Tag: police state

DHS Expands Nationwide Airport Biometric Tracking

The Department of Homeland Security has introduced a new rule that will greatly expand biometric tracking at US borders, establishing a system to photograph and identify every non-citizen who enters or leaves the country.

Although the regulation applies to non-citizens, the cameras do not distinguish citizens from non-citizens in real time.

CBP says US citizens may opt out by presenting their passports manually, and that photos of citizens are deleted within twelve hours once nationality is confirmed. However, that’s after the fact.

Starting December 26, Customs and Border Protection will have authority to take photographs of “all aliens” not only at airports and land crossings but at “any other point of departure” the agency designates.

We obtained a copy of the rule for you here.

DHS describes the change as “operational modernization.”

Keep reading

Global Cybercrime Treaty Draws Criticism from Rights Groups and Tech Companies Over Surveillance Fears

Sixty-five countries, including the United States and Canada, have signed a United Nations treaty on cybercrime that threatens privacy, online research, and free expression.

The agreement, known as the UN Convention against Cybercrime, was signed in Hanoi and will take effect once 40 member states have ratified it.

Each country must complete its own ratification process. In the United States, a two-thirds Senate vote is required for approval.

The UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the treaty as an essential step in combating cybercrime, saying that “cyberspace has become fertile ground for criminals…every day, sophisticated scams defraud families, steal livelihoods, and drain billions of dollars from our economies.”

He called the Convention “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defenses against cybercrime” and insisted it “cannot be used for any forms of surveillance or others that could be linked to violations of human rights.”

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which directed negotiations, has argued that the treaty includes protections for human rights and legitimate research.

But organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) disagree.

Before the signing, both groups urged governments not to endorse the treaty, warning that its vague definitions could allow governments to monitor citizens, prosecute security researchers, and suppress political speech.

Technology companies have also raised concerns. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord, whose members include Meta and Microsoft, described the treaty as a “surveillance treaty” that could promote government data sharing and criminalize ethical hacking.

Keep reading

ECRI Pressures Ireland and Finland to Adopt New “Hate Speech” Laws and Speech Monitoring Systems

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has issued another set of polite bureaucratic thunderbolts, this time aimed at Ireland and Finland, for not cracking down hard enough on their citizens’ conversations.

The group, operating under the Council of Europe, says both nations have been dragging their feet on what it calls “hate speech.”

In other words, they’re not censoring fast enough.

In Ireland’s case, ECRI was appalled to discover that the country’s “extremely limited” legal framework still leaves some room for public disagreement online.

The commission noted with concern that certain hate speech provisions were removed from the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024, and urged Dublin to correct the oversight by writing new laws to target such expression.

The report didn’t stop there. It called for a national data system to document “racist and LGBTI-phobic bullying and violence in schools” and a “comprehensive data collection” program for hate crimes and hate speech.

It even floated the idea of regulating “election-related misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy,” which it deemed “critical to limit the spread of hateful ideas.”

So the plan is clear: build a bureaucracy that tracks words, ideas, and schoolyard insults, then hand election discourse over to regulatory authorities. What could go wrong?

ECRI did find time to congratulate Ireland for its National Action Plan Against Racism and inclusion programs for Roma and Traveller communities.

But after that brief applause, the hammer came back down. Hate speech, it concluded, remains “widespread.” More laws, more oversight, more policing of conversation.

Finland’s report read like a blueprint for speech management. ECRI announced that hate speech there “has increased and reached a critical level,” though it didn’t specify what exactly counts as hate speech, or how “critical” was measured.

The group praised Finnish police for maintaining “a regular presence in a web-based gaming platform” where officers act as “game police” and talk to young users about hate speech and online crime. It’s not satire, that’s in the official report.

ECRI proposed creating a national working group to design new policies against hate speech and advised police to unify their methods for “recognition, unmasking and official recording” of hate.

Schools, it said, should install systems to track “racist and LGBTI-phobic incidents,” while even non-criminal “hate incidents” should be formally recognized and logged.

