Tag: police state

German States Expand Police Powers to Train AI Surveillance Systems with Personal Data

Several German states are preparing to widen police powers by allowing personal data to be used in the training of surveillance technologies.

North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg are introducing legislative changes that would let police feed identifiable information such as names and facial images into commercial AI systems.

Both drafts permit this even when anonymization or pseudonymization is bypassed because the police consider it “impossible” or achievable only with “disproportionate effort.”

Hamburg adopted similar rules earlier this year, and its example appears to have encouraged other regions to follow. These developments together mark a clear move toward normalizing the use of personal information as fuel for surveillance algorithms.

The chain reaction began in Bavaria, where police in early 2024 tested Palantir’s surveillance software with real personal data.

The experiment drew objections from the state’s data protection authority, but still served as a model for others.

Hamburg used the same idea in January 2025 to amend its laws, granting permission to train “learning IT systems” on data from bystanders. Now Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia plan to adopt nearly identical language.

In North Rhine-Westphalia, police would be allowed to upload clear identifiers such as names or faces into commercial systems like Palantir’s and to refine behavioral or facial recognition programs with real, unaltered data.

Bettina Gayk, the state’s data protection officer, warned that “the proposed regulation addresses significant constitutional concerns.”

She argued that using data from people listed as victims or complainants was excessive and added that “products from commercial providers are improved with the help of state-collected and stored data,” which she found unacceptable.

The state government has embedded this expansion of surveillance powers into a broader revision of the Police Act, a change initially required by the Federal Constitutional Court.

The court had previously ruled that long-term video monitoring under the existing law violated the Basic Law.

Instead of narrowing these powers, the new draft introduces a clause allowing police to “develop, review, change or train IT products” with personal data.

This wording effectively enables continued use of Palantir’s data analysis platform while avoiding the constitutional limits the court demanded.

Across North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg, and Hamburg, the outcome will be similar: personal data can be used for training as soon as anonymization is judged to be disproportionately difficult, with the assessment left to police discretion.

Gayk has urged that the use of non-anonymized data be prohibited entirely, warning that the exceptions are written so broadly that “they will ultimately not lead to any restrictions in practice.”

Baden-Württemberg’s green-black coalition plans to pass its bill this week.

Keep reading

Global Transformation of Food Systems – The Killing Off of Food Sovereignty

A significant event took place last month at the Stockholm Food Forum, based on a recently published ‘global health’ document by ‘EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0’ calling for a top down “global transformation of food systems”.

It was presided over by none other than Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director General of The World Health Organisation, with the close support of foundations – including Bill Gates, Bloomberg and Rockerfeller, as well as corporate giants Nestle, Cargill and Unilever – with The World Economic Forum also featuring high on the list of backers.

Tedros Ghebreyesus stated that the central theme of the gathering was the need for “a top down, inclusive and equitable transformation of food systems” and the need for countries ‘to regulate food production and consumption’.

I think we know what he meant by this – the late Dr Henry Kissinger declared a few decades earlier,

“He who controls the food controls the people.”

But the official public relations message spins this global control heist as a push for the ‘better health’ of the world, postulating what sounds like a fashionable list of general dietary improvements as recommended by ‘The One Health Initiative’: less red meat, fish, eggs, dairy products and a reduction of highly processed foods – as well as outright bans and health warnings printed on packaging, like with cigarettes. 

The end goal is stated to be ‘the integration of food policy with trade, agricultural and climate policies’.

Well, trade, agricultural and climate policies are already an inpenetrable disaster, so food is to be locked into the same prison camp.

Yes, Mr Tedros, admirable proclamations for the unwary, but we have woken-up to your spin on what constitutes ‘world health’ and we know that what you actually want to tell us – because it’s completely in line with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Agenda 2030, Green New Deal and the Net Zero fantasy, all of which you already directly or indirectly preside over.

This, as you know, includes the end of farming as we know it (Methane/CO2 releases) and the removal from the land of the last truly independent human beings – farmers – who just might resist being told what to do by a bunch of deluded technocrats and psychotic power obsessed criminals.

The Lancet report, upon which this conference was based, highlights the coming role of digital tools in monitoring citizens’ diets and lifestyles, stating that soon it will be possible to introduce CO2 emission tracking systems linked to food consumption and ways of identifying compliance with nutritional recommendations. 

Well, well, that certainly has a familiar ring about it.

Could the authors possibly be referring to the need for ‘Smart Cities’ to act as ‘reservations’ for those swept up in the moral crusade to rid the planet of all who fail to comply with the cult’s preplanned hunger games?

