Tag: police state

Pew Poll: Few Americans Support Feds’ Blanket Prohibition of Marijuana

Eight-seven percent of Americans say that marijuana ought to be legal for either medical or adult use, according to nationwide polling compiled by the Pew Research Center.

The results are consistent with those of prior Pew polls finding that only about ten percent of US adults support a blanket policy of cannabis criminalization.

“The federal government’s ‘Flat Earth’ position on marijuana policy is remarkably out of step with both scientific and public consensus,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “Federally elected officials who refuse to take action to end cannabis criminalization do so at their own political peril.”

Fifty-four percent of respondents said that cannabis should be legal for both medical and adult use, while 33 percent of those surveyed supported medical marijuana legalization only. Consistent with prior polls, support for legalizing cannabis is strongest among liberal-leaning and younger voters (those ages 18 to 29), and it is weakest among more politically conservative-leaning voters and those over the age of 75.

Keep reading

Mexico Mandates Biometric Digital ID by 2026

Mexico has formally mandated the use of a new biometric-based digital ID system, making compulsory a previously voluntary identification mechanism known as the Unique Population Registry Code, or CURP.

Under the new law, CURP IDs will now incorporate detailed personal biometric records, including fingerprints, iris scans, and photographs embedded within a QR code.

The government plans a phased rollout, expecting full nationwide adoption by February 2026.

Historically, CURP codes facilitated everyday interactions such as filing taxes, registering companies, school enrollments, and applying for passports.

Accompanying this shift is a broader initiative to consolidate multiple government databases into a single Unified Identity Platform. Within 90 days, the Ministry of the Interior and the Digital Transformation Agency must launch the unified platform, which will be integrated into various public and private institutions’ databases.

Additionally, a separate program aimed at systematically collecting biometric data from minors is slated to commence within 120 days.

Despite the obvious privacy concerns, Mexican authorities argue that existing privacy legislation already sufficiently guards against unauthorized surveillance or misuse of sensitive data.

President Claudia Sheinbaum responded to privacy concerns earlier this month, clarifying, “A wiretap can only be approved by a judge, according to the Constitution and the law,” though that doesn’t placate concerns about data breaches and the wider introduction of a checkpoint society.

Keep reading

Biden Justice Department Sought ‘Federal Hook’ To Go After Parents As ‘Domestic Terrorists’: Documents

The Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden actively sought a “federal hook” to justify sending federal law enforcement after parents it labeled “domestic terrorists” because they were concerned about their children’s education.

Documents obtained by America First Legal (AFL) show that prior to the infamous Oct. 4, 2021, “domestic terrorist” memo from former Attorney General Merrick Garland, staff were looking for any possible way to go after parents concerned with coronavirus mandates, critical race theory, and “transgender” policies.

“We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion,” Kevin Chambers, then an associate deputy attorney general, wrote in an Oct. 1 email, trying to manufacture a way to respond to a teed-up letter sent by the National School Boards Association (NSBA).

Career staff at the time were even concerned, saying there was no authority or legal basis for going after parents speaking out at school board meetings, particularly since they were protected by the First Amendment.

AFL said the new tranche of documents allows the organization to “complete the timeline” of how the NSBA and Biden DOJ and White House were colluding in order to go after parents. The legal group’s president, Gene Hamilton, said the emails show a “conspiracy that was ultimately aimed at depriving parents of two fundamental rights — the right to speak, and the right to direct the upbringing of their children.”

“They did so with political intentions, most immediately by attempting to influence the Virginia gubernatorial election, and to more broadly chill dissent across the United States,” he added.

The day after Chambers’ “federal hook” email, Oct. 2, Sparkle Sooknanan — who was then in the associate attorney general’s office and was later appointed by Biden as a judge on the federal district court for the District of Columbia — asked at 8:17 a.m. if anyone in the Civil Rights Division could assist in a response to the NSBA letter.

The Biden administration had already collaborated with the NSBA to produce the NSBA anti-parent letter, but Oct. 2 was a Saturday, and the timing implies that these Biden officials were looking to send their thugs after parents as soon as humanly possible.