Keep reading

While Germany Talks War With Russia, Romania’s Globalist Regime Conducts Mass Surveillance On Its Own People — 8,600 Secret Warrants, Zero Oversight

Germany’s globalist political class is once again talking about going to war with Russia. Officials in Berlin have suggested that Europe should “prepare for conflict,” a statement that’s raised alarms across the continent. But while Germany rattles sabers, another European Union member is already at war, not with Moscow, but with its own citizens.

Romania, one of NATO’s key Eastern members, has quietly constructed an enormous internal surveillance system under the banner of “national security.”

Documents obtained under Romania’s Freedom of Information law reveal that from the 2024 presidential elections through September 2025, the country’s Supreme Court issued 2,843 national security warrants. Every single request was approved. None were denied.

A Nation Surveilled 

Each warrant authorized Romania’s powerful intelligence agencies to monitor phone calls, intercept emails, track movements by GPS, and even enter private homes—all without notifying the citizens involved.

Experts estimate that more than 55,000 Romanians may have been surveilled under these programs, their private lives cataloged in the name of ‘protecting the state.’

During the last three years alone, Romania’s top court signed off on 8,603 such mandates, covering the tail end of President Klaus Iohannis’s term, the interim leadership of Ilie Bolojan, and the start of Nicușor Dan’s presidency.

Across administrations, one thing never changed: zero judicial oversight.

Courts Rubber-Stamp Everything

According to official responses from both the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court, not one surveillance request was ever rejected. Every application moved seamlessly from prosecutors to judges—and was instantly approved.

That’s not oversight—it’s obedience.

Unlike the United States’ FISA Court, which modifies or rejects a portion of surveillance requests each year, Romania’s allegedly independent judiciary appears to function as a rubber stamp for intelligence operations.

Even more concerning, Romanian officials admitted they don’t know—or won’t say—how many people were targeted. The Supreme Court said it “does not hold a statistic” on the matter. The Prosecutor’s Office said the data is “not public.”

Keep reading

United Nations Finally Recognizes Homeschooling — By Demanding Government Ruin It

For decades, families around the world have fought for the freedom to homeschool their children, often against hostile laws, heavy-handed bureaucracies, and, in some cases, outright persecution. I’ve walked alongside many of these families as a global advocate for homeschooling rights, challenging oppressive regimes and urging governments and international institutions to recognize what should be obvious: Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

That’s why UNESCO’s new report, “Homeschooling Through a Human Rights Lens,” is significant. For the first time, a major United Nations agency has taken homeschooling seriously — not merely as an educational alternative, but as a legitimate expression of the human right to direct the upbringing of one’s children. As a member of the report’s panel of experts, I can attest to the thoughtful and at times tense dialogue that shaped the final document.

While I commend UNESCO for the report, I reject its unwarranted recommendation that calls on governments to register homeschooling families and evaluate them according to state-imposed standards. This recommendation is antithetical to the principles of liberty upon which the United States, and even the United Nations itself, was founded. American homeschoolers are rightly skeptical of any report that calls for greater regulation, but because international policymakers are influenced by international human rights notions, this report has the potential to help families who live in countries where parental freedom in education is not favored.

Millions of families have demonstrated across every continent and culture that homeschooling works — and it works well. To its credit, the UNESCO report acknowledges the diversity of homeschooling approaches, the growing body of research supporting its efficacy, and the sincere motivations of parents who choose this path. It even cautions against assuming that homeschoolers are outliers or abusers. That acknowledgment matters. For decades, the homeschooling movement, even here in the United States, has fought against statist and misbegotten assumptions. At the international level, this report marks an important shift in that conversation.

For all its positive acknowledgments, its recommendation reveals a strong assumption of state supremacy. But families are not wards of the state; they are the primary and natural educators of their children. The oldest of the United Nations’ declarations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), itself acknowledges in Article 26.3 that parents have a “prior right” to decide how their children are educated, and Article 16.3 describes the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Far from being a threat to educational quality or child welfare, homeschooling is often a lifeline for families seeking safety, excellence, or authenticity in education. When parents take responsibility for their children’s education, they are exercising freedom in its purest form: the freedom to order their lives according to conscience and conviction. Homeschooling reflects the principle of self-governance at the heart of our American experiment, and these basic truths are articulated in the UDHR.

