Tag: police state

Texas Crime Labs Say They Don’t Have Enough Resources To Test Hemp Products For THC As Lawmakers Consider Ban

As Texas lawmakers debate whether to regulate or ban THC products, officials with the state’s crime labs say they don’t have the resources currently to enforce whatever law is passed.

“From a crime lab perspective, mercifully, we don’t have a dog in that fight. I really don’t care. Just tell me what I need to test, and then I need resources to be able to provide that result,” Peter Stout, president and chief executive officer for the Houston Forensic Science Center, told The Texas Tribune after he testified before the House Public Health Committee on Wednesday. “Otherwise, I become the reason the wheel falls off this wagon, which has basically been the last six years now.”

Wednesday’s committee hearing centered on House Bill 5, which would create a blanket ban on products containing any “detectable amount of any cannabinoid” other than cannabidiol and cannabigerol, better known as CBD and CBG, non-intoxicating components of cannabis. This bill would eliminate the majority of hemp products, including those that are legal under the federal definition.

”There’s been countless reports of artificial and synthetic cannabinoids and their effects on the consumer, and these products have become readily available,” said Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, the committee’s chair and HB 5’s author. “Some of these products are marketed in a way that is attractive to children, for example common food products, like candy.”

The Senate’s version of the bill also calls for a ban, but since Gov. Greg Abbott (R) earlier this year vetoed similar legislation that would have banned THC, some lawmakers have signaled they’d support more regulations over a ban.

Kim Carmichael, spokesperson for House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, told The Texas Tribune that the House hasn’t committed to a ban.

“HB 5 was filed as a similar bill to what the House passed in the regular session, because that’s the most logical starting point for negotiations,” Carmichael said. “Since it passed in that form, members believed they should resume debate where it ended up. It would still go through the process of a public hearing and floor debate, so where it ends up is unknown at this time.”

Experts invited by lawmakers on Wednesday to talk about THC largely focused on the health dangers of THC, the possible criminal networks that underlie the industry, and the impossible task of enforcement.

Keep reading

Child Protective Services Investigated Her 4 Times Because She Let Her Kids Play Outside

Parenting expectations are often unreasonably high—and so is the number of people who believe that kids can’t handle anything on their own.

Passersby too often see an unsupervised child and assume they are unsafe. So they call the authorities, who also often share those super-sized fears. Then parents get investigated simply for trusting their kids with some age-appropriate, location-appropriate independence.

Because of this frustrating cycle, I frequently get letters like the one below. When people ask why I spend so much time trying to pass Reasonable Childhood Independence laws, it’s for people like Emily Fields and her children. Fields is a mom in small-town Virginia who responded to my nonprofit Let Grow’s call for parents willing to speak to child protective services about why such laws are necessary. (Virginia unanimously passed its Reasonable Childhood Independence law in 2023.)

This letter is presented as a stark example of how little trust our country has in its parents and children anymore—and how misanthropic neighbors can weaponize the state at will.

Keep reading

Massachusetts State Police spent $217,000 on luxury hotel stays, international flights, and more

Mass State Police shelled out more than $200,000 on stays at 4- and 5-star hotels from Aruba to Florida, along with international flights and other expenses during the last fiscal year.

The Herald is sifting through state agencies’ taxpayer-funded credit card expenditures — finding that Mass State Police racked up $217,957 in procurement card (P-card) expenses in fiscal year 2025.

That includes stays at Aruba’s Manchebo Beach Resort & Spa for a total of $6,050, and Aruba’s Bucuti & Tara Beach Resort for a total of $4,344. MSP also had a $1,320 bill for a rental car in Aruba.

Some of the other biggest hotel bills from the last year were at Champlin’s Hotel, Marina & Resort in Rhode Island for a total of $9,179; Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile for a total of $8,475; and Harborside Inn on Martha’s Vineyard for a total of $5,062.

Mass State Police, which has been emphasizing the importance of transparency as the embattled agency tries to restore trust following a string of scandals, will not provide details on these expenditures and the purpose for these pricey trips.

“We do not have a comment to provide on these State Police operational matters,” a Mass State Police spokesperson said in a statement.

Recently, the Herald shed light on the P-card bills for Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office and Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins, who was indicted last week on federal charges.

Some of the MSP charges are related to the governor’s executive protection, but not all of them.

“The Massachusetts State Police takes seriously our solemn obligation to keep elected officials safe during their tenures in office,” the MSP spokesperson said. “Constitutional Officers in Massachusetts and across the country have long had Executive Protection that travels with them.

