Tag: police state

Blaze journalist who covered Jan 6 to be charged by Biden DOJ

Journalist for The Blaze Steve Baker has been notified by the FBI that he is going to be charged by Biden’s Department of Justice for his work covering the protest and riot at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. He was told to surrender to authorities on Tuesday and has not yet been made aware of the charges.

He said that he entered the Capitol on that day, “like about 60 other journalists, but “Did no damage or parading or violence.”

Info Wars journalist Owen Shroyer just served a nearly 2 month sentence for having been on the Capitol grounds on that day. Other journalists have also been arrested and tried. 

Far-left journalist John Sullivan, who sold his footage of J6 to mainstream media outlets, was also charged after covering the event. He was charged with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Civil Disorder; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building; and Aiding and Abetting, per the Department of Justice.

Keep reading

The NDAA’s ‘Warrantless Backdoor Surveillance’ of Americans Gets Approved by the Senate

In a last-minute rush to sanction spending before the end of the year, the Senate enacted a $886 billion defense spending proposal Wednesday, sponsored by President Joe Biden, that includes financing for Ukraine, yearly pay hikes for personnel, and most controversially, a reauthorization of the the National Defense Authorization Act

The NDAA funds Pentagon objectives such as training and equipment. The Act was approved by a bipartisan majority of 87-13 in the Senate. For the last 61 years in a row, Congress has advanced the must-pass defense budget measure.

“At a time of huge trouble for global security, doing the defense authorization bill is more important than ever,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “Passing the NDAA enables us to hold the line against Russia, stand firm against the Chinese Communist Party and ensure America’s defense remain state of the art at all times.”

The package now moves to the House, where some conservative Republicans have vowed to derail it after legislators removed disputed elements that would have changed the Pentagon’s abortion policy and provide certain so-called “transgender” medical procedures.

The NDAA approved by the Senate is a compromise version of the budget package passed by the House earlier this year. The House version includes elements aimed at the Pentagon’s transgender health care regulations, as well as an amendment to repeal a Pentagon policy that reimburses out-of-state travel for service members who have abortions.

Keep reading

Spain considers banning smoking and vaping on ALL beaches

Spain is considering banning smoking on all beaches as it presses ahead with tough new measures.

The Spanish Ministry of Health has confirmed a new crackdown on both smoking and vaping and says people’s health has to be protected.

One of its new priorities is to resurrect the anti-smoking plan which will include extending smoke-free spaces to terraces, beaches and cars in the presence of minors and pregnant women.

‘We must look at the law again because we cannot turn our backs on the only measure that can give the population more years of life and a better quality of life, which is to reduce smoking,’ said Health Minister Mónica García.

The Comprehensive Plan for the Prevention and Control of Smoking 2021-2025 was finalised a year and a half ago but has not yet seen the light of day.

The Ministry of Health says it wants to ‘remove it from the drawer’ and expand the ban on tobacco consumption to more areas.

‘The first steps are to get it out of the box,’ said Monica García. ‘We will have to look at each of the cases and each of the assumptions.

‘What we plan to is study what that plan is going to be, if it needs to be expanded, if it needs to be modified, but we do have a firm commitment to those recommendations.’

Keep reading

ESG, DEI, and the Rise of Fake Reporting

We know that the modern West has developed a jaw-dropping degree of totalitarianism, wherein the bureaucracies of the state and the corporate sector coordinate together to cripple humans outside their power networks and media channels. But what are the mechanics of this coordination? To understand one of the games they play, consider the rise of measures and standards associated with DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) – both occupants of a highly abstract thought dimension and the latter an especially incomprehensible word salad.

ESG as a phrase was coined in a 2006 United Nations report, gradually gaining adoption by private companies like BlackRock via the production of annual ESG reports. Governments then started supporting these voluntary efforts, and eventually began making them mandatory. Since early 2023, corporations in the EU have been compelled to report on ESG. Many US companies with subsidiaries in the EU must observe both US and European rules, and those in the Asia-Pacific region too are starting to follow the ESG reporting pantomime.

