Tag: police state

BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDER STRIPS AMERICANS OF THEIR RIGHTS IF THEY ‘DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY’ AID RUSSIA

Joe Biden last month quietly signed a ridiculously broad executive order to allow the government to “deprive American citizens and organizations of their rights and property by arbitrarily linking those persons to real, imagined, or vaguely defined activities of the Russian government,” the American Thinker reports.

From The American Thinker, “Executive Order Canceling the Constitution”:

On April 15, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Blocking Property with Respect to Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation. Contrary to its title, this EO is not about Russia. It is designed to allow the Biden administration to deprive American citizens and organizations of their rights and property by arbitrarily linking those persons to real, imagined, or vaguely defined activities of the Russian government.

The Biden administration unilaterally makes the determination and requires neither criminal acts nor intent. The punishment is blocking assets and a prohibition on any dealing with the accused person. Spouses and adult children of individuals found guilty by accusation under this EO are punished, too.

The EO was preceded by some distracting maneuvers, both diplomatic (hostile rhetoric toward Russia) and military (sending naval ships toward the Black Sea and recalling them back, as if dealing with Russian threats). Thus, many people assumed that the EO was directed at Russia, and completely missed the fact that it is directed at dissent here, at home.

Over the past four years, the Democrat Party, Fake News, and Big Tech have been frequently portraying their opponents as Russian trolls or Russian misinformation operators. The Russian collusion narrative, initially invented to overthrow the Trump administration, has been used to smear many conservative movements. Now this effort has been crowned by an Executive Order.

Biden’s administration has been recently pushing so many other radical changes, such as packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the filibuster, restricting Second Amendment rights, etc., that the real ramifications of this new EO went completely unnoticed. In my opinion, this EO is the most dangerous of them all. It allows the Biden regime to eliminate its opposition, quickly and quietly.

Section 1 of the EO enumerates prohibited activities and defines guilty persons as those “determined” by the Secretary of Treasury [Janet Yellen] and/or Secretary of State [Antony Blinken] in consultation with the Attorney General [Merrick Garland] to be:

(a)(ii) responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation:

(A) malicious cyber-enabled activities;

(B) interference in a United States or other foreign government election;

(C) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the United States or abroad;

(D) transnational corruption;

[…] Biden’s new EO is directed mostly at US persons. It criminalizes speech and political activities, based on whimsical and arbitrary definitions. The Biden administration can define “malicious activities,” “democratic processes or institutions,” and the activities that undermine them as it wants.

The Biden administration is also free to interpret what constitutes “interests of the Russian Government.” Such broad and vague language allows the Biden regime to select US citizens and political organizations arbitrarily, and then deprive them of their property and rights without anything reminiscent of due process. The EO does not even require that anybody commit an actual crime somewhere. False cyber-attribution or fake bounty claims are sufficient. Biden’s remarks to the EO showed no regard to the culpability of any targeted US citizens or other persons.

Leftist pseudo-elites have been eager to ban speech based on allegations that such speech may be beneficial to Russia. Such ideation has been present among Big Tech influencers for a long time. This EO effectively gives Big Tech, banks, and credit card companies a new pretext to deplatform conservatives and anyone else who opposes the Biden regime by claiming that they are now engaged in illegal activity.

Biden’s EO appears to allow the Democrat party to deny Americans the right to advocate against it in future federal elections. This might be accomplished through a “determination” that Russia is interfering in elections against democratic candidates. Thus, any US citizens who also oppose Democrats could be found to acting for Russia’s benefit, directly or indirectly.

The report goes on to show how the language is so broad it can be used to go after pretty much anyone the Biden regime doesn’t like (in addition to their spouses and adult children).

Keep reading

Biden administration considers chat app surveillance

The Biden administration is reportedly considering partnering with private companies to track “extremist chatter by Americans online” as part of a plan that would allow federal agencies to circumvent the current legal limits on data collection.

According to CNN’s sources inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the plans would target private and encrypted messaging apps such as Telegram and involve “using outside entities who can legally access these private groups to gather large amounts of information that could help DHS identify key narratives as they emerge.”

Under existing law, the DHS is barred from assuming false identities to gain access to private groups and apps.

But according to CNN, some of the outside entities that are being considered by the DHS include researchers and non-profits that use covert identities to access private groups on platforms such as Telegram.

Keep reading

Anti-War Group Releases Activist Guide to End Militarized Policing in US

In an effort to curtail police militarism, anti-war group Win Without War on Thursday released an activist guide titled Stop Militarizing Our Communities: 5 Things You Need to Know About the 1033 Program.

The activist guide was authored by Tanaya Sardesai, a student at Pomona College and a former intern at Win Without War, and centers on the Department of Defense’s 1033 program, which is responsible for supplying military weaponry to domestic law enforcement.

“Foreign policy and domestic policy are intertwined,” said Sardesai. “Violence committed against communities of color abroad fuels violence against communities of color at home. We must end state violence and knee-jerk militarism, wherever it occurs. Ending the 1033 program is a small but necessary step toward that.”

The 1033 program, also referred to as the Law Enforcement Support Office Program, is characterized by Win Without War as a byproduct of colossal U.S. Pentagon budget and a hyper-militarized foreign policy that perpetuates ongoing conflicts around the world.

“Militarism abroad and militarism at home are inseparable,” explained the group in a statement. “One of the key ways our endless wars have blown back to exacerbate violence and undermine human security in the United States is through the DoD’s 1033 program.”

Keep reading

New York lawmakers seek major expansion of state power to criminalize sexual relations

Due to pressure from activists and political figures including President Joe Biden, colleges have made it harder for students accused of sexual misconduct to show they obtained “consent” from their partners.

Lawmakers in New York are now looking to expand this effort to criminal courts.

Bills in the state Assembly (A6540) and Senate (S6200) would nullify consent if it were obtained through “deception, fraud, concealment or artifice,” meaning a person who told a falsehood or incomplete truth in the pursuit of sex could be prosecuted for sexual assault.

Assembly sponsor Rebecca Seawright portrayed the measure, which would define consent for the first time in New York penal law, as needed to “hold predators like Harvey Weinstein accountable.” 

A press conference outside her office featured two women who testified against the disgraced Hollywood producer, Tarale Wulff and Dawn Dunning, according to ABC News. Since Weinstein defended himself by claiming “that he felt confused” about the definition of consent, “there will be no more confusion” under this legislation, Wulff said.

The Senate version, sponsored by James Sanders, invokes sexual assault trials for Weinstein and entertainer Bill Cosby. Jurists in both proceedings told jurors to use their “common sense” in defining consent, which resulted in a mistrial for Cosby, an extensive “Justification” section claims.

“Failure to define consent creates disparate outcomes in convicting sexual predators as each jury grapples to create its own definition with no guidance from New York State’s statutes,” the Senate version reads. “This vital concept cannot be left to chance.”

New York criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield faulted their wording as being unrealistic “in the real world.”

Keep reading