No – Gates, Tedros, Cargill, Nestle and the WEF only have humanitarian motivations behind their wish to be in control of the transformation of food systems. I must apologise for allowing any such thought to come to my mind.

Keep reading

The Department of Defense Cannot Claim Ignorance Regarding Their Legal Violations During the COVID Era

Laws were clearly broken through the oppressive enforcement and administration of the military’s COVID-19 shot, yet to this day, no one is willing to acknowledge which specific laws were transgressed.

Last month, The Gateway Pundit brought attention to the fact that the Department of War continues to ignore multiple inquiries and FOIA requests.

They refuse to acknowledge that 10 U.S. Code § 1107a acts as a legal basis showing that the implementation of the COVID-19 shot mandate was illegal, even in light of the War Secretary’s public declaration deeming it “unlawful.” If something is considered unlawful, then a law or laws must have been violated? So, why do they refuse to name the law(s) that were broken?

10 U.S. Code § 1107a “[codifies] that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product.” Regarding the administration of a product authorized for emergency use, such as the previously required COVID-19 shot, only the President has the authority to waive this federal code. Former President Joe Biden did not to waive it.

So, who violated the law? And, perhaps more crucially, who in this world is allowed to break the law and escape without consequences? Where is the accountability? That’s the question on the minds of service members and veterans.

The author conducted a survey involving more than five dozen members of the military who are currently serving, representing all branches of the military. They were asked about their references to 10 U.S. Code § 1107a in their objections to receiving the 2021 COVID-19 shot.

Both their original requests for accommodation or exemption, as well as their subsequent appeals, were blanketly denied. For many, their careers were ultimately preserved only due to a federal injunction or the later rescission of the mandate on January 10, 2023.

Keep reading

Privileged Marxist Streamer’s Pro-China Propaganda Backfires Spectacularly When He Experiences the Cold Reality of the Communist Chinese Regime

One of the most loathed and privileged ‘influencers’ in America got a reality check overseas while attempting to spread Marxist lies to millions of Americans.

As Newsweek reported, wealthy communist streamer Hasan Piker and several of his influencer friends visited the People’s Republic of China this week. The purpose behind the trip was to brainwash Piker’s low-IQ audience into believing the authoritarian regime was an ideal counter to America, which Piker has regularly disparaged.

Part of their trip involved attending an event held at Tiananmen Square in Beijing honoring Chairman Mao Zedong, an evil dictator reportedly responsible for the deaths of up to 65 MILLION Chinese people. This is where Piker’s trip took an ironic and deserved turn.

One of Piker’s comrades then made a critical mistake while at Tiananmen Square; he held up a meme depicting Piker as Mao, accompanied by the following text: “Closely follow the great leader Chairman Mao forward in the revolution!”

The Chinese police were not amused and immediately took action.

WATCH:

BREAKING: Chinese security police harassed Hasan Piker while he was live streaming in Tiananmen Square.

Hasan’s live stream went down for 10 minutes after Chinese security officials saw Hasan hold up a Chairman Mao meme on his phone.

They immediately pulled his entire crew… pic.twitter.com/qjjXzEkZJy

— Drew Pavlou (@DrewPavlou) November 11, 2025

The police detained Piker and his comrades, confiscated the phone depicting the Mao meme, and reviewed the image and footage. Piker groveled to the Chinese, claiming he was not mocking Mao but was instead a huge admirer of the murderous tyrant.

Satisfied with his plea, the cops let Piker and his buddies go.

Despite this obvious act of tyranny on the part of the Chinese, Piker learned absolutely nothing from the incident.

Keep reading

Federal THC ban sends hemp companies scrambling

The Senate late Monday passed a funding package that would reopen the government and fund the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. Tucked into the funding bill is a provision that would re-criminalize many of the intoxicating hemp-derived products that were legalized by the 2018 Farm Bill.   

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) waged a last-minute fight to try to keep the provision out, threatening to drag out the process of debating the underlying bill until he got a vote on an amendment to strip the language.  

He got the vote on Monday; Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) were the only Republicans who voted in favor. 

“The bill, as it now stands, overrides the regulatory frameworks of several states, cancels the collective decisions of hemp consumers and destroys the livelihoods of hemp farmers,” Paul said on the floor ahead of the vote. “And it couldn’t come at a worse time for America’s farmers. Times are tough for our farmers.” 

The provision “prevents the unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including Delta-8, from being sold online, in gas stations, and corner stores, while preserving non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products,” according to a Senate Appropriations Committee summary. 

The proposal was first included in the House’s funding bill for the Department of Agriculture, but it was removed from the Senate version over the summer following a disagreement between Paul and his fellow Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.  

Hemp industry representatives and lobbyists have spent months campaigning against the language. Many said they were caught by surprise when the funding bill text was unveiled on Sunday.  

