Tag: police state

Who Will Protect Us From the Protectors?

In the same week in which President Donald Trump announced that he was federalizing 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers and dispatching them to the streets of Portland, he quietly signed a Presidential National Security Memorandum that purports to federalize policing. The Memorandum, just like the federalization of troops in Oregon, completely disregards constitutional safeguards against such practices.

Here is the backstory.

When James Madison and his colleagues crafted the Constitution and shortly thereafter the Bill of Rights, they intentionally created a limited federal government. They confined the federal government to the 16 discrete powers granted to Congress. Those powers identify areas of governance uniquely federal. Conspicuously and intentionally absent is public safety. To clarify this, the 10th Amendment articulates the reservation by the states of powers not granted to the feds. This relationship is called federalism.

Constitutional scholars often refer to the powers retained by the states as the police power. The use of the word “police” here doesn’t mean police officers on the streets. It means the inherent and never-delegated-away powers of the states to govern for the health, safety, welfare and morality of all persons in those states.

In his famous Bank Speech, in which Madison argued brilliantly but unsuccessfully for a textualist understanding of the Constitution — he was opposing the creation of the First National Bank of the United States essentially because it was not authorized by the Constitution — he laid out the principles of limited government. He reminded those in Congress who had just sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification that they did not constitute a general legislature that can right any wrong or regulate any behavior or intrude upon any relationship. Rather, their powers were limited to federal matters.

Merely because an area of governance is reflected nationally does not make the area federal. Chief among these is the police power.

Keep reading

Swiss Voters Adopt Digital-ID Scheme

In a nationwide referendum on Sunday, Swiss voters narrowly adopted a digital-ID proposal put forth by the nation’s federal government.

The proposal, formally titled the “Federal Act on Electronic Proof of Identity and Other Electronic Evidence (E-ID Act, BGEID),” passed with 50.39 percent of the popular vote. Notably, a majority of cantons (the Swiss equivalent to states in the United States) voted against the proposal (15.5 against, versus 7.5 in favor, including half cantons). Since the referendum did not involve a constitutional amendment, however, the proposal did not require a majority of cantons to pass.

The now-approved measure creates a government-managed digital-identification system. Under its provisions, users’ data will be stored on their smartphones and used only for identity verification (as opposed to broader purposes), and requires only the minimum information to be revealed to a third party (e.g., when purchasing alcohol at a store). The digital ID is optional; Swiss citizens may continue to use the county’s existing national ID card.

Second Attempt

Sunday’s referendum was the federal government’s second attempt at implementing a digital-ID system. Voters rejected a previous proposal in March 2021, with 64.4 percent voting against it, mainly due to concerns about users’ data falling in the hands of private companies, which would have managed the originally proposed program.

Although the Swiss Federal Assembly (parliament) modified its second proposal to address those concerns, any digital ID poses a fundamental threat to individual freedom and privacy, and would massively increase government’s ability to track citizens’ every movement. Furthermore, digital IDs are part of the United Nations’ totalitarian Agenda 2030 plan to impose central planning on a global scale, and the UN and Bill Gates are working to implement a “digital public infrastructure.”

Additionally, conservative groups opposed to the measure argued that a digital ID would eventually become mandatory, and that any system still risked handing over citizens’ data to large companies and being used for purposes beyond simple identity verification.

Unexpected Opposition

Despite the measure passing, Sunday’s referendum result was significantly narrower than expected. The proposal passed the Federal Assembly by wide margins — 170-25 in the National Council (lower house) and 43-1 in the Council of States (upper house) — with only members of the conservative Swiss People’s Party and two minor affiliated parties objecting.

Although opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the legislation, polling suggested that nearly three-fifths of voters would support it. Ultimately, the measure barely passed, and was rejected by majorities in most cantons.

Swiss media and analysts saw the narrow passage as resulting from high turnout by conservative opponents of the measure. Swiss public broadcaster Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen analyzed that the result “should give the Federal Council and the parliamentary majority pause for thought,” and “is not a good sign for other digitization projects in Switzerland.”

