Tag: police state

When Your Own Government CONFIRMS It Paid Censors to Silence You…

It’s hard to believe that I’m writing this about the government of the United States of America, but here we are in 2023 with our own government striving to make at least half the country out to be terrorists and second-class citizens. An exclusive report by the Washington Examiner states:

The State Department “stands by” its widely scrutinized grant to a group the Washington Examiner revealed is blacklisting conservative media outlets, according to a letter to Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) put the State Department’s Global Engagement Center on blast in a March letter to the agency and demanded an investigation into its $100,000 grant in 2021 to the Global Disinformation Index, which has fed conservative website blacklists to advertisers to defund disfavored speech. The agency issued a response to the congressman on Friday, telling him in a letter obtained by the Washington Examiner that it has no regrets over the taxpayer-backed award…

…As the Washington Examiner has reported since February 2022, the GDI was awarded $100,000 through the government’s U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge, which sought to “advance the development of promising and innovative technologies against disinformation and propaganda across the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom,” according to the Atlantic Council, a think tank that partnered for the challenge.

Keep reading

Why The Media Is Attacking Free Speech

Governments around the world are cracking down on free speech. What they are demanding includes the ability to read private encrypted text messages and invade homes in search of wrongspeech. Their demands thus go far beyond what the Censorship Industrial Complex was able to get away with over the last six years.

And things are getting worse. Last week, the European Union announced it would punish Twitter for withdrawing from its supposedly “voluntary” censorship laws. “Twitter leaves EU voluntary code of practice against disinformation,” said the EU’s top censor, Thierry Breton, “You can run, but you can’t hide. Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be a legal obligation under [the Digital Services Act] DSA as of August 25. Our teams will be ready for enforcement.”

Politico begs to differ. The Censorship Industrial Complex, it wrote last week, is an “unproven conspiracy theory that a group of left-leaning academics, think tanks, tech workers and government employees coordinated to silence right-wing voters ahead of nationwide votes. To be clear (looking at you, Twitter Files), none of this has been proved, and there’s evidence that right-leaning voices have a larger, not smaller, presence online compared with those on the left.”

But it’s not unproven. In fact, the existence, funding, and actions of the Censorship Industrial Complex are extremely well-documented at this point. Across thousands of pages of Attorneys’ General lawsuits, thousands of pages of Congressional reports and testimony, and hundreds of pages of Twitter and Facebook files themselves, it’s clear that here was a highly coordinated campaign by top White House officials, government agencies, and government-funded contractors to demand Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies censor, in their own words, “often-true” content, including about drug side effects, both to prevent the public from seeing it but also to spread misinformation on behalf of a political agenda.

Politico did not, notably, provide any source or link to support its claim that “there’s evidence that right-leaning voices have a larger, not smaller, presence online compared with those on the left.” The reason might be that such “evidence” is a single highly selective study attempting to generalize about the whole of the social media experience through the lens of an outdated and simplistic Left-Right framework.

Keep reading

Rejoice Georgians: You Don’t Need a Government Permit To Advise Breastfeeding Moms

Georgia’s Supreme Court today struck down a state law that required people who provide lactation consulting to obtain costly and time-consuming state licenses.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices determined that a law passed in 2016 unconstitutionally deprived Mary Jackson of work. Jackson had been providing lactation care consulting services for more than 30 years and started a nonprofit, Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere (ROSE), to provide breastfeeding education.

Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs wrote the ruling in Jackson v. Raffensperger, and he was critical of attempts to declare that the state has a “public welfare” interest for every licensing law it passes: “Georgia’s Due Process Clause requires more than a talismanic recitation of an important public interest.” Here the court examined whether the licensing requirement protected the public from unsafe or harmful health practices. They found the state’s evidence wanting:

Certainly, there is nothing inherently harmful in the practice of lactation care, and there is no evidence of harm to the public from the provision of lactation care and services by individuals who lack an [International Board Certified Lactation Consultant] license.

To get this license through a private credentialing body, the court notes, requires 14 different health courses (some college level), 95 hours of training, 300 supervised clinical hours, and up to $700 in costs. Boggs notes in his ruling that only 162 of Georgia’s 470 lactation consultants have gone through the process to get licensing.

The state admitted to the court that they had no evidence that anybody was harmed by unlicensed or incompetent lactation care before or after the law’s passage. An analysis of a version of the law that was considered in 2013 (and not passed) noted that there was no evidence of any harm caused by the state’s failure to license or regulate lactation consultants.

Keep reading

ATLANTA POLICE ARREST ORGANIZERS OF BAIL FUND FOR COP CITY PROTESTERS

ON WEDNESDAY MORNING, a heavily armed Atlanta Police Department SWAT team raided a house in Atlanta and arrested three of its residents. Their crime? Organizing legal support and bail funds for protesters and activists who have faced indiscriminate arrest and overreaching charges in the struggle to stop the construction of a vast police training facility — dubbed Cop City — atop a forest in Atlanta.

