Tag: police state

Pam Bondi Says Government Will “Go After” Hate Speech, Drawing First Amendment Criticism

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has stirred controversy with recent comments seeming to suggest that certain forms of speech could fall outside First Amendment protections, a stance that is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.

During an appearance on The Katie Miller Podcast following last week’s assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, Bondi stated, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…” She added, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Her remarks immediately drew sharp responses from across the political spectrum, with many warning that her approach opens the door to dangerous government overreach.

Bondi later attempted to narrow the scope of her original statements in a post on X, writing, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

She continued, “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), a civil liberties group focused on free speech, fired back, stating, “There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court has long protected even offensive or unpopular speech, with the Court’s view being that the “proudest boast” of America’s free speech legacy is “freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Conservatives who typically align with Bondi’s broader political positions also voiced concern.

Keep reading

How The Drug War Benefits Donald Trump And The State