Dangers of Democracy

Sunday’s referendum illustrates the dangers of democracy, specifically of the majority imposing its will on the minority, even if it infringes on the latter’s individual freedom. Although opposition to a digital ID was widespread — voters in a majority of cantons opposed the concept — this potentially far-reaching policy became law with only a 50.4-percent popular majority.

Switzerland, whose current system incorporates direct democracy, holds nationwide referendums up to four times a year. Despite now being accepted as foundational to the Swiss political system, nationwide referendums were virtually nonexistent before the 1870s, more than 20 years after Switzerland became a federal state. Notably, once Switzerland adopted federal direct democracy, it quickly inspired multiple U.S. states to do the same in the form of “citizens’ initiatives.”

The U.S. Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of democracy, and instead created the U.S. federal government as a constitutional republic. For example, James Madison wrote in The Federalist, No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The word “democracy” is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution — and this is intentional. In contrast, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution requires each state to have “a Republican Form of Government.”

Keep reading

DHS Probe Uncovers Biden’s TSA Put Mask Refusers on Terror-Linked No-Fly List

An internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigation has revealed that during the Biden administration, some American citizens who refused to comply with COVID-19 mask mandates were placed on federal no-fly lists.

The investigation documented that 19 Americans were flagged between September 30, 2021, and October 25, 2021. 

More than half of those individuals received no-fly designations, barring them from boarding domestic flights during that period.

The no-fly list is traditionally reserved for individuals suspected of terrorism or posing threats to national security. 

Its use against citizens resisting mask mandates raised questions inside and outside the agency.

The probe found that at least 11 of the individuals remained on federal watchlists until April 2022. 

That same month, a federal court struck down the federal mask mandate, effectively requiring the Biden administration to stop enforcing mask requirements on airplanes.

The revelations were first reported by Fox News, which obtained details of the DHS investigation. 

The disclosures triggered swift responses from agency officials and members of Congress.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a statement sharply criticizing the actions taken by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

“Biden’s TSA wildly abused their authority,” Noem said.

Keep reading

Oregon Officials Ask Federal Court To Reverse Ruling That Blocked Marijuana Industry Labor Law Approved By Voters

Oregon officials are asking a federal appeals court to reverse a judge’s ruling that struck down a voter-approved law to require licensed marijuana businesses to enter into labor peace agreements with workers and mandate that employers remain neutral in discussions around unionization.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last week, attorneys for Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D), Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) Dennis Doherty and Craig Prins urged a review of the “constitutional challenge” to the state law.

The officials previously provided notice that they’d be contesting the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon decision back in June.

After two marijuana businesses—Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary—initially filed a lawsuit in the district court challenging the implementation of Measure 119, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the law unconstitutionally restricts free speech and violates the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the currently paused law, a marijuana businesses that was unable to provide proof of a labor peace agreement could have been subject a denial or revocation of their license.

Keep reading

Nebraska Officials Miss Medical Marijuana Licensing Deadline As Regulators Resign

Supporters have questioned for months whether the voter-authorized Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission would meet its October 1 deadline to grant its first licenses.

The answer is no: The commission will miss that deadline by at least one week, in the wake of two resignations sought and received by Gov. Jim Pillen (R) of liquor regulators who jointly served on the medical cannabis board.

The Medical Cannabis Commission confirmed the new timeline Tuesday at a meeting originally meant to approve the first cultivator licenses and move toward the first steps of a medical cannabis supply chain in the state. However, two of the five cannabis commissioners resigned Monday, both of whom served on a three-member team evaluating and scoring cultivator applications received by September 23.

Now, the remaining commissioners will independently review applications by next Tuesday, when commissioners will meet to decide whether to award up to four cultivator licenses.

“We would just ask for your understanding that this is a situation that none of us created in this, where we’re at right here,” Commissioner Lorelle Mueting of Gretna said Tuesday. “We would just hope you understand that we’re working through this the best that we can to make sure that we get the licenses issued in a timely manner and evaluated and issued in time.”

Keep reading

Feds Call Marijuana A ‘Deadly’ Drug And Say Even Medical Cannabis Has ‘Serious Consequences’

Federal officials are calling marijuana a “deadly” drug—touting their efforts to seize it and other illegal substances—while also warning that possessing cannabis, even for medical use, carries “serious consequences.”