In brief, ESG originated at the level of the international and intellectual stratosphere and then grew, unchecked by tedious real-world constraints like scarcity and tradeoffs, as a kind of malignant joint venture between large government bureaucracies and large corporations.

This JV is a serious industry, offering lucrative money-making opportunities for consulting companies, fund managers, and assorted professionals who ‘help’ companies comply. Bahar Gidwani, co-founder of a company called CSRHub, a compiler and provider of ESG company ratings, estimates that the collection of ESG data alone is already costing companies $20 billion worldwide.

It is an expanding industry too, since the reporting requirements keep increasing: according to recent reports, the head of the US Securities and Exchange Commission estimates that the cost of ESG reporting by the companies it oversees could quadruple to $8.4 billion this year, primarily due to the introduction of more ESG requirements. And that’s just in the US.

Large reporting costs are easier for large companies to bear, which offers a clue to why they’re interested: this sort of burden, particularly when made compulsory by the state, helps them dominate their smaller competitors.

Keep reading

How Did The US Government Become So Big?

How big is the federal government?

Two measures are the number of civilian employees (nearly two million) and the number of agencies (now exceeding 440).

These numbers barely hint at their massive meddling into business activities and the personal lives of Americans.

While government was relatively small and less intrusive during its first hundred years, the Constitution held defects. In part, they resulted from the unavoidable compromises of consensus. The founders knew this, and some had anticipated civil war decades before the first shots were fired. Many other problems emerged during the great expansion of the nineteenth century due to the industrial revolution, the growth of America’s land area, and several political factors, mostly unanticipated. As population grew from about five million in 1800 to more than seventy-six million in 1900, government gained accordingly.

It was during the early twentieth century that the government acquired many extraconstitutional powers to intervene in our lives. This was accompanied by a great expansion of its jurisdiction and cost: new agencies, more government workers, more taxes. To give you a hint of this growth, here is an excerpt from the Congressional testimony of Doctor Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute in 2005:

We come, then, to the nub of the matter. Search the Constitution as you will, you will find no authority for Congress to appropriate and spend federal funds on education, agriculture, disaster relief, retirement programs, housing, healthcare, day care, the arts, public broadcasting—the list is endless. That is what I meant at the outset when I said that most of what the federal government is doing today is unconstitutional because it is done without constitutional authority. Reducing that point to its essence, the Constitution says, in effect, that everything that is not authorized—to the government, by the people, through the Constitution—is forbidden. Progressives turned that on its head: Everything that is not forbidden is authorized.

Almost fourteen years have elapsed since Doctor Pilon’s testimony. Today, the federal government is far larger and more intrusive, having enlisted the support of Big Tech, Big Pharma, academia, the legacy media, and others. But still, how did the government grow so large?

Keep reading

America’s largest pharmacies are handing over medical records to police WITHOUT a warrant, congressional probe finds – amid fears women could be hunted down for taking abortion drugs

America’s biggest pharmacies have been quietly sharing Americans’ private medical records with police without their knowledge.

In what is being described as a ‘staggering’ breach of privacy, a congressional probe found the seven largest chains released people’s sensitive information to law enforcement or federal investigators without a warrant. 

While some of the pharmacy chains required their lawyers to review law enforcement requests, three of them — CVS, Kroger and Rite Aid which have 60,000 stores nationwide — said they allowed staff to hand over the records in their stores.

Senator Ron Wyden, who led the investigation, said it raised grave concerns because medical records were among the ‘most personal’ information for patients — revealing long-term conditions, sexual behavior and birth control.

There are now concerns that women could be hunted down by officials in states where abortions are illegal for taking abortion drugs.

Sen Wyden warned the current rules allowed for a ‘full blown witch hunt’ by Republican states against women.

This week mother-of-two Kate Cox was forced to travel out of Texas after a court denied her an abortion for her fetus which has a fatal genetic complication.

Current rules allow law enforcement to request medical records using a subpoena.

These can be issued by court clerks or government agencies but, unlike a warrant, do not require the approval of a judge.