While refuting Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s fringe view that homeschooling should be banned, I have explained that the U.N.’s “statist” worldview is rooted in a “positive rights” mindset, which sees government not merely as a protector of liberty but as the central actor in nearly every aspect of human life. Under this paradigm, rights are granted and fulfilled by government, and education becomes a public utility — monitored, managed, and molded by the state.

The dangerous assumptions here are that freedom requires supervision, parents can’t be trusted, and kids are just future workers, or worse, weapons in a war for cultural domination via compelled government indoctrination. However, our Constitution and Declaration of Independence reflect the opposite idea: that rights should limit government power. The First Amendment does not grant the right to speak; it prohibits the government from infringing on it. The Second Amendment doesn’t create a right to bear arms; it forbids the government from restricting it. Our concept of liberty assumes rights come from our Creator and governments are instituted to secure them, not to create them.

Keep reading

UK Courts Block Grooming Gang Survivor from Enforcing Compensation Award: Could this be happening in America?

For Americans, the term “Grooming Gang” may seem like a distant UK issue. But the story of “Liz,” a Rotherham survivor in North England, should resonate. In March 2023, she won a £425,000 ($550,000 USD) compensation award against her rapist, Asghar Bostan, part of a Muslim Pakistani grooming gang (rape gangs). Yet, by October 2025, court delays have left her empty-handed.

These delays, coupled with fears of “Islamophobia” accusations that shielded UK gangs, mirror U.S. struggles with justice for sexual abuse victims. They raise alarms about whether similar crimes could hide in America under the same guise of political correctness. Short prison sentences, like the lenient terms often handed to UK offenders, further erode trust—a pattern Americans see in trafficking or abuse cases.

The UK’s endless inquiries, costing millions with no action, and courts that stall survivors’ justice, parallel American issues. From trafficking rings to campus assaults, both nations grapple with backlogged systems and institutional failures. Liz’s fight is a warning: justice delayed is justice denied.

A Stalled Victory with American Implications
Liz’s trauma began in the early 2000s, when she was raped as a teenager by Ashgar Bostan, a taxi driver convicted in 2018 under Operation Stovewood. This probe targeted Rotherham’s child sexual exploitation crisis from 1997 to 2013. She pursued the UK’s first private civil prosecution, funded by philanthropists including Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who raised £30,000 with Lord Vinson to cover legal costs. Her team secured a default judgment for £425,934—now about $585,000 with interest—for her lifelong trauma.

Bostan’s criminal sentence was shockingly light: just seven years for multiple rapes, with parole eligibility by 2022, reflecting a UK trend of lenient sentencing for grooming gang members.

But Liz’s win remains hollow. A charging order on Bostan’s property was granted in September 2023, finalized in November, with a sale order in October 2024. Yet, no final court date exists as of October 2025.

The 2.5-year delay mirrors U.S. court backlogs — 1.3 million pending civil cases in 2024. Elizabeth faces postponed hearings and months-long waits for fee waivers, despite judges’ “shock” at these delays. And at each stage the system demands £10,000 from her in “court fees.”

Even obtaining court transcripts is a lang drawn out expensive ordeal. Lord Pearson fought for Bostan’s 2018 trial transcripts, battling Sheffield Crown Court from December 2020 to March 2021 for the civil case. After the House of Lords Library admitted they were too expensive for them to obtain, Lord Pearson personally paid for them. Bostan’s 2024 parole breaches went unmonitored, echoing U.S. failures like Larry Nassar’s parole mishandling. With UK courts adding 500 more cases to the backlog each month, trials now stretch to 2027 — much like U.S. survivors enduring prolonged pain.

Could Grooming Gangs Hide in America?
And the pattern is not foreign to the U.S. either. In the UK, grooming gangs—largely Muslim Pakistani men targeting vulnerable white English girls—operated for decades while authorities hesitated, fearing “Islamophobia” accusations. That fear allowed abuses to fester unchecked. Short sentences, like Bostan’s seven years, enabled early releases, undermining justice and retraumatizing victims.