As President Donald Trump considers a cannabis rescheduling proposal—and after he posted a video on the health benefits of CBD—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are sending a conflicting message about cannabis.

In a press release about an August “surge” in drug seizures that was sent out on Tuesday, DHS said that CBP, as part of its “mission to stop harmful drugs from entering the United States,” was announcing that “seizures of deadly drugs—including fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana—increased substantially from July to August.”

That rhetoric as it concerns marijuana departs from how most people view and compare the plant with the other listed substances that can be associated with overdose deaths. By the federal government’s own admission in the past, cannabis has not on its own caused a fatal overdose.

“Cartels are increasingly desperate to keep doing business, but the Trump Administration is stopping their deadly operations,” CBP said.

While looping together marijuana and drugs like fentanyl might raise eyebrows, cartel-related crime associated with cannabis has been a consistent talking point in Congress. In fact, it was the subject of a House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, & Accountability hearing last month that focused on a so-called “invasion” of Chinese and Mexican cartels via illicit cannabis operations.

“Secretary Noem and the Department of Homeland Security are fulfilling President Trump’s promise to make America safe again by dismantling drug cartels and stopping the flow of deadly drugs into American communities,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Thanks to President Trump, fewer American families will be torn apart by addiction, fewer lives will be lost to overdoses, and fewer profits will go to violent cartels.”

Separately, CBP posted a reminder on social media on Tuesday that cautioned travelers against bringing cannabis across the border.

“Attention, travelers! Did you know that marijuana is still a controlled substance under U.S. federal law?” it said. “This means that selling, possessing, producing, or distributing both medical and recreational cannabis is illegal!”

Keep reading

Michigan Marijuana Industry Rallies Against Tax Hike Proposal That’s Advancing In The Legislature

The proposed new wholesale tax on marijuana products to fund road repairs in the next state budget and years down the road is much too high and would result in job losses for a booming Michigan cannabis industry, advocates and lawmakers said Tuesday as they rallied for a lower tax rate.

At least two Democratic lawmakers who attended the rally—state Reps. Donavan McKinney of Detroit and Mike McFall of Hazel Park—also signaled that they were working behind the scenes to get that rate much lower before a final vote is taken.

At present, both McFall and McKinney said they would vote no on the final budget if the rate remained.

Michigan lawmakers reached a loose framework to fund the government last week, but it included a new 24 percent wholesale tax on products sold at dispensaries across the state. That sent the cannabis industry and their allies into a frenzy as they warned that such a tax would hamstring the industry’s growth and result in fewer jobs.

On Tuesday afternoon, lawmakers were still in the throes of hammering out a final budget plan, with no clear end in sight despite signals that the government would stay open and not shut down on Wednesday when the new fiscal year begins (though by the end of the day lawmakers passed a temporary budget extension through October 8).

Still, the money for the Legislature’s road funding plan had to come from somewhere, whether that was from schools—which advocates rallied against Tuesday—or from the new proposed tax on pot for potholes.

Those working for or on behalf of the cannabis industry gathered for a rally on the Capitol steps in Lansing to send lawmakers and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), who had earlier in the year proposed a more than 30 percent tax, a clear message: Keep off their grass.

“Our industry is not their piggy bank. Our wallets are not their budget overruns,” said Mike DiLaura, CCO and general counsel for House of Dank, one of many cannabis companies operating in Michigan. “It is our time, not just as an industry, but as citizens of this great state, to put our feet down and say, ‘enough is enough.’”

DiLaura continued by saying that the industry has, since recreational cannabis was legalized in 2020, raised nearly $2 billion in taxes for Michigan over the last five years.

“But they say it’s not enough,” DiLaura said. “When will it ever be enough?”

Several other advocates and industry leaders spoke at the rally, all mentioning that even if they lost the battle to either stop the tax hike or reduce it, they would continue the fight in court or seek a full repeal of the law down the pike.

The rally also featured two allies in McKinney and McFall.

Both said they voted against the proposal in House Bill 4951 when it passed the House last week, noting that their communities have greatly benefited from recreational cannabis shops and associated businesses like grow operations.