Keep reading

Reddit Now Requires Age Verification In UK To Comply With Nation’s Online Safety Act

The news and social media aggregation platform Reddit now requires its United Kingdom based users to provide age verification to access “mature content” hosted on its website.

Users must prove they are eighteen years or older to read or contribute such content.

UK regulator Ofcom stated “We expect other companies to follow suit, or face enforcement if they fail to act.” Internet content providers who fail to adopt such measures can face fines of up to eighteen million pounds or ten percent of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

For continued violations or serious cases, UK regulators may petition the courts to order “business disruption measures” such as forcing advertisers to end contracts or preventing payment providers to provide revenue for the platforms. Internet service providers can be required to block access to their users.

Reddit announced a partnership with Persona to provide an age verification service. Users will be able to upload a “selfie” image or a photograph of their government issued identification or passport as proof of majority. The company stated the age verification is a one-time process and that it will only retain users’ date of birth and verification status. Persona proffered they would only retain the photos for seven days.

David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the UK’s Online Safety Act a real tragedy: “UK users can no longer use the internet without having to provide their papers, as it were.”

The rules come as no surprise given the regulatory over-reach of many European governments.

The canards of Protecting the Children or Online Safety provide indirect tools to deny access or curtail speech, tools too tempting or useful for pro-censorship politicians and officials.

Keep reading

Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Greatly Expands Biometric Surveillance, Funds DHS’ ‘End-To-End Biometric Travel’ And Autonomous Surveillance Towers

Of the many things contained in President Donald Trump’s highly touted spending package, the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” (BBB) which he signed earlier this month, the bill allocates hefty spending to drastically expand nationwide biometric surveillance in the United States, drastically bolstering the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) tracking capabilities.

Though not revealed by mainstream or alternative media, Biometric Update highlights how the 940-page BBB allocates hundreds of billions of dollars “in immigration-related funding for fiscal year 2025 alone, which is by far the largest such allocation in U.S. history and represents a dramatic technology buildout.”

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would receive nearly $30 billion in funding through 2029, earmarked not only for personnel and deportation operations, but also for digital modernization efforts that lean heavily on AI and biometric surveillance,” the outlet added. “More than $5.2 billion within ICE’s share is dedicated to infrastructure modernization, including $2.5 billion specifically for artificial intelligence systems, biometric data collection platforms, and digital case tracking.”

Keep reading

Missouri Police Officer Shoots, Kills Blind & Deaf Dog …Community Outraged

A police officer in Missouri shot and killed a blind and deaf dog this week … and while the department’s saying the cop feared contracting rabies — the community’s calling BS.

Teddy — a five-year-old, 13-pound shih tzu mix was killed in Sturgeon, Missouri after escaping his yard. The owner gave the dog some water and called the police … who The Washington Post reports shot the dog twice within minutes of arriving.

Check out the body cam footage … little Teddy’s running around the field — away from the officer at first before turning around and moving toward him, though not seemingly in an aggressive way.

Keep reading

Court rules Mississippi’s social media age verification law can go into effect

A Mississippi law that requires social media users to verify their ages can go into effect, a federal court has ruled. A tech industry group has pledged to continue challenging the law, arguing it infringes on users’ rights to privacy and free expression.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overruled a decision by a federal district judge to block the 2024 law from going into effect. It’s the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country.

Parents – and even some teens themselves – are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued in a court filing defending the law that steps such as age verification for digital sites could mitigate harm caused by “sex trafficking, sexual abuse, child pornography, targeted harassment, sextortion, incitement to suicide and self-harm, and other harmful and often illegal conduct against children.”

Attorneys for NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, have pledged to continue their court challenge, arguing the law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages.

Keep reading

New Utah law requires license for hiking and biking in wildlife areas

A new law in Utah might surprise even seasoned RVers. As of May 2025, anyone over 18 venturing onto certain Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for hiking, biking, trail running or wildlife viewing needs a valid hunting or fishing license.

If you’re RVing into the Beehive State planning to explore its renowned trails, you want to pay attention.

What changed (and when)

• Effective date: May 7, 2025.