McConnell was a champion of legalizing hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill. But he’s since soured on what he says is a “loophole” that companies use to take legal amounts of THC (or tetrahydrocannabinol) from hemp and turn it into intoxicating substances.  

Keep reading

Why Is Congress Moving To Ban The Hemp Products That Saved My Son’s Life?

Before my son, Austin, was even five years old, he had been prescribed a series of pharmaceuticals for his epilepsy—opioids, benzodiazepines, rufinamide and more. That continued for years. The side effects were absolutely awful. The sheer number and potency nearly killed him several times, but they never stopped his daily seizures.

By the time he was eleven, his body was shutting down from the daily pills that had hideous physical, emotional and mental repercussions. While he was on life support, the doctors told us that if the pharmaceutical damage to his organs didn’t kill him within two years, the seizures would.

“Just take him home,” the doctors said, “there’s nothing more we can do here.” It was the most terrifying, infuriating, overwhelming moment of my life. The doctors were giving up on my son because the pharmaceuticals they had been prescribing for years had done more damage than they could repair and the seizures remained, worsened.

We couldn’t just watch our son die. We refused to accept that, we had no idea what we were going to do, what we had to do, but we knew we needed to do something for Austin. Whatever it took to help him, that was our mission.

There was a lot of information on hemp, CBD, medical marijuana gaining traction in the news with doctors and scientists speaking in favor of its potential. But my husband was a fireman in our beloved hometown, and trying plant medicines could make him a felon. Our entire family would be at risk. We could lose everything, go to jail and lose Austin.

That refusal to give up, and the desperate attempt to find lawful options, led our family to uproot our lives in Oklahoma and move to Colorado—one of the only states where families could legally access hemp and cannabis as medicine in 2014.

Now after our years-long battle to give children like Austin lawful access to this medicine, to give other parents hope when there is none, Congress is poised to re-criminalize this plant and again put hundreds of thousands of patients, and the people that love them, in jeopardy.

Keep reading

Dem-run city hires inspectors to snoop in residents’ garbage cans to make sure they’re recycling properly

Residents in a California city can expect to see trash inspectors lifting their garbage cans in the early morning hours as the city continues to crack down on recycling. 

Officials are sending teams of Compliance Officers or ‘lid lifters’ to walk through neighborhoods before trash collection and monitor whether residents are properly sorting their trash and recycling. 

The initiative in San Diego was launched following the passage of a law in the California State Senate (SB 1383), which established a new organic waste recycling program. 

The city will not issue citations to those who violate the recycling rules, but instead will place an ‘oops’ tag on the bin, notifying the owner that they made a mistake. 

Some bins may have a ‘do not collect’ sticker on them, which requires homeowners to sift through their trash and call the city for a new pickup.  

The lid lifters won’t be sifting through garbage cans and are only tasked with inspecting what they can see after looking inside the bins. 

City Waste Reduction Program Manager Alexander Galasso told local ABC affiliate, KGTV: ‘Waste doesn’t end when you come to the trash can.’

‘There is a life after waste and we want to make sure that these are sorted correctly, because not only does it impact our staff and trucks, but it impacts what goes into our landfill.’

Keep reading

Time to Pay Attention: Europe Just Eviscerated Monetary Privacy, and It’s Coming Here Next

By 2027, the European Union will have completed the most invasive overhaul of its financial system in modern history. Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, cash transactions above €10,000 will be illegal—no matter if it’s a private sale, a used car, or a family heirloom. 

“Persons trading in goods or providing services may accept or make a payment in cash only up to an amount of EUR 10 000 or the equivalent in national or foreign currency, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several linked operations which appear to be linked.” — Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Article 80, paragraph 1

Simultaneously, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) forces all crypto service providers to implement full-blown surveillance via mandatory identity verification and reporting. An anonymous Bitcoin transfer? That window is closing. And rounding out the trifecta is the European Central Bank’s digital euro, which promises privacy—just not too much of it.

This isn’t a proposal. It’s happening. And if you think it’s just about catching criminals, you haven’t been paying attention.

The justification, as always, is safety. European officials cite €700 billion in annual money laundering as the reason for the crackdown, framing the new rules as a bold stand against crime and corruption. But what they’re building isn’t a net—it’s a cage. These laws don’t distinguish between a cartel kingpin and a retiree who prefers cash. They treat every transaction like a threat, every citizen like a suspect, and every private interaction as a problem to be solved by surveillance.

Keep reading

Digital Money | The Permission to Participate, No-Escape Economy | A Tool Of Behaviour Control

For generations, money was something people held in their hands — a tangible symbol of work, value, and exchange. Today, money is becoming something else entirely: a digital leash. The transformation is happening quietly, without consent, and most people will not recognize what has been built until the gate locks behind them.