And unlike subpoenas, warrants require law enforcement to establish a probable cause to believe a crime has been committed before making the request.

Keep reading

China’s online censors target short videos, artificial intelligence and ‘pessimism’ in latest crackdown

China’s internet censors are targeting short videos that spread “misleading content” as part of its latest online crackdown.

The Cyberspace Administration of China said on Tuesday that it would target short videos that spread rumours about people’s lives or promoted incorrect values such as pessimism – included for the first time – and extremism.

The campaign would also target fake videos generated using artificial intelligence, the watchdog said.

The country’s top censorship body has been running an annual online crackdown known as “Qing Lang”, which means clear and bright, since 2020.

It said this year’s crackdown would benefit people’s mental health and create a healthy space for competition that would help the short video industry develop.

The country’s best known short video platform is Douyin – the Chinese sibling of TikTok – but content is shared on a number of other Chinese social media platforms, including major players such as WeChat and Weibo.

The watchdog said one of the targets of the latest campaign would be content producers who make up stories about social minorities to win public sympathy. It would also crack down on people staging incidents, “making up fake plots and spreading panic”.

Keep reading

Ohio House Lawmakers Take Up GOP Bill To Amend Voter-Approved Marijuana Law As Alternative To Senate Overhaul

Ohio House lawmakers held another committee hearing on a bill to revise the state’s newly enacted marijuana legalization law, hearing additional testimony ahead of an expected vote on Wednesday.

After taking public input on the legislation from Rep. Jamie Callender (R) last week, the House Finance Committee met again on Tuesday to hear from additional advocates and stakeholders as Senate Republicans work to advance a separate revision package that’s sparked significant pushback.

The House bill is considered more palatable to reform supporters, as it’d make less sweeping changes to what voters approved on the November ballot—especially compared to the Senate legislation that initially called for the elimination of home cultivation and an indefinite delay on basic legalization provisions. That latter measure was significantly altered amid criticism last week, but it’s still facing sizable opposition.

Senate President Matt Huffman (R) originally aimed to pass the bill under an emergency prior to legalization taking effect last week, but that didn’t happen according to his timeline. House Speaker Jason Stephens (R), meanwhile, has said he doesn’t see the need to rush amending the initiated statute given that sales won’t begin until later in 2024.

The GOP House and Senate leaders have disagreed on certain procedural issues related to amending the marijuana law such as the timeline for enactment, but they’ve both generally expressed support for the idea of making changes such as revising the tax structure, preventing public consumption and deterring impaired driving.

In the House Finance Committee, members took additional public testimony on Tuesday, hearing from interested parties who expressed concern about issues such as the bill’s continued criminalization of sharing marijuana between adults and the redirection of tax revenue away from equity and toward law enforcement.

“My concern is that, through some of the reforms that I’m seeing being introduced in this legislature, we would be moving from puff-puff-pass to puff-puff-police and that is in total contradiction to what Ohio voters voted in support of,” Cat Packer, vice chair of Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition (CRCC) and director of drug markets and legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), said in testimony to the committee.

Keep reading

House Proposal Would Expand Federal Warrantless Spying Authority

The House of Representatives could vote this week on a bill to greatly expand federal digital surveillance powers—potentially broadening both the scope of electronic communications to be scooped up and giving law enforcement more opportunities to access that data.

Edward Snowden, who exposed parts of this same federal surveillance apparatus in 2013, called the new proposal “the biggest encroachment on your privacy rights since the Patriot Act” in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Civil libertarian groups have roundly criticized the bill and are encouraging lawmakers to vote against it.

That bill, the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2023, is one of two measures aiming to make changes to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that could be brought to the House floor on Tuesday. Section 702, created after 9/11, allows federal intelligence agencies to vacuum up communications between Americans and foreigners. Under some circumstances, law enforcement is allowed to query the Section 702 database, which includes an unknown amount of “incidental” data pulled from Americans’ online communications with foreigners.

Section 702 is set to expire at the end of the year, and recent revelations about how the FBI has misused the spying program have raised hopes that Congress might rein in the program.