• Who’s affected: All non‑commercial users age 18+ entering WMAs in Davis, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber counties.

• Activities covered: Non‑consumptive uses like hiking, biking, trail running, birdwatching and photography now technically require a hunting or fishing license on WMAs.

While WMAs remain open to public recreation, the twist is that their upkeep has historically been funded by dollars from hunters and anglers. This law simply aligns all users with the cost of managing these specialized wildlife areas.

Why licenses

• Equitable contribution: Non‑consumptive trail users were benefiting from habitat conservation financed solely by hunting and fishing fees. Lawmakers deemed it only fair that everyone accessing WMAs pitch in.

• Federal matching funds: Hunting dollars are matched under the Pittman‑Robertson Act; fishing dollars under the Dingell‑Johnson Act. More licenses sold means more federal grants for habitat and species conservation. These benefits extend beyond WMAs themselves.

Keep reading

Academic Warns Banning German Opposition AfD Party a ‘Sure Path to Civil War’

Banning the nation’s second-largest political party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), has become a matter of constant conversation. Yet, a prominent academic has warned that there could be serious consequences for breaking the democratic system.

Germany’s AfD was declared a “right-wing extremist” organisation by the outgoing leftist government earlier this year, triggering a legal challenge. Meanwhile, some German states have moved to ban AfD members from serving as police officers or becoming civil servants.

Left-wing politicians even openly speak of outright banning the AfD altogether as incompatible with the post-war German constitution. This would see the state remove the elected members from parliament. Such discussions are now a weekly topic of headlines in Germany, despite the party having come second in this year’s national elections, with one-fifth of all votes being cast for the AfD, or over ten million ballots. Far from being a niche or fringe party, the faction now serves as the official parliamentary opposition and recently polled in first place nationwide.

While eliminating your political opposition at the stroke of a pen may seem appealing to the German left, a prominent academic has now spoken out to warn against the move, predicting that undermining the basic principles of democracy could be detrimental to the country.

Speaking to Euronews, chair for Modern and Contemporary History at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Professor Andreas Rödder, is reported to have said: “The German Left should think carefully about what it is doing and what consequences it has for liberal democracy.”

The report cites Rödder as one of the “most important intellectuals” of Germany’s centre-right, so he is by no means an instinctive supporter of the AfD, which has eroded the support of the centrist Christian Democrats, just as populists have done to neoliberal “conservative” parties continent-wide.

Nevertheless, using language now increasingly heard in some European states, he told the publication: “A ban that would eliminate all votes for the AfD and thus lead to [a left-wing] parliamentary majority” would be a “sure path to civil war”.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Defends the Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales

A couple of years ago, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, caused a kerfuffle by erroneously reporting that his boss had bought a Glock pistol while visiting a gun store in Summerville, South Carolina. That claim was striking because it implicated Trump, who was then seeking the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, in a federal crime: Since he was under indictment in state and federal court, he was barred from buying firearms. But even if Trump had not faced felony charges, the transaction that Cheung described would have been illegal because of federal restrictions on interstate handgun purchases.

As a resident of Florida, Trump would not have been allowed to directly buy a pistol from a South Carolina gun dealer. Instead, he would have had to arrange and pay for shipment of the weapon to a licensed dealer in Florida, who could have completed the transaction there, typically in exchange for an additional fee. A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas takes aim at that rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) says the ban on interstate handgun sales fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As president, Trump now controls the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear arsenal. But because the dubious New York case against him resulted in felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess firearms, let alone buy new ones. And even if his convictions are overturned on appeal, he still won’t be allowed to buy a handgun in South Carolina or any other state he might visit. His administration, which is avowedly committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, nevertheless is defending that restriction against the FPC’s challenge, saying it “serves legitimate objectives” and “only modestly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.”

That argument sounds suspiciously like the sort of “interest balancing” that the Supreme Court emphatically rejected in Bruen. When a gun restriction affects conduct covered by “the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the Court said in that case, the government has the burden of demonstrating that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That test typically requires identifying historical analogs that are “relevantly similar” in motivation and scope to a challenged law.

Keep reading