Tag: police state

Mom Placed on Child Abuse Registry for Letting 13-Year-Old Babysit

When single mom of two and home health aide Alice (a pseudonym) needed to run a brief errand, she tasked her 13-year-old brother (whom she is also the caretaker for) with babysitting her nearly 1-year-old child. For this, she was placed on the state’s child abuse registry.

Mariel Mussack, an attorney with Community Legal Services, told Alice’s story during testimony before the Pennsylvania House Children and Youth Committee in favor of H.B. 1873—known as Reasonable Independence for Children—on October 6. Similar bills have been passed in 11 states to date, clarifying that neglect is when a parent puts their child in obvious, serious danger, not anytime they simply take their eyes off of them. 

As in most of the other states, the Pennsylvania bill has bipartisan sponsors: Rep. Jeanne McNeill (D–Whitehall), who is majority chair of the committee, Rep. Rick Krajewski (D–Philadelphia), and Rep. David Zimmerman (R–Reinholds). Krajewski opened the hearing by noting that he’d grown up with a single mom who worked two or three jobs, and therefore, he had to get himself to school and help care for his younger sister. “It really does chill me to think that, in the eyes of our state statutes, that could be seen as neglect,” Krajewski said. 

Zimmerman recalled growing up on a farm. “We’d be gone all day,” he said. “And we really would look out for each other.” 

Peter Gray, a research professor of developmental psychology at Boston College and a co-founder with me of Let Grow, a nonprofit fighting for childhood independence, testified that an independent childhood helps inoculate kids against despair. 

“Over the last 60 years, we’ve seen a gradual but overall huge decline in children’s opportunities to play, roam, and generally engage in activities independent of adults,” Gray said, adding that “we’ve seen a gradual but overall huge increase in anxiety, depression, and…suicide among young people.” 

That’s due to a shrinking “internal locus of control,” the sense that you can handle things alone, said Gray. The way you build a robust internal locus of control is by being trusted to decide some things for yourself, like how to spend your time, and what you can handle on your own. “But,” Gray said, “we’re not allowing [kids] to do that.”

As constant adult supervision becomes the norm, more and more kids are being reported to the authorities. Diane Redleaf, a civil rights lawyer and Let Grow’s legal consultant, says that 37 percent of American children will be the subject of a hotline call—that number soars to 53 percent for African-American children.

Keep reading

Texas Is Sued Over Digital ID Age Verification Bill

A major technology association is suing the State of Texas over a new law that threatens both privacy and free expression.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2420, which is set to take effect on January 1, 2026.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The group argues that the law forces both app stores and developers to impose invasive ID age checks, obtain parental consent, and label content in state-approved ways that violate the First Amendment.

Under SB 2420, anyone with an app store account would need to complete an age-verification process before downloading or updating applications.

If an app store determines that a user is under 18, that user would be blocked from downloading most apps or making in-app purchases unless a parent gives consent and assumes control of the account.

Minors who cannot link their profiles to a parent or guardian would lose access to app store content entirely.

App developers would also face new rules.

They must classify their apps into multiple age categories and provide written explanations for each rating. Every update, feature addition, or design change would require written notice to the app store.

CCIA says these mandates compel developers to describe their products in ways dictated by the state and pressure companies to collect personal data that users should not have to disclose.

Keep reading

FDR’s “Four Policemen”: The Globalist Blueprint for Endless War and American Subjugation

It is time to expose the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called Four Policemen plan — a sinister scheme concocted by the globalist cabal surrounding the 32nd president to permanently shackle the United States to a role of international enforcer in a world government order. Far from being a noble vision for peace, FDR’s “Four Policemen” was the original blueprint for what would become the United Nations — an unelected, unaccountable body of internationalists dedicated not to liberty, but to global control.

In the midst of the Second World War, even before the guns fell silent, Roosevelt and his cadre of globalist advisors — including Soviet sympathizers such as Alger Hiss — were laying the foundation for a postwar “New World Order.” The heart of this plan was what FDR euphemistically called the “Four Policemen”: the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. These four powers, according to Roosevelt, would act as the guardians of peace, responsible for policing the globe and suppressing any acts of aggression through military might.

Let that sink in: Roosevelt — hailed by modern progressives as a champion of democracy — openly proposed that a small clique of global superpowers should wield exclusive authority to intervene in the affairs of nations, impose sanctions, deploy military force, and determine which conflicts were worthy of attention. Sovereignty? An outdated relic. Consent of the governed? Irrelevant. In FDR’s globalist gospel, only the self-anointed “policemen” mattered.

Keep reading

You Are the Carbon They Want to Reduce: Sandwiches in the UK Now Come With a Daily Carbon Allowance Score

It took only about 80 years for the UK to go from “Keep Calm and Carry On” to full-blown Orwellian Big Brother. The nation plans to institute a digital ID to “help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies.”