In a joint operation with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, or GBI, Atlanta cops charged Marlon Scott Kautz, Adele Maclean, and Savannah Patterson — all board members of the Atlanta Solidarity Fund — with “money laundering” and “charity fraud.”

The arrests are an unprecedented attack on bail funds and legal support organizations, a long-standing facet of social justice movements, according to Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center.

“This is the first bail fund to be attacked in this way,” Regan, whose organization has worked to ensure legal support for people resisting Cop City, told me. “And there is absolutely not a scintilla of fact or evidence that anything illegal has ever transpired with regard to Atlanta fundraising for bail support.”

Keep reading

Innocent Homeowner Calls 911 to Report Burglary, Cops Show Up and Execute Him

In an appalling incident that shatters the illusion of safety ostensibly provided by America’s mandatory security force, a man in Mantua, found himself fatally shot by the very people he called for help. Charles Sharp III, 49, dialed 911 in the early morning of Sept. 14, 2021, to report a couple of intruders lurking in his backyard. The emergency response he anticipated took a deadly turn when one of the officers arriving at the scene shot him dead — within seconds. This disturbing sequence of events serves as a potent reminder of the inherent risk involved in reaching out to law enforcement agencies, even in moments of dire need.

Mantua Township Police Officer Salvatore Oldrati, who fired the fatal shots, now faces a manslaughter charge. A state grand jury handed the indictment on Tuesday, which was publicized the following night. If found guilty, Oldrati could face up to 10 years behind bars. But for Sharp’s family, this potential sentencing offers little consolation for their unexpected loss.

Sharp had reported seeing two burglars in his yard, one of whom appeared to be armed. Two officers, Officer Oldrati and Cpl. Robert Layton arrived on the scene in separate vehicles. Sharp, still on the line with the 911 dispatcher, was in his front yard when the officers pulled up.

Officer Oldrati arrived shortly after Layton. As he stepped out of his vehicle, Layton shouted, “He’s got a handgun on him, right there,” according to a statement from the attorney general’s office. Oldrati reacted by opening fire on Sharp, hitting him multiple times. Despite being rushed to the hospital, Sharp succumbed to his injuries.

While a replica .45-caliber firearm was recovered near Sharp, Layton did not discharge his service weapon. Moreover, investigators found that Oldrati did not issue any verbal warning or command before filling the innocent man with taxpayer-funded lead.

Keep reading

MI House Democrats seek to imprison kids for having BB guns

Michigan may have a hunting and gun culture, but legislative Democrats are doing everything in their power to change that.

The latest example comes as House Democrats have proposed HB 4184, a bill to ban those 18 and under from “using or possessing certain BB guns outside of their property,” according to the summary.

State Rep. Julie Rogers, a Democrat from crime-riddled Kalamazoo, filed the bill earlier this session.

The bill is to “regulate the possession or use of pneumatic guns,” that is, those that are designed to use air pressure to propel the projectile. The bill bans kids from having guns “that will expel a BB or pellet by spring, gas, or air.”

“An individual less than 18 years of age shall not use or possess a pneumatic gun outside the curtilage of the individual’s dwelling unless the individual is accompanied by another individual over 18 years of age,” it states.

A child who breaks the proposed law “is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.”

“Please get your kids outside this summer to make some epic memories before the leftists who have never engaged in such fun ban it,” state Rep. Angela Rigas (R) said in response.

“Allowing kids to use BB guns unsupervised can have life-threatening consequences,” Rogers claimed. “All too often, these guns are treated as toys, without regard to the dangers they pose. As with all types of guns, adult supervision for children to ensure they are following safety precautions is necessary for everyone’s well-being.”

During Rogers’s first term in office (2021), Kalamazoo was one of the most dangerous cities in the state.

Keep reading

Hunter Biden, Second Amendment Warrior?

President Joe Biden has long been an advocate for strict restrictions on guns, so his son makes something of an unlikely advocate for expanded gun rights. But Hunter Biden may soon find himself on the opposite side of his father’s gun control crusade in at least one aspect. The younger Biden is reportedly considering a challenge to a federal law that bans illegal drug users from owning guns.

The issue hits close to home for Hunter: The Department of Justice is investigating a gun purchase he made in 2018. This is a time period during which he has admitted to regularly using crack cocaine. That could put him afoul of the law against drug users having guns.

Hunter Biden’s “lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly,” reported Politico. “That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.”

Here’s hoping?

The provision in question—part of the Gun Control Act of 1968—is, frankly, insane, preventing any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from buying a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has interpreted this provision to mean that anyone who has used any illegal drug in the past 12 months cannot legally purchase a gun.

And the time may be just right for challenging it. This Supreme Court has proved willing to strike down overreaching gun laws.