Despite its name, however, the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act appears to expand, not reform, the program.

One portion of the bill “vastly expands the universe of U.S. businesses that can be conscripted to aid the government in conducting surveillance,” Elizabeth Goitein, director of the national security program at the Brennan Center, a liberal think tank, posted on X.

Currently, the federal government can compel only businesses that have direct access to digital communications—telecom providers, internet service providers, and the like—to turn over that data to the Section 702 database. Under the terms of the House proposal, however, any business or entity that has access to telecom or internet equipment could be forced to participate in the federal government’s digital spying regime.

“Hotels, libraries, coffee shops, and other places that offer wifi to their customers could be forced to serve as surrogate spies,” writes Goitein.

That change would “effectively overrule” a recent decision from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secret court that reviews America’s spying programs, write Steve Lane and Marc Zwillinger, two lawyers with experience arguing before the FISC.

“The new definition,” Lane and Zwillinger argued in a post on a legal blog connected to Zwillinger’s law firm, “could give the government warrantless access to any communication system in America through which any one-side-foreign communication could be found.”

The FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act would also expand how the government uses its Section 702 database.

Specifically, the bill would add a new provision to authorize Section 702 investigations as part of the process of “vetting of all non-United States persons who are being processed for travel to the United States.”

“This new authority proposes to give immigration services the ability to audit entire communication histories before deciding whether an immigrant can enter the country,” writes India McKinney, director of federal affairs for the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), which opposes the bill. “This is a particularly problematic situation that could cost someone entrance to the United States based on, for instance, their own or a friend’s political opinions—as happened to a Palestinian Harvard student when his social media account was reviewed when coming to the U.S. to start his semester.”

Again, that provision of the bill seems to directly overrule the FISC, which has repeatedly struck down attempts by federal officials to expand Section 702 surveillance to include greater scrutiny of immigrants, McKinney notes.

Keep reading

Living Everywhere in a Carceral Surveillance State

If you live in a Chinese city, or even in London, you are probably so used to surveillance cameras all around you – on lamp posts, the corners of buildings, and so on – that you would hardly bat an eyelid. Yet what contemporary city-denizens take for granted was not always the case, and most people would be surprised to know that surveillance has a long history, and was linked to modes of punishment from early on.

The thinker who brought us the history of punishment, linked with surveillance, was Michel Foucault, who died prematurely in 1984, and whose thesis of ‘panopticism’ I referred to in an earlier post. His work is an inexhaustible source of insight regarding the way in which one enters into a relationship with history – something that is not self-evident, but requires careful consideration of the contingent, usually unpredictable factors which have contributed to the present state of affairs. This insight also opens the way for a critique of current social practices, which may otherwise seem self-justifying and necessary. 

Foucault’s writings on enlightenment suggest that there is a fundamental difference between ‘enlightenment’ in the Kantian sense, which emphasised the universal moment of scientific and philosophical knowledge, and ‘enlightenment’ in the sense of a philosophy of the contemporary present, which would do justice to both the (Kantian) universal as well as what is contingent and particular, which is not subject to historical laws, deterministically conceived.

In his essay, What is enlightenment? (in The Foucault Reader, ed. Rabinow, P., New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 32-50), Foucault argues that Kant’s emphasis on the universal should be amplified by Baudelaire’s characterisation of the modern in terms of a tension between being and becoming (or the universal and the particular), in this way finding the ‘eternal’ (or enduringly valuable) in the transitory, historically contingent moment. For Baudelaire, this amounts to a species of self-invention.

Foucault, however, maintains that such self-invention would enable one to turn Kant’s critique into one that is pertinent for the present time, by inquiring what there is, in what we have been taught to accept as being necessary and universal, which we no longer are, or want to be, thus practising a kind of ‘transgressive’ enlightenment. This, I would like to show, is highly germane to the time in which we find ourselves, and by scrutinising the history that has brought us to our fraught present, we should be in a better position to identify what it is that we no longer want to be.

Keep reading