Sea port of Odessa, Gennady Trukhanov.

Zelensky accused him of ‘having a Russian passport’, and the move is seen as a prime example of this authoritarian pattern, just a naked intimidation tactic aimed at silencing dissent.

“Zelenskyy’s decision to remove the mayor, who was democratically elected, underscores a troubling trend: the prioritization of loyalty over electoral legitimacy.

In a time of war, such moves may be justified by some as necessary for unity, but they erode the foundations of the democracy Ukraine is fighting to preserve.”

Keep reading

Australia’s eSafety Chief Pressures Big Tech and AI Firms on Verification, Age Checks

Australia’s top online regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, is intensifying her push to reshape speech in the digital world.

Her office has formally warned major social platforms and several AI chatbot companies that they could soon be forced to comply with far-reaching new age verification and “online safety” requirements that many see as expanding government control over online communication.

The warnings are part of the government’s effort to enforce the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which would bar Australians under 16 from creating social media accounts.

Letters sent to Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and YouTube make it clear that each company is expected to fall under the scope of the new law.

The Commissioner’s preliminary assessment is that these services exist mainly for “online social interaction,” which brings them within the definition of social media platforms and subjects them to strict age verification and child protection obligations.

Not all of the companies accept that classification. Snapchat claims to be primarily a messaging platform similar to WhatsApp, while YouTube has opposed losing its original exemption.

At this stage, only services with a clear focus on messaging or education, such as WhatsApp, Messenger, YouTube Kids, and Google Classroom, remain excluded from the Commissioner’s oversight.

Keep reading

39 Bipartisan State And Territory Attorneys General Push Congress To Ban Intoxicating Hemp Products

A bipartisan coalition of 39 state and territory attorneys general is calling on Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp and impose regulations preventing the sale of intoxicating cannabinoid products.

In a letter sent to the Republican chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations and Agriculture Committees on Friday, members of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) expressed concerns with provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, which they said has been “wrongly exploited by bad actors to sell recreational synthetic THC products across the country.”

They’re asking that lawmakers leverage the appropriations process, or the next iteration of the Farm Bill, to enact policy changes that “leave no doubt that these harmful products are illegal and that their sale and manufacture are criminal acts.”

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D), Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) led the letter, underscoring the bipartisan sentiment driving the call for congressional action.

“Intoxicating hemp-derived THC products have inundated communities throughout our states due to a grievously mistaken interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of ‘hemp’ that companies are leveraging to pursue profits at the expense of public safety and health,” they wrote. “Many of these products—created by manufacturers by manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC—are more intoxicating and psychoactive than marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance and are often marketed to minors.”

While the debate over revising federal hemp laws has been a consistent talking point this year, with attempts in both chambers to enact a ban on products containing THC, so far such restrictions have only been implemented at the state level.

“Unless Congress acts, this gross distortion of the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp provision will continue to fuel the rapid growth of an under-regulated industry that threatens public health and safety and undermines law enforcement nationwide,” the letter says.

Keep reading

Digital ID Black Pill Moment?

For those unclear on what a Black Pill Moment means, I’ll share my take on the definition:

Black Pill Moment: A “Black Pill Moment” is when someone grasps a harsh, pessimistic truth about the world, leading to despair or hopelessness if they let it sink in. It’s a grim realization that things may be beyond repair, hitting like a gut punch.

Red Pill Moment: A “Red Pill Moment” is when someone sees a tough truth about the world, shattering old beliefs but leaving hope that change is possible if enough people act. It’s like waking up to a challenging reality with resolve to fight for better.

Blue Pill Moment: A “blue pill moment” is when someone avoids a harsh truth, choosing the comfort of denial or ignorance, like believing “ignorance is bliss.” Some psychiatrists call SSRIs like Prozac “blue pills” for creating an “I don’t care” mindset, numbing people to reality.

In the 1999 movie, The Matrix, Neo is offered a red pill or a blue pill by Morpheus. The red pill means waking up to the harsh truth of reality, rejecting illusions (like the Matrix’s simulated world), while the blue pill means staying in comfortable ignorance, unaware of the truth.

I usually see myself as red-pilled, believing in tough truths/reality, but holding onto hope for change.

If we are not careful a black pill can can be so earth shattering that it may lead to taking a blue pill!