“Hazel Park was all in on marijuana from the very beginning. As some of you might know, we even gave Tommy Chong the key to the city at one point,” McFall said. “But what a lot of people don’t realize is how this is going to impact local municipalities. They’re talking about cutting revenue sharing, which is the money that goes back from the state. This is also going to impact that.”

McFall said Hazel Park got half a million in tax dollars last year, and that money helped pay for emergency services and other amenities.

Keep reading

‘Be still’: State trooper punched disabled man he knew was suffering a seizure, dragged him across concrete, lawsuit says

A man has sued a North Carolina state trooper for allegedly punching and dragging him across concrete after suffering an epileptic seizure that apparently caused him to crash his car.

Thomas Simmons, who says he suffers from epilepsy, is accusing Sgt. Ashley Smith with the North Carolina State Highway Patrol of disability-based discrimination, using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and even falsely indicating he was driving impaired.

Simmons was 44 years old when, on May 25, 2024, he was driving a car on Highway 33 in Greenville as part of his job delivering items to customers for Walmart. According to the lawsuit, he began having an epileptic seizure, lost consciousness and control, sideswiped another car and crashed into a utility pole.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

A witness called 911, and Smith responded to the scene. When he got there, a witness told the officer that the driver, Simmons, “appeared to be having a seizure,” per the lawsuit. Greenville police officers also responded to the crash site.

Smith is said to have made statements “indicating he understood” Simmons was suffering from a seizure, such as, “Notify Greenville PD, I believe somebody advised that the subject’s possibly having a seizure.” When a bystander told Smith, “He’s seizing,” after Smith stepped out of his vehicle, the trooper replied with the same words, “He’s seizing,” per the lawsuit.

Furthermore, according to Simmons, Smith requested the man’s hospital records the next month. In his report, Smith wrote that when he found Simmons, he “was slumped over and appeared to be suffering from what I originally thought was a seizure or medical condition based on what witnesses on scene were telling me and what I was observing from him.”

Smith approached Simmons’ car and saw him “convulsing inside his vehicle,” leading him to break the front passenger-side window and attempt to make contact with the man. “Hey brother, you alright? S—t. Hey man, be still, brother. Be still,” he reportedly said.

However, when Smith backed away — despite not noticing any drugs in the vehicle — he told onlookers, “Looks like a drug problem. Y’all step on back,” per the lawsuit, which stated Simmons was incapacitated, moaning and crying unintelligibly.

“Hey man, what’s your name, brother?” Smith reportedly asked, again attempting to communicate with Simmons. He managed to get the door open, prompting Simmons to “woozily” rise to his feet. Smith apparently did not like that.

“Don’t get out,” he allegedly said. “Hey, I’m gonna hurt you, man.” The trooper is said to have repeated this threat as Simmons “did not respond” to his commands, and after the second time, Smith “delivered a forceful, closed fist strike directly to Plaintiff’s face,” the lawsuit states.

Keep reading

Ron Paul On ‘The Real’ Jan. 6th Coup

In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”

The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.

While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.

Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.

Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?

In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”

Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”

In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.

Keep reading

Britain’s policing minister punts facial recog nationwide

The government is to encourage police forces across England and Wales to adopt live facial recognition (LFR) technology, with a minister praising its use by the London’s Metropolitan Police in a suburb in the south of the city.

Policing minister Sarah Jones confirmed the UK government is consulting on guidance on where, when, and how police forces can use LFR with publication due later this year. “What we’ve seen in Croydon is that it has worked,” she told a fringe event at the Labour party conference on September 29, referring to the Met’s installation of permanent LFR cameras in the town.

“We just need to make sure it’s clear what the technology is going to be useful for going forward. If we are going to use it more, if we do want to roll it out across the country, what are the parameters?” she added. “Live facial recognition is a really good tool that has led to arrests that wouldn’t have come otherwise and it’s very, very valuable.”

In August, the Home Office said that seven more police forces will start using ten new vans kitted out with LFR technology, in addition to existing use by the Metropolitan Police in London and South Wales Police. At the time it said the two forces have used LFR to make 580 arrests over the previous 12 months.

Keep reading