What it is, really, is a backdoor way to have control over every aspect of the lives of everyday Britons, including what they eat.

Case in point, food in the UK is now labeled with how much of someone’s “daily dietary carbon allowance” is used up by eating that item.

A sandwich is 8.1% of our “daily allowance.”

The score will be attached to digital IDs. The Left has made it very clear they want to limit what, and how much, we eat in order to “save the planet.”

This is a great way to do that.

Those same Leftists will, of course, be exempt from such rules.

Keep reading

Dover, NJ Implements AI Surveillance, Expanding Facial Recognition and Public Monitoring Systems

Dover, New Jersey, has joined a growing wave of municipalities embedding artificial intelligence into public spaces, advancing a surveillance system that includes facial recognition and automated video analysis across its government buildings.

The town partnered with technology firm Claro to retrofit its existing camera infrastructure with AI tools, avoiding the need for costly new hardware while expanding its monitoring capabilities.

The system brings a range of features into play, including facial recognition, visible weapons detection, and real-time behavioral analytics.

These tools are now active in locations such as the town hall, police department, fire station, and public library.

Town officials say the technology is being used for incident detection, crime prevention, crowd control, traffic monitoring, and illegal dumping enforcement.

“As a small municipality, we don’t have the budget for constant law enforcement presence,” said Mayor James Dodd. “Claro gave us the ability to enhance safety with cutting-edge technology that works with what we already have.”

The rollout reflects a broader trend where small towns turn to algorithmic systems to fill gaps traditionally addressed by human staff.

AI tools, particularly facial recognition, are increasingly being deployed in public settings, sparking ongoing concern about surveillance practices and the erosion of privacy rights.

Councilman Sergio Rodriguez, who helped lead the initiative, emphasized that the project came together through collaboration rather than off-the-shelf sales.

“Claro wasn’t just selling a product,” he said. “They listened to our needs and delivered solutions that worked for the Town of Dover.” He pointed to the technology’s role in optimizing public safety while helping stretch municipal budgets.

“With AI supporting day-to-day operations,” he said, “we can better protect residents and allocate our budget more effectively.”

Claro markets its AI platform as adaptable to existing surveillance systems and suitable for both real-time alerts and forensic investigations.

Keep reading

How the Military Exposed the Tools That Let Authorities Break Into Phones

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) really doesn’t want the public to know what it’s doing with Cellebrite devices, a company that helps law enforcement break into a locked phone. When it announced an $11 million contract with Cellebrite last month, ICE completely redacted the justification for the purchase.

The U.S. Marine Corps has now done the opposite. It published a justification to a public contracting platform, apparently by mistake, for a no-bid contract to continue putting Cellebrite’s UFED/InsEYEts system in the hands of military police. The document is marked “controlled unclassified information” with clear instructions not to distribute it publicly. UFED/InsEYEts “includes capabilities exclusive to Cellebrite and not available from any other company or vendor,” the document claims, before going on to list specific capabilities for breaking into specific devices.

Reason is posting the document below, with phone numbers redacted.

Keep reading

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment’s core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called “welfare check.” They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him. 

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police’s warrantless entry. Apparently, the government’s “reasonable suspicion” that Treavor Case might need “help” was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

And it was not as if obtaining a warrant would have been difficult. A recent Harvard Law Review study found that 93 percent of warrants are approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes. With modern technology, police can draft and submit warrant requests directly from their phones. The officers in Montana had nearly an hour to seek judicial approval. They chose not to.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man’s home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as “community caretakers.” The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended “caretaking” exceptions.

The facts in Montana look nothing like an emergency. Body camera transcripts reveal that officers themselves doubted that Case required immediate aid. One noted that “chances are pretty slim” he needed urgent medical attention. They discussed staging medical personnel outside but decided against it. After forty minutes of hesitation, they declared the situation an “emergency” and broke in anyway.

In any other context, an armed entry without a warrant would be understood as unlawful. The Constitution does not stop at the property line of a gun owner. If a homeowner responds defensively to armed intruders, the law recognizes the basic right of self-defense. What transforms that same scenario into a police action is supposed to be the warrant requirement. Strip that away, and the police have no more right to enter than anyone else.

Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice, however, has sided with Montana. 

Keep reading

UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law

If you’re going to cross an ocean to tell Americans what speech they can and can’t allow, the least you can do is not trip over your own jurisdictional nonsense on the way in.

Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, which has lately decided to try and become an international speech cop, managed to do exactly that.

But when the regulator began sending enforcement letters to small US platforms under its sweeping online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, it probably didn’t expect to trigger a constitutional ambush.