“This is essential for ensuring the safety and security of our state’s top leaders, while also ensuring the safety of the general public,” the spokesperson added. “This security is all the more important in this moment when political violence is on the rise, with several recent and tragic attacks on elected officials. Due to operational concerns, we do not comment on resource allocations of protective details.”

The timing of Gov. Maura Healey’s office purchasing hotel stays in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere line up with some of MSP’s fancy hotel expenditures.

Keep reading

Illinois State Police Trooper Charged for Allegedly Possessing, Distributing Child Porn

A state police trooper in Deerfield, Illinois, is facing child pornography charges linked to the app known as Kik.

The suspect is identified as 38-year-old Illinois State Police Trooper Colin Gruenke, the Lake and McHenry County Scanner reported on Friday.

“A criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said an investigation began last year after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) received a report of the social networking platform Kik,” the article said.

Kik alerted authorities when it appeared someone was using a profile on the platform to upload and distribute files of child porn in September. Not long after the first tip was issued, Kik said another account was uploading and distributing files containing that form of material.

When those accounts were linked to the suspect and his home address, search warrants allowed officials to search the man and his residence.

“Agents conducted the search warrant for Gruenke at the Illinois State Police headquarters in Des Plaines on Wednesday and then conducted the warrant for the residence at his home shortly after,” the Scanner report said.

According to CBS News, the agents found evidence of deleted child porn on the cellphone he was holding at the time, and some of the images were reportedly of children whose ages were around four years old.

“Agents also executed a search warrant at his home, where they found a flash drive containing approximately 200 videos of child pornography, including numerous videos showing children being sexually abused by adults, including children as young as 10,” the CBS article read.

Gruenke, who was arrested Wednesday and placed on administrative leave without pay, is now the subject of an internal investigation by state police and is being held in custody.

Keep reading

Freedom advocates seek judicial review of the Nova Scotia forest ban

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is challenging Nova Scotia’s province-wide travel ban on wooded areas. An August 5 proclamation made it illegal to enter any wooded area — including Crown and private land — without a permit, with fines of $25,000 (plus HST).

Freedom advocates wrote to Premier Tim Houston and Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton on August 6, urging a reconsideration of restrictions, but received no reply. 

The CCF will now seek judicial review and an expedited hearing to challenge the government.

Due to “incredibly dry weather,” Nova Scotia has seen 122 wildfires this year, below the 10-year average of 152. Minister Rushton stated that “only a significant amount of rain” would improve conditions as current fires burn deep underground.

The extensive restrictions under the guise of wildfire prevention include a ban on hiking, fishing, off-road vehicles, and camping outside designated areas. Additionally, forestry, mining, and other industrial work in wooded areas now requires an exemption permit.

Josh Dehaas, author of the August 6 letter, stated the travel ban is “unlawful, disproportionate and unreasonable,” despite the government’s legitimate interest in wildfire prevention.

The Foundation argues that Nova Scotia’s Forests Act unconstitutionally restricts access to “woods” and improperly impacts Charter rights through vague and overbroad imprisonment offences.

Keep reading

The Ninth Circuit Rules—Court-Sanctioned Authoritarianism?

On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is an affront to all who value truth, justice, the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for mandating Covid injections for all employees. We argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. We contended that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case from 1905, did not apply to our case because Jacobson was predicated both on the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Overturns California’s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Restriction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The case is Nguyen v. Bonta and the plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

The August 14th mandate overturning the restriction follows a June 20, 2025, Ninth Circuit three-judge panel decision which affirmed a lower court ruling against the “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

Keep reading

Immigration, Censorship, and the Deep State in the Yookay

Mass immigration and the refugee crisis have transformed European politics over the last decade. The United Kingdom has experienced some of the biggest changes, as repeated popular revolts against immigration have led to both Brexit and the collapse of the Conservative Party in favor of Reform UK. The American Conservative sat down with Connor Tomlinson, a British journalist and political commentator, to talk about the impact of immigration on the UK and the country’s future.

Let’s start with something that I think a lot of Americans have found quite puzzling looking at the situation in the UK. Immigration is the question in British politics, especially right now. Every British government for years has been elected on the promise of lowering immigration. None have done so. Why?

When you say for years, that means going back to 1974. Every single election referendum since has promised lower migration and never delivered. There’s a few reasons. 