Keep reading

Irish government proposes mass culling of cows to meet radical net zero climate targets

The Irish government would need to set aside a €600 million budget in order to cull 65,000 cows every year for three years in order to meet its climate targets, according to internal reports seen by the Irish Independent.

The newspaper reported that 10 percent of all livestock in Ireland would need to be “displaced” in the coming years in order to comply with the government’s ambitious plans of achieving net zero carbon emissions by no later than 2050 and reducing emissions by 51 percent by 2030.

A mass culling of 200,000 cows over three years could be one way to help the Irish agricultural sector “close the gap” on its emissions targets, according to the briefing paper by the Department of Agriculture.

The plan would see Irish farmers compensated for the loss of their dairy herd, with the report suggesting a budget of €600 million would be required.

Farmers, however, aren’t convinced of the need to resort to such drastic measures and believe that other polluting industries aren’t being required to suffer the same fate.

Pat McCormack, the president of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, told Newsweek on Tuesday that the Irish dairy herd isn’t any bigger than it was at the turn of the century.

“Our herd isn’t any larger than it was 25, 30 years ago. Can the same be said for the transport industry, can the same be said for the aviation industry?” he asked.

When asked whether farmers consider the cull of its dairy herd to be reasonable, McCormack replied: “If there is a scheme, it needs to be a voluntary scheme. That’s absolutely critical because there’s no point in culling numbers from an individual who has borrowed on the back of a huge financial commitment on the back of achieving a certain target that’s taken from under him.”

Keep reading

Despite Animal Rescuers Being at the Scene, Cops Shoot 2 Family Dogs, Claiming They Held Up Traffic

In yet another terrible display of state authority over compassion, police carried out a despicable act of puppycide this past Saturday. A pair of dogs found wandering loose on Interstate 84 near Heyburn became the latest victims in the alarmingly frequent incidents of law enforcement officers discharging their firearms on man’s best friend. This act of thoughtless violence occurred near exit 211 just before 6 p.m., a news release from the Heyburn Police Department revealed.

Cops on scene alleged that the animals were causing traffic to grind to a halt and posed a safety hazard. According to the release, “The speed limit of this section of interstate is 80 miles per hour and traffic cannot stop abruptly.” The dogs, according to the police, were said to be large and unresponsive to the officers’ calls and whistles, and were reportedly causing a traffic backlog.

According to the official police account, the safety of the ‘motoring public’ at the expense of two lives was the trade-off they were willing to make. With heavy Memorial Day traffic, the officers claimed they had no other option but to gun down these two creatures at 6:03 p.m. — just 3 minutes after arriving on the scene. Each dog was shot once and removed from the highway.

Stephanie Carsner, an individual working for an animal rescue shelter and an eyewitness to the event, tells a much different story, however. Carsner had reportedly obtained permission from the Idaho State Police to attempt to corral the dogs. In a now-viral Facebook post, she described the animals as thirsty but “not at all aggressive.”

Keep reading

California Lawmakers Want To Make Tech Companies Subsidize News Media

California lawmakers are moving ahead with plans to make Google and Facebook subsidize traditional media. Legislation from state Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D–Oakland) would require some digital platforms “to remit a journalism usage fee payment…equal to a percentage…of the covered platform’s advertising revenue generated during that month multiplied by the eligible digital journalism provider’s allocation share.”

Essentially, A.B. 886—dubbed the California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA)—would make entities like Google and Facebook pay to link and send traffic to media websites, despite the fact that media outlets get as much if not more out of this arrangement.

This sort of “link tax” not only makes no sense but is “actively harmful to the open web” and “based on a ridiculously confused understanding of basically everything,” writes Techdirt‘s Mike Masnick. More:

In short form: if any website does not want to get traffic from Google or Facebook, they have the power to control that by using robots.txt or redirects. It’s easy.

The problem is that they want the traffic. They want it so bad that they hire “search engine optimization” experts to help them get more traffic.

The problem is that they don’t just want the traffic, they also want to get paid for that traffic.

This is backwards in so many ways. It’s basically saying that they should get paid to have other companies send them traffic.

It also breaks the most fundamental concept of the open web — the link — by saying that the government can force some websites to pay for linking to other websites (and, on top of that, force the paying websites to have to host those links, even if they don’t want to).

Everything about this is filthy and corrupt. It’s literally Rep. Buffy Wicks and others in the California legislature saying “we’re forcing companies we dislike to give money to companies we like.”

Under the CJPA’s terms, online platforms would be subject to the link tax if they have at least 50,000,000 monthly active users or subscribers in the U.S. or are owned or controlled “by a person with either…United States net annual sales or a market capitalization greater than five hundred fifty billion dollars ($550,000,000,000), adjusted annually for inflation” or “at least 1,000,000,000 worldwide monthly active users on the online platform.”

Keep reading