But that’s exactly what it got.

Preston Byrne, one of attorneys representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said Ofcom had been sending “frankly asinine letters under English law.”

His clients, he explained, “are entirely American. All of their operations are American. All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”

Despite this, Ofcom threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”

Byrne responded to Ofcom’s pressure by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was designed not only to challenge Ofcom’s jurisdiction but to force a contradiction into the open.

Byrne said the purpose of the lawsuit was threefold. One, to show the global censors that the resistance in the United States is now prepared to fight back, and they don’t have freedom of action.

Two, to assert hims client’s claims and defenses in a US court, and make the argument in front of a US federal judge.

And the third one was to provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid, which is exactly what they did.”

After the case was filed, Ofcom sent what Byrne called “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”

Ofcom’s written response delivered exactly what Byrne says was needed: an explicit admission that Ofcom doesn’t “think US law applies on US soil and that they’re going to use [the argument of] sovereign immunity.”

This was more than a legal contradiction; it was a political one that directly undercuts the British government’s public assurances.

“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.

In its official notice to 4chan, Ofcom made an extraordinary admission which, in trying to assert its authority, effectively undercut its entire legal position.

The regulator wrote: “We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”

This reveals the fundamental flaw in Ofcom’s claim to authority over American companies.

By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the US government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the US constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce UK speech law against US entities operating solely on US soil.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways: it cannot disclaim the reach of US law while insisting that British law somehow extends across the Atlantic.

If the First Amendment has no force on Ofcom’s actions in the United States, then neither does the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which has no legal effect beyond the UK.

Keep reading

Florida Officials Are Revoking Medical Marijuana IDs From Patients And Caregivers With Drug Convictions Under Law Signed By DeSantis

Florida medical marijuana officials are actively revoking the registrations of patients and caregivers with drug-related criminal records.

The policy is part of broad budget legislation signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). The provisions in question direct the state Department of Health (DOH) to cancel registrations of medical marijuana patients and caregivers if they’re convicted of—or plead guilty or no contest to—criminal drug charges.

The measure says a patient or caregiver will have their registration immediately suspended upon being charged with a covered state drug crime, and the suspension will remain in place until the criminal case reaches a final disposition. DOH officials have authority to reinstate the registration, revoke it entirely or extend the suspension if needed.

Bobbie Smith, director of the Florida Office of Medical Marijuana Use (OMMU), told lawmakers on Wednesday that regulators are already banning people from the medical cannabis program under the new policy.

OMMU has “identified 20 individuals that meet the new requirement for revocation, and there’s roughly 140 that we’re still monitoring as they wait make their way through the criminal justice system,” she said at a hearing of the House Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee in comments first reported by Florida Politics.

Under the law, authorities are required to revoke a person’s registration if the patient or caregiver “was convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendre to, regardless of adjudication, a violation [of state drug law] if such violation was for trafficking in, the sale, manufacture, or delivery of, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance.”

The enacted version of the legislation focuses specifically on production and distribution. It does not contain an earlier restriction from prior versions that would have also revoked registrations for people who merely purchased illegal drugs, including more than 10 grams of marijuana for their own use.

It also clarifies that patients and caregivers have a process to request their registrations be reinstated. That involves submitting a new application “accompanied by a notarized attestation by the applicant that he or she has completed all the terms of incarceration, probation, community control, or supervision related to the offense.”

It’s not clear from the plain language of the revised bill whether it will impact only future criminal cases involving medical marijuana patients and caregivers or whether DOH would need to review the records of existing program registrants and revoke registrations of an untold number of Floridians with past drug convictions.

Keep reading

Nassau won’t have to pay back $400M in illegal red-light camera fees as judge oddly claims payments were ‘voluntary’

Nassau County won’t have to pay back $400 million in illegal red-light camera fees as a judge bizarrely ruled drivers voluntarily paid the fines — even though they were threatened with getting their licenses suspended.

The “outrageous” ruling by County Supreme Court Justice Thomas Rademaker has the plaintiffs’ attorney calling for the judge to be removed from the case while Nassau administrators hold onto improper administrative fees it took in from drivers for over a decade.

“Judge Rademacher issued a radical decision and ruled, despite Nassau County’s illegality, its citizens paid voluntarily,” attorney David Raimondo, who represents drivers in cases against Nassau and Suffolk County, said of the decision.

“This ruling was so far off from the law that you can’t even comprehend it,” he added, claiming the judge issued the ruling to protect the county from its massive liability.

Raimondo questioned how the judge could view the payments as “voluntary” when Nassau threatened to revoke licenses and registrations, boot and tow people’s cars — and even put a mark on credit reports if the fee is not paid.

Keep reading