police state – Page 98 – Hellbound and Down

Trump Deletes Database Containing Over 5,000 Police Misconduct Incidents

In one of his first acts after returning to the White House, President Donald Trump ordered the Justice Department to delete a nationwide database tracking misconduct by federal law enforcement.

Along with rescinding former President Joe Biden’s executive orders on policing, Trump scrapped the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD), which logged more than 5,200 incidents of misconduct by federal officers and agents across various agencies.

In a written statement to The Washington Post, the White House said Biden’s executive order creating the NLEAD database “was full of woke, anti-police concepts that make communities less safe like a call for ‘equitable’ policing and addressing ‘systemic racism in our criminal justice system.’ President Trump rescinded the order creating this database on Day 1 because he is committed to giving our brave men and women of law enforcement the tools they need to stop crime.”

It is unclear what tool Trump is giving to law enforcement by deleting a nonpublic misconduct database—besides protection from future background checks.

Centralized databases of police misconduct are important because, traditionally, poor information sharing between departments and lax background checks have allowed problem officers to hop from one department to another, leaving a string of misconduct, rights violations, and expensive lawsuits.

Once upon a time, even Trump thought the database was a good idea. In 2020, the Trump White House issued an executive order directing the attorney general to “create a database to coordinate the sharing of information between and among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies concerning instances of excessive use of force related to law enforcement matters, accounting for applicable privacy and due process rights.”

Biden’s NLEAD was actually less ambitious than Trump’s plan: It included only federal law enforcement, and access was limited to federal agencies. Still, federal law enforcement unions objected, complaining that the database included minor administrative infractions and didn’t give officers due process channels to dispute their inclusion.

Keep reading

Arbitrary Power: The Definition of Tyranny

“The curse and scandal of human nature.”

That’s how James Otis, Jr. described arbitrary power. It wasn’t just a sign of tyranny, or a step toward it. It was the very definition of tyranny.

It is power without right.

And that principle pervades the Declaration of Independence.

But this wasn’t a new idea born of the American Revolution. The principle stretches back thousands of years and became the driving force behind written constitutions.

The Founders didn’t just fear arbitrary power or fight against it. They defined it. And they warned us: it leads to tyranny, every single time.

WHAT IS ARBITRARY POWER?

James Otis Jr. defined it this way in 1762:

“arbitrary; which in plain English means no more than to do as one pleases.”

The principle carried forward to the Constitution itself. “Lighthorse” Harry Lee made the standard clear: if a power exercised isn’t enumerated, it’s arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed. Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

So any time government acts beyond the limits of a constitution, it is arbitrary. It is lawless.

To Otis, arbitrary power wasn’t just dangerous. It was vile. It was corrupt.

“the curse and scandal of human nature”

The old revolutionaries considered arbitrary power the very definition of tyranny.

Otis was calling the British out for violating their own system – the long-standing, unwritten British constitution. Instead of honoring it, they were ruling by arbitrary power.

“a greater difference on this side the Grave cannot be found, than that which subsists between British subjects, and the slaves of tyranny.”

Keep reading

General Welfare Clause: The Truth They Never Teach

“It would be ABSURD to say … Congress may do what they please.”

That was James Madison, obliterating the modern lie that the general Welfare Clause is a blank check for almost unlimited power.

But that’s exactly how it’s treated and used today.

The general Welfare clause had a clear, limited meaning when the Constitution was ratified – and both Madison and Jefferson warned exactly what would happen if it got twisted into something more.

Spoiler alert: They weren’t just right. They were prophetic.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
-Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

Legal scholar Rob Natelson has explained just how badly this clause has been twisted from its original meaning.

“The General Welfare Clause is one of the two principal constitutional pillars supporting the modern federal welfare state – the other being the Commerce Clause.”

Today, politicians and judges treat this clause as permission to spend money on virtually anything – as long as they claim it’s for the “general welfare.”

But that interpretation is flat-out wrong – and Natelson made that clear.

“The General Welfare Clause is said to include an implied spending power used to justify federal spending programs and the regulatory conditions attached to them.”

In fact, that’s why many now refer to it as something else entirely.

“For that reason, the General Welfare Clause sometimes is called the Spending Clause.”

But the clause wasn’t written to authorize everything – it was written to limit Congress. To block favoritism. To keep spending within constitutional bounds.

“The General Welfare Clause is more than a mere ‘non-grant’ of spending power.”

Then he dropped the hammer.

“It was intended to be a sweeping denial of power – specifically, it was intended to impose on Congress a standard of impartiality borrowed from the law of trusts, thereby limiting the legislature’s capacity to ‘play favorites’ with federal tax money.”