After reading editorials about Texas’s mandated digital ID for apps, supposedly to protect children, I researched how many states and countries have mandatory or voluntary digital ID systems. (Voluntary is the trojan horse for future mandatory)  What I found opened my eyes to what could be labelled a “black pill moment”—the global push for digital IDs is far advanced, likely past the point of no return, aligning with the UN’s 2030 goal of universal legal identity and enabling a globalist digital currency system that could control access to everything.

In September 2015, all 193 UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9  aims to provide legal identity, including birth registration, for everyone by 2030. This goal supports a global push for universal digital identity. The World Bank’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative, a key partner, consolidates civil registries and promotes digital ID services. ID2020, tasked with implementing SDG 16.9, works to ensure everyone has a digital identity by 2030. The World Bank, World Economic Forum, and companies like Palantir, have created a global partnership to build a unified digital identity system.

Currently there are approximately 8,300,000,000 people in the world.  According to the World Bank’s ID4D initiative the number of actual people without any “official” proof of identity is only 850 million.  Only 10% of the world’s population do not have a personal digital ID.

Based on the latest global reports, only 12 countries (out of 198 worldwide) still lack any foundational national digital ID system – such as electronic credentials, biometric verification, or programs that could eventually link to the World Bank’s ID4D framework for universal legal identity. In stark contrast, 186 countries already have at least basic digital ID elements in place, paving the way for interoperability with global systems.

I began my research by manually checking each country’s government website, but after the first 30 – all of which had ID4D digital ID systems – I realized the scale of adoption was overwhelming. Not wanting to waste time on the remaining 168, I did something I never imagined- I enlisted Grok to handle the nitty-gritty and time consuming work of scanning those government websites country by  country. Grok confirmed the relentless global march toward total coverage revealing that 186 countries out of 198 have digital ID systems already in place.

The holdouts are often in regions with limited infrastructure or political instability. For example, North Korea is one of the holdouts because they have their own internal digital tracking system that is not set up to be “linked” (“interoperability”) to the ID4D digital ID Globalist World Bank system.

The countries not yet set up with digital ID’s that can be linked to the digital ID World Bank system in the future are: Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Tuvalu, Nauru and Oceania. [2] According to the World Bank ID4D website, adoption is accelerating and they expect this list to shrink by 2026.

Keep reading

German Authorities Search Conservative Commentator’s Home After Online Post

A police raid targeting retired media professor and conservative commentator Norbert Bolz has ignited discussion in Germany about how far the state is going in policing speech online.

Officers entered Bolz’s Berlin home on Thursday morning and questioned him about a social media post from early 2024 that included the phrase “Deutschland erwache!” a slogan once used by the Nazi Party.

Bolz told POLITICO he acknowledged writing the post himself, which prevented police from taking his computer. After the visit, he posted a sardonic comment on X: “The friendly police officers gave me the good advice to be more careful in the future. I’ll do that and only talk about trees from now on.”

Bolz is a regular contributor to WELT, part of the Axel Springer media group, and is known for his strong defense of open discussion.

Berlin prosecutors confirmed the search took place as part of an investigation under Section 86a of Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the “use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations.”

The disputed post was a sarcastic reaction to an article from the newspaper taz that read, “Ban of the AfD and a petition against Höcke: Germany awakens.” Bolz added his own remark: “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!”

The issue first came to authorities’ attention after it was reported by “Hessen gegen Hetze,” a portal run by the Hessian Interior Ministry’s Cyber Competence Center.

The post was forwarded to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and then to the Central Reporting Office for Criminal Content on the Internet (ZMI), which passed the case to Berlin prosecutors because Bolz resides in the capital.

The ZMI, short for Zentrale Meldestelle für strafbare Inhalte im Internet (Central Reporting Office for Criminal Content on the Internet), is a unit within Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA).

A spokesperson for the Berlin prosecutor’s office told Apollo News that “the reporting office had passed the matter on to the ZMI.

“The ZMI reported the matter to Berlin because of where they live in Berlin. The investigation was then carried out by the Berlin public prosecutor’s office and the Berlin police, as this is where the responsibility lies.”

The BKA confirmed that the case originated from a report filed by “Hessen gegen Hetze” in November 2024.

Keep reading

Henry Family Saves 175-Year-Old New Jersey Farm From Government Seizure

For nearly two centuries, the Henry family has worked the same soil in Bedminster, New Jersey — a 175-year-old farm passed from one generation to the next. But earlier this year, their heritage came under attack. Local officials, invoking the state’s “affordable housing” laws, sought to seize part of the Henrys’ land through legal maneuvering that would have handed it to developers.