A new financial order is emerging — one where central banks, not markets, determine who can participate in the economy. It is a system that promises security and stability, while constructing the most sophisticated control mechanism in human history.

This is the no-escape economy, and its architecture rests on three pillars: debt, digital money, and total surveillance.

Debt: The Original Chain


Debt used to be a tool. Today it is a cage.

Nations no longer tax their populations before spending — they borrow from private central banks. Corporations do not save capital to expand — they leverage borrowing. Families do not save for homes or cars — they finance everything on credit. Debt is no longer an exception in the economy; it is the foundation.

Once a society becomes dependent on debt, freedom becomes conditional. Governments rely on central banks to survive. Corporations rely on lenders. Individuals rely on credit. And whoever controls the debt controls the debtor.

A debtor society cannot say no. It can only comply.

Keep reading

Trump Pardons Mountain Runner Michelino Sunseri, Who Was Prosecuted for Using an Unapproved Trail

“In an unbelievable twist that even Hollywood couldn’t write,” mountain runner Michelino Sunseri announced on Facebook yesterday, “I woke up this morning to find out I’ve been given a PRESIDENTIAL PARDON from Donald J. Trump.” Thus ends what Sunseri facetiously described as “the trail trial of the century”—his prosecution for taking an unauthorized route while ascending and descending Grand Teton in record time last year.

Sunseri’s case attracted attention as an example of overcriminalization—in particular, the ways that general statutes authorizing criminal penalties interact with a sprawling federal regulatory code to entrap people who break the law without realizing it. That description pretty clearly applied to Sunseri, who provided the evidence that led to his prosecution by posting a map of his 13-mile Grand Teton route on social media.

On his way down, Sunseri briefly took a quarter-mile path known as “the old climber’s trail” that had been used by six of seven previous Grand Teton record holders. As Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox noted in March, “tour guides who charge hefty sums frequently lead hikers up the same route,” which WyoFile described as “a historic trail so well-used that it’s become a skinny singletrack.”

The National Park Service (NPS) nevertheless considered that trail “closed,” although it notified the public of that designation only via two small and ambiguous signs that could easily have been misinterpreted. As the NPS saw it, Sunseri therefore had violated 36 CFR 21(b), which says a park superintendent “may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system.” It adds that “leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited.”

The regulation says nothing about criminal penalties, which are separately authorized by 16 USC 551. That law says violations of “rules and regulations” governing the use of public and national forests “shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.”

By authorizing prosecution for agency-defined offenses, Congress has created a bewildering situation in which the average American cannot reasonably be expected to know when he is committing a federal crime. The Code of Federal Regulations is so vast and obscure that even experts can only guess at the number of criminal penalties it authorizes—at least 300,000, they think.

“Many of these regulatory crimes are ‘strict liability’ offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime,” Trump noted in a May 9 executive order. “This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it.”

Trump said federal prosecutors generally should eschew criminal charges for regulatory violations based on strict liability and focus on cases where the evidence suggests the defendant knowingly broke the rules. Trump also instructed federal agencies to “explicitly describe” conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes.

After Trump issued that order, the NPS, which initially recommended Sunseri’s prosecution, reconsidered, saying a plea deal offered by the government, which included a five-year ban from Grand Teton National Park as well as a fine, amounted to “an overcriminalization based on the gravity of the offense.” But federal prosecutors in Wyoming, where that park is located, were undeterred. They proceeded with a two-day bench trial that ended on May 21.

After U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie Hambrick found Sunseri guilty in September, prosecutors offered to drop the case in exchange for 60 hours of community service. The U.S. Attorney’s Office described that retreat as “an evolution of what is right,” saying the decision “was made to preserve prosecutive and judicial resources while upholding the best interests of the public and the justice system.”

Hambrick was irked, telling Ed Bushnell, one of Sunseri’s attorneys: “It’s an interesting message you send to the public. If you whine and cry hard enough, you get your way.” But she said she would not decide whether to accept the belated deal until after a hearing on November 18.

Trump’s pardon obviates the need for that hearing. And contrary to Hambrick’s take, it sends a positive message—unlike his pardons for Capitol rioters, corrupt public officials who abused their powers for personal gain, allies in his fight to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, or other supporters with dubious cases for clemency. Sunseri’s pardon is consistent with Trump’s avowed concern about overcriminalization, which was also reflected in his May 28 pardons for two Florida diving instructors who were convicted of federal felonies after they freed sharks they mistakenly thought had been caught illegally.

Keep reading