A STRICT RESTRAINT ON POWER

In 1831, James Madison made it clear that the general Welfare clause wasn’t a blank check – it was a limit.

“With respect to the words ‘General welfare’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.”

In other words, the clause doesn’t authorize taxing for whatever Congress wants – only for purposes tied directly to the enumerated powers.

Madison followed with a direct warning – about what would happen if “general Welfare” were twisted into a broad, open-ended power.

“To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators.”

Thomas Jefferson agreed. The general Welfare clause granted no independent power – it was tied to the powers delegated in the Constitution.

“our tenet ever was … that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated”

Jefferson ripped apart the claim that the clause gave Congress broad power for anything it wanted.

“As it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers”

That meant no power for anything outside the Constitution’s list.

“so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money”

That was the bottom line: specific powers = specific limits.

Keep reading

Pakistan Uses Geofencing to Track, Disable Digital IDs of Protesters

Pakistani authorities have moved to disable the national ID and passports of individuals linked to the unrest that unfolded on May 9, 2023, turning to geo-fencing technology to track the presence of mobile devices near demonstration sites.

The protesters were protesting the arrest of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan.

The tactic draws on the country’s highly centralized digital identity infrastructure, which is managed by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA).

Following a wave of civil disorder earlier in the year, the state has turned its attention to restricting those it believes were involved, though officials have not released exact figures.

The action adds a new layer to NADRA’s already significant role in overseeing identification and mobility in Pakistan. The agency had previously played a key part in enforcing nationwide SIM registration by linking phone access to verified ID credentials.

The main aspect of the current operation is the use of geofencing, a surveillance method that defines virtual boundaries around locations and tracks which mobile devices enter those areas.

By analyzing mobile network signals, authorities are able to determine who was present near protest hotspots during specific periods and take action accordingly. The approach allows for highly targeted enforcement, based on digital footprints rather than conventional investigative methods.

This use of data to restrict identity documents marks a profound escalation in how digital ID systems are being weaponized.

In Pakistan, ID cards and passports are essential for almost every aspect of life; banking, public services, travel, and even mobile phone use. Withholding these documents amounts to cutting individuals off from full participation in society.

Keep reading

British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment

Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation’s founding document. It’s a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one.

These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora’s Box.

I’d be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It’s a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation.

For a sense of where we might be without it, I’d recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities.

As Tablet magazine reported, “74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading ‘Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'” Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound.

This isn’t as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government’s critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that’s thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone’s freedoms.

Keep reading

Trump Wants To Delete State Medical Marijuana Protections From Budget While Continuing To Block Cannabis Sales Legalization In D.C.

President Donald Trump is again proposing to remove existing protections for states that have legalized medical marijuana, while maintaining a ban that’s prevented Washington, D.C. from enacting a system of regulated adult-use cannabis sales.

As part of his budget request for the 2026 fiscal year sent to Congress on Friday, Trump is seeking to delete a longstanding rider that’s barred the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state-level medical marijuana laws.

This is Trump’s first budget request of his second term, but during his first term he similarly called for its deletion each year of his presidency.

President Joe Biden, on the other hand, consistently proposed to continue the medical cannabis provision intact in his budget requests—though President Barack Obama, like Trump, had sought to delete it.

Congress has the final say on appropriations legislation language, however, and has not followed through on any president’s request to delete the medical marijuana protection since it was first enacted into law in 2014—though lawmakers have also declined to expand the protections to cover state recreational marijuana programs.

After signing prior appropriations bills into law that included the medical cannabis protection in contravention of his request to delete it, Trump on three occasions issued statements that specifically said his administration “will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States”— implying he was reserving his right to ignore the rider.

The latest action in Trump’s new budget request will likely come as a disappointment to advocates and stakeholders, who have held out hope that the president would take a new direction on marijuana policy reform—especially after he endorsed rescheduling, industry banking access and a Florida cannabis legalization ballot initiative that ultimately fell short.

Keep reading

How Tyranny Parades as Law

“Law is often but the tyrant’s will and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.”

Thomas Jefferson warned us.

The biggest crimes against liberty do not happen in the shadows. They happen right in front of us. Paraded as law, justice, and the public good. When law itself becomes a weapon, no one is safe.

THE MASK OF LEGALITY

If you want to understand how tyranny operates, you have to see through the disguise. No one openly admits they are out to crush your liberty. Every usurpation, every unconstitutional power grab, every violation of your rights is always dressed up with a stamp of law.