The battle lasted months. It was draining, personal, and emblematic of a deeper national struggle between individual liberty and government overreach. At its heart was a simple question: do Americans still have the right to protect their property from the encroaching power of the state?

The Henrys said yes — and refused to back down.

Bedminster Township officials claimed the family’s land was needed to satisfy New Jersey’s affordable housing requirements, part of the state’s “Mount Laurel doctrine,” which forces municipalities to set aside areas for low- and moderate-income housing. In practice, that mandate often translates to deals between town governments and private developers — deals that profit politically connected insiders while displacing long-time property owners.

For the Henrys, compliance wasn’t an option. The farm had been in the family since before the Civil War, and to lose it to bureaucratic manipulation would have been a betrayal of everything their ancestors built. “This isn’t just land,” patriarch John Henry said. “It’s our home, our history, and our future. We weren’t going to let the government take that away.”

The family took their fight to court, arguing that the township’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional land grab disguised as “public good.” Their legal team showed that the town’s plan violated both the spirit and the letter of eminent domain law — which allows government to take private property only for legitimate public use, not for private development masked as social policy.

After months of hearings, the judge ruled in favor of the Henry family, halting the township’s attempt to rezone and seize the property. It was a rare victory for ordinary citizens in an era when small landowners are routinely bulldozed by regulation and corporate collusion.

The case may have unfolded in a quiet corner of New Jersey, but its implications stretch nationwide. Across the country, similar battles are erupting as state and local governments exploit “housing equity,” “green energy,” and “climate resilience” initiatives to justify taking or restricting private land. What happened in Bedminster is a warning: government power, once expanded, rarely retreats — unless citizens are willing to fight back.

The Henrys did just that. Their courage reaffirms a truth that runs deeper than politics — that freedom is inseparable from property. The ability to own, cultivate, and preserve what one’s family has built is not a mere privilege; it is a cornerstone of self-government and human dignity.

Their victory isn’t only about acres of farmland. It’s about preserving a way of life rooted in responsibility, faith, and independence — values that have long defined America’s heartland and are increasingly under assault by bureaucrats who see people as obstacles to policy.

Keep reading

A D.C. Man Was Arrested for Mocking National Guard Troops with Star Wars’ ‘Imperial March.’ Now He’s Suing.

A Washington, D.C., resident who was handcuffed and detained in September for mocking National Guard soldiers by playing “The Imperial March” from Star Wars on his cellphone is suing the soldiers and police officers for their stormtrooper-like behavior.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of D.C. filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of Sam O’Hara, arguing that his detention violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights by cutting off his peaceful protest.

“The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” O’Hara’s lawsuit states. “But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures.”

After President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to D.C., O’Hara began following National Guard soldiers around playing “The Imperial March” on his cell phone as a form of protest. His lawsuit says O’Hara wanted “to encourage the public to view the deployment as a waste of tax dollars, a needless display of force, and a surreal danger.”

According to his lawsuit, on September 11, O’Hara was tailing four Ohio National Guard soldiers and doing his usual bit. 

“Less than two minutes after the protest began,” the lawsuit says, “Sgt. [Devon] Beck turned around and said, ‘Hey man, if you’re going to keep following us, we can contact Metro PD and they can come handle you if that’s what you want to do. Is that what you want to do?'”

O’Hara allegedly did not respond but continued to follow, at which point the Empire decided to strike back. 

Beck called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit claims that shortly after several MPD cars arrived. The MPD officers allegedly accused O’Hara of harassing the soldiers, and they detained and handcuffed him.

When O’Hara argued that he was engaged in protest, one of the MPD officers allegedly responded, “That’s not a protest. You better define protest. This isn’t a protest. You are not protesting.”

However, recording and mocking law enforcement are both firmly protected by the First Amendment, as long as one doesn’t interfere with their duties.

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in 1987, in a ruling striking down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer, that “the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

To put it another way, if you act like an autocratic villain when someone compares you to an autocratic villain, you just might be an autocratic villain.

Keep reading

LORD ASHCROFT: ID card scheme is a classic Starmerite intervention – it’s expensive, intrusive and utterly pointless

Kemi Badenoch‘s skewering of Keir Starmer at Wednesday’s PMQs was a highlight in what has been a relatively good couple of weeks for the Tory leader.

If the Conservatives don’t exactly have a spring in their step, they are at least enjoying a sigh of relief. Their conference produced some policy ideas worth talking about and Badenoch delivered a punchy and humorous speech that stilled the endless chatter about her leadership, at least for a time.