In the U.S., similar dynamics could conceal organized abuse. The FBI’s 2024 trafficking report highlights vulnerabilities in marginalized and underserved communities. Cases like a 2023 Minnesota trafficking ring, involving Somali-American men exploiting teenage girls, show disturbing parallels. Local officials delayed action amid community sensitivities. In cities like Minneapolis or Dearborn, fear of “Islamophobia” labels could mirror UK failures, letting exploitation go unchecked. Political correctness risks becoming a shield for predators, as it did in Rotherham.

Keep reading

Increasingly Authoritarian Zelensky Prepares for Future Elections by Targeting Rivals – After Ousting Odessa Head, Now He Sets His Sights on Kiev Mayor and Former Boxer Klitschko: REPORT

The authoritarian behavior of Volodymyr Zelensky has become impossible to ignore.

An article written by Pavel Lokshin for the German newspaper WELT sharply criticizes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his increasingly authoritarian tendencies.

The report shows how the man lionized by the MSM as ‘a second Churchill’ is in fact consolidating his power through the suppression of political opponents.

Welt reported (translated from the German):

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is consolidating his power. Anyone who stands in his way must give way – most recently the freely elected mayor of the city of Odessa. Zelensky is thus sending a clear signal to other opponents.”

The article comments on the recent dismissal of the elected mayor the of the important Black Sea port of Odessa, Gennady Trukhanov.

Zelensky accused him of ‘having a Russian passport’, and the move is seen as a prime example of this authoritarian pattern, just a naked intimidation tactic aimed at silencing dissent.

“Zelenskyy’s decision to remove the mayor, who was democratically elected, underscores a troubling trend: the prioritization of loyalty over electoral legitimacy.

In a time of war, such moves may be justified by some as necessary for unity, but they erode the foundations of the democracy Ukraine is fighting to preserve.”

Keep reading

Australia’s eSafety Chief Pressures Big Tech and AI Firms on Verification, Age Checks

Australia’s top online regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, is intensifying her push to reshape speech in the digital world.

Her office has formally warned major social platforms and several AI chatbot companies that they could soon be forced to comply with far-reaching new age verification and “online safety” requirements that many see as expanding government control over online communication.

The warnings are part of the government’s effort to enforce the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which would bar Australians under 16 from creating social media accounts.

Letters sent to Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and YouTube make it clear that each company is expected to fall under the scope of the new law.

The Commissioner’s preliminary assessment is that these services exist mainly for “online social interaction,” which brings them within the definition of social media platforms and subjects them to strict age verification and child protection obligations.

Not all of the companies accept that classification. Snapchat claims to be primarily a messaging platform similar to WhatsApp, while YouTube has opposed losing its original exemption.

At this stage, only services with a clear focus on messaging or education, such as WhatsApp, Messenger, YouTube Kids, and Google Classroom, remain excluded from the Commissioner’s oversight.

Keep reading

39 Bipartisan State And Territory Attorneys General Push Congress To Ban Intoxicating Hemp Products

A bipartisan coalition of 39 state and territory attorneys general is calling on Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp and impose regulations preventing the sale of intoxicating cannabinoid products.

In a letter sent to the Republican chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations and Agriculture Committees on Friday, members of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) expressed concerns with provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, which they said has been “wrongly exploited by bad actors to sell recreational synthetic THC products across the country.”

They’re asking that lawmakers leverage the appropriations process, or the next iteration of the Farm Bill, to enact policy changes that “leave no doubt that these harmful products are illegal and that their sale and manufacture are criminal acts.”

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D), Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) led the letter, underscoring the bipartisan sentiment driving the call for congressional action.

“Intoxicating hemp-derived THC products have inundated communities throughout our states due to a grievously mistaken interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of ‘hemp’ that companies are leveraging to pursue profits at the expense of public safety and health,” they wrote. “Many of these products—created by manufacturers by manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC—are more intoxicating and psychoactive than marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance and are often marketed to minors.”