The first, I think, is the economic system. Anytime someone promises to cut immigration, a pie chart is wheeled into the room by the so-called experts, and they say, “If you do this, we won’t be able to fudge the numbers on the population, which then builds our annual GDP up, which then allows us to borrow even more debt to pay down for subsidized socialized medicine and pension system.” One thing that Keir Starmer ran into when he was elected to government was that because the Treasury predictions are done on an annual cycle, you can’t cut the size of the civil service, because if you make anyone lose their jobs—and it’s very hard to do the extra legislation anyway—but if you make anyone lose their jobs, they get a year severance pay, and it doesn’t register as cuts. If you cut immigration in the short term, there might be a dip in GDP, because you cut X amount of totally useless jobs. So instead, all they ever do is cut the very few things that they can do—the extra payments and pensions and things like that, which ends up estranging entire swathes of their voter base. 

So economics is one reason. The other one is that there is a human-rights industrial complex that has taken root. Keir Starmer, when he was a human-rights lawyer busy going around the world acting on behalf of murderers to get rid of the death penalty, actually helped write the text for Tony Blair’s 1998 Human Rights Act, which wrote the European Court of Human Rights and Convention on Human Rights into British law. So even after Brexit, we still have European laws on our books, because they’re a separate entity.

That means that you get Pakistani pedophiles or Albanian gangsters who say, “My son doesn’t like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets,” appealing to the statue and saying, “My right to a family and private life should mean that I get to stay in this country even though I’m a criminal.” No politician wants to touch that because of the deep taboos that have existed since 1945, since the atrocities of the Holocaust, since Hitler killed a lot of people in a very racist way. So all these antiquated human rights doctrines, like the UN Refugee Convention, like the European Convention of Human Rights, which were written with Dutch Jews fleeing persecution in mind, are now pertaining to North African rapists, and we’re just battery-farming them at the taxpayers expense. 

The final reason, I would say, is that the government has a hell of a lot of contracts with private security and housing firms like Serco. So local councils which mismanage their budgets and these private security firms and these hotel chains will take direct government subsidies to house not just legal migrants that come over (95 percent of whom aren’t paying any taxes at all, and are just a net drain), but also loads of illegal migrants who have come over the physical barrier of the English Channel. These illegal migrants have been picked up by the RNLI, our border force, ferried back, and are now housed in four-star accommodations at the cost of over £14 billion a year to the taxpayer.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Mississippi Age Verification Law to Take Effect, Advancing Online Digital ID Push

The Supreme Court’s choice to let Mississippi enforce its new age verification law is part of a growing shift toward digital ID requirements across the internet, raising urgent concerns about privacy and censorship.

By declining to block the law while legal challenges continue, the Court has effectively allowed states to begin tying online activity to users’ real-world identities, a move that could reshape how people access information and speak freely online.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Mississippi’s HB 1126 requires social media platforms to verify a user’s age before allowing them to create an account. Those under 18 must obtain parental permission. Platforms are also required to restrict access to what the state broadly labels as “harmful” content. For companies to comply, identity checks will be necessary, meaning users may soon need to provide government IDs or other personal documents just to post or view content on public platforms.

The Supreme Court has already allowed a similar Texas law to be enforced.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately from the Court’s unsigned order, stated that the law is “likely unconstitutional” and said NetChoice had “likely” shown that enforcement would violate the First Amendment. Still, the Court allowed the law to take effect, saying the trade group had not shown a strong enough risk of harm to justify emergency relief.

NetChoice, which includes companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Reddit, and Discord, argues that mandatory age checks for general-purpose platforms violate free speech protections. The group had previously won a ruling to block the law, but that decision was overturned in April by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the ruling was a delay, not a defeat. “Although we’re disappointed with the Court’s decision, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice’s ID-for-Speech lawsuits,” he said.

Keep reading

Man ‘given no choice’ over trowel arrest caution

A man who was cautioned for carrying a bladed trowel in public has said he was given no choice but to accept the reprimand because police were unable to contact a solicitor for him.

Armed police were sent to challenge Samuel Rowe as he walked home from his allotment in Chorlton, Manchester, carrying the tool, a peeling knife and a sickle.

The 35-year-old theatre manager said he was held for 12 hours, before being told he had to accept the caution without representation or face longer in custody.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said Mr Rowe had admitted possessing a “dagger” and was given a conditional caution, which entailed advice about the law on the carrying of bladed weapons in public.

The keen gardener said he was terrified when the armed officers, who did not draw their weapons, arrived outside his home on 3 July.

He said the officers were shouting at him to “drop the knife”.

“I said I didn’t have a knife and they told me to drop the knife again,” he said.

“So I dropped my Japanese hand gardening sickle and a handful of privet that I just cut off the hedge.

“They turned me around, pushed me up against my house, handcuffed me, then put me in the back of a van.”

Keep reading