Of course, most people have better things to do than pay attention to party conferences. But in this case, the task was to shore up her position and consolidate the Tories’ diminished base.

My latest polling suggests she succeeded in this crucial (if limited and short-term) objective. The number of Conservatives who would rather see her than Starmer or Nigel Farage as PM has risen sharply, pushing her rating up among voters as a whole.

The bad news is that this has yet to inject any life into her party’s standing overall. Insiders now say she is in a race against time to make that happen before the local elections next May.

In my survey, voters tended to think yet another change at the top would show the Tories had learned nothing about why they lost. But when panic sets in, politics takes on a logic and momentum of its own.

That’s not to say Badenoch is entirely at the mercy of events.

One thing that holds the party back is that the numbers saying it has changed since its defeat has flatlined all year. 

Keep reading

U.K. seeking to censor Americans again

Incredibly, the U.K. wants to enforce its draconian censorship laws in the United States.

According to Data Fidelity, an Australian tech site:

Internal communications now made public by the US House Judiciary Committee shed light on a pattern of escalating pressure by the UK’s “communications regulator,” Ofcom, aimed at pushing US-based tech platforms like Rumble and Reddit into adopting strict speech standards, even in apparent disregard for national boundaries and free speech protections.

The emails expose how Ofcom has been leaning on Rumble to align itself with the UK’s Online Safety Act, a censorship law that vastly expands the state’s oversight of online content under the guise of child protection and harm prevention.

Take to the internet or social media to criticize the LGBTQ community or Islam?

You may be paid a visit by the constabulary.

Criticize the U.K.’s leaders?

You might get to visit Scotland Yard.

Criticize gay, trans, or Muslim U.K. leaders?

God help you. (Not that many people in formerly Jolly Olde England believe in the God of the Bible anymore. Which may explain the current state of affairs in Britain.)

It is utterly preposterous that any nation, let alone one as diminished yet allegedly tolerant as the U.K., would seek to enforce and impose its own anti-speech, anti-freedom agenda on a foreign land.

Talk about digital colonization and cultural imperialism!

Keep reading

Michigan Lawmakers Consider Bills To Change Legal Marijuana Possession Limits And Alter Industry Disciplinary Rules

Four marijuana-related bills were up for consideration before a House panel on Thursday, with one aiming to upend rules on the legal amount of regulated marijuana a person is allowed to possess, both in plant and concentrate form.

Members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee discussed but did not amend or advance House Bill House 5104, Bill 5105, House Bill 5106 and House Bill 5107.

Derek Sova, a policy and legislative assistant for the Cannabis Regulatory Agency, told the committee previously that Michigan’s legal marijuana industry faced several challenges, and that two of those big hurdles were large illicit grow operations and the agency’s inability to go after bad actors because their licenses had expired.

The series of bills before the committee would address those concerns.

House Bill 5105 and House Bill 5107 are sponsored by state Reps. Pauline Wendzel (R-Watervliet) and Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), respectively. The bills would in tandem create new penalties for cultivating, delivering and processing black market marijuana, but also change the amount of marijuana a person is legally allowed to possess in plant and concentrate form.

The bills are tie-barred together, meaning both would have to jointly clear the Legislature and be signed by the governor to become law.

Under Wendzel’s bill, a person would be guilty of a misdemeanor if they possess between 10 and 25 kilograms, or between 50 and 100 plants, or between one and 2.5 kilograms of marijuana concentrate. The penalty would change to up to one year in jail or a $20,000 fine, or both.

Keeping between 25 and 125 kilograms, or between 100 and 500 plants, or between 2.5 and 12.5 kilograms of marijuana concentrate would become a felony punishable by two years in prison or a $500,000 fine, or both.

It would also be a felony offense to:

  • Keep between 125 and 250 kilograms, or between 500 and 1,000 plants, or between 12.5 and 25 kilograms. That could net a person four years in prison or a $2 million fine or both; and
  • Keep 250 kilograms or more, or 1,000 plants or more, or 25 kilograms or more of marijuana concentrate. The punishment there would be up to 10 years in prison or a $10 million fine, or both.

Sponsored by state Rep. Kristian Grant (D-Grand Rapids), House Bill 5104 would allow the Cannabis Regulatory Agency to sanction a person even if they are no longer a licensee or if they are no longer operating a marijuana facility.

Keep reading