John Dickinson nailed it during the height of the American Revolution.

“All artful rulers who strive to extend their power beyond its just limits endeavor to give their attempts as much semblance of legality as possible.”

This is the tyrant’s playbook. They always hide behind “legality.” They never admit what is really going on.

The Anti-Federalist Federal Farmer sounded the same alarm.

“Men who govern will in doubtful cases construe laws and constitutions most favorably for increasing their own powers.”

Give them any ambiguity, and they will twist it to justify more power for themselves.

THE COMFORT OF APPEARANCES

Here’s the unfortunate truth: most people don’t want reality. They prefer comfort. The word “legal” gives it to them. Machiavelli called out this self-delusion five hundred years ago.

“The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

That is exactly how tyranny survives and thrives. It hides under layers of illusion and make-believe, each one more convincing than the last. Two centuries later, John Trenchard made the same case in Cato’s Letters No. 9.

“The most successful deluders and oppressors of mankind have always acted in masquerade. And when the blackest villains are meant, the most opposite spirit is pretended. Vice acts with security and often with reputation under the veil of virtue.”

Delusion, masquerade, virtue signaling. It is all cover for the worst crimes.

MANIPULATING THE MASSES

He doubled down just a few weeks later, spelling out exactly how the scam works.

“Yet even in countries where the highest liberty is allowed and the greatest light shines, you generally find certain men and bodies of men set apart to mislead the multitude.”

That’s how they set the stage. The real con is in how they brand what’s evil as good – and good as evil.

“Whoever who are ever abused with words, ever fond of the worst things recommended by good names, and ever abhore the best things and the most virtuous actions, disfigured by ill names.”

Then he drilled down to the core tactic: control the words, control the people.

“One of the great arts, therefore, of cheating men is to study the application and misapplication of sounds. A few loud words rule the majority. I had almost said the whole world.”

Keep reading

County Sheriff Vows He Won’t Enforce Washington Permit-To-Purchase Law

The new Washington state law requiring lawful citizens to jump through a number of government hoops and acquire a permit before purchasing a firearm is considered to be unconstitutional by many observers, including at least one county sheriff in the Evergreen State.

The measure, House Bill 1163, created a permit-to-purchase scheme that requires government permission to purchase or transfer a firearm, adds a live-fire training component and establishes an illegal government registry of firearm owners and their personal information.

Washington’s Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the arguably unconstitutional bill into law on May 20. The new law even requires extensive live-fire training before purchasing a gun, along with a $32 fee to acquire the permit.

The law states: “In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a firearm to the purchaser or transferee thereof until: (a) The purchaser provides proof of completion of a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that complies with the requirements in RCW 9.41.1132, or proof that the purchaser is exempt from the training requirement or transferee produces a valid permit to purchase firearms under section 2 of this act.”

Things aren’t all rosy for Gov. Ferguson and Washington’s anti-gun Democrats, though. Now, one county sheriff is speaking out about the measure, saying he won’t be enforcing the new law in his county.

“This ‘law’ is unconstitutional,” Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank posted on X. “PCSO will not enforce it. Join me and fight for our rights.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Rules Alaska Didn’t Violate Constitution When Restricting Intoxicating Hemp Products

A federal magistrate judge has ruled that the state of Alaska did not violate the U.S. Constitution when it acted to limit intoxicating hemp products in 2023.

In an order published May 23, Magistrate Judge Kyle Reardon granted summary judgment in favor of the state and against the Alaska Industrial Hemp Association, which sued two years ago in an attempt to overturn regulations imposed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

The court order means intoxicating hemp products, common in many other states, will remain illegal in Alaska unless sold through a licensed marijuana retailer.

“It was rewarding to be part of the process developing the regulations, and I was happy when we successfully defended against the motion for a preliminary injunction in 2023,” said Assistant Attorney General Kevin Higgins, by email. Higgins represented the state in the case.

“I’m not patting myself on the back too hard though,” he said. “The Division of Agriculture was motivated by public safety concerns when it took measured action to regulate an emerging industry. This was an easy case to make, which is probably why the plaintiffs didn’t file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.”

An attorney representing the plaintiff did not answer a request for comment on Wednesday.

Keep reading

	Bigus Macus on DC Grand Jury Declines to Indi…
	Florida Plans to Bec… on Florida plans to become first…
	Florida Plans to Bec… on Florida plans to become first…
	Who Is Funding and O… on Who Is Funding and Organizing…
	How the US Regime Su… on How the US Regime Subsidizes I…