While the debate over revising federal hemp laws has been a consistent talking point this year, with attempts in both chambers to enact a ban on products containing THC, so far such restrictions have only been implemented at the state level.

“Unless Congress acts, this gross distortion of the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp provision will continue to fuel the rapid growth of an under-regulated industry that threatens public health and safety and undermines law enforcement nationwide,” the letter says.

Keep reading

Digital ID Black Pill Moment?

For those unclear on what a Black Pill Moment means, I’ll share my take on the definition:

Black Pill Moment: A “Black Pill Moment” is when someone grasps a harsh, pessimistic truth about the world, leading to despair or hopelessness if they let it sink in. It’s a grim realization that things may be beyond repair, hitting like a gut punch.

Red Pill Moment: A “Red Pill Moment” is when someone sees a tough truth about the world, shattering old beliefs but leaving hope that change is possible if enough people act. It’s like waking up to a challenging reality with resolve to fight for better.

Blue Pill Moment: A “blue pill moment” is when someone avoids a harsh truth, choosing the comfort of denial or ignorance, like believing “ignorance is bliss.” Some psychiatrists call SSRIs like Prozac “blue pills” for creating an “I don’t care” mindset, numbing people to reality.

In the 1999 movie, The Matrix, Neo is offered a red pill or a blue pill by Morpheus. The red pill means waking up to the harsh truth of reality, rejecting illusions (like the Matrix’s simulated world), while the blue pill means staying in comfortable ignorance, unaware of the truth.

I usually see myself as red-pilled, believing in tough truths/reality, but holding onto hope for change.

If we are not careful a black pill can can be so earth shattering that it may lead to taking a blue pill!

After reading editorials about Texas’s mandated digital ID for apps, supposedly to protect children, I researched how many states and countries have mandatory or voluntary digital ID systems. (Voluntary is the trojan horse for future mandatory)  What I found opened my eyes to what could be labelled a “black pill moment”—the global push for digital IDs is far advanced, likely past the point of no return, aligning with the UN’s 2030 goal of universal legal identity and enabling a globalist digital currency system that could control access to everything.

In September 2015, all 193 UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9  aims to provide legal identity, including birth registration, for everyone by 2030. This goal supports a global push for universal digital identity. The World Bank’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative, a key partner, consolidates civil registries and promotes digital ID services. ID2020, tasked with implementing SDG 16.9, works to ensure everyone has a digital identity by 2030. The World Bank, World Economic Forum, and companies like Palantir, have created a global partnership to build a unified digital identity system.

Currently there are approximately 8,300,000,000 people in the world.  According to the World Bank’s ID4D initiative the number of actual people without any “official” proof of identity is only 850 million.  Only 10% of the world’s population do not have a personal digital ID.

Based on the latest global reports, only 12 countries (out of 198 worldwide) still lack any foundational national digital ID system – such as electronic credentials, biometric verification, or programs that could eventually link to the World Bank’s ID4D framework for universal legal identity. In stark contrast, 186 countries already have at least basic digital ID elements in place, paving the way for interoperability with global systems.

I began my research by manually checking each country’s government website, but after the first 30 – all of which had ID4D digital ID systems – I realized the scale of adoption was overwhelming. Not wanting to waste time on the remaining 168, I did something I never imagined- I enlisted Grok to handle the nitty-gritty and time consuming work of scanning those government websites country by  country. Grok confirmed the relentless global march toward total coverage revealing that 186 countries out of 198 have digital ID systems already in place.

The holdouts are often in regions with limited infrastructure or political instability. For example, North Korea is one of the holdouts because they have their own internal digital tracking system that is not set up to be “linked” (“interoperability”) to the ID4D digital ID Globalist World Bank system.

The countries not yet set up with digital ID’s that can be linked to the digital ID World Bank system in the future are: Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Chad, Eritrea, Tuvalu, Nauru and Oceania. [2] According to the World Bank ID4D website, adoption is accelerating and they expect this list to shrink by 2026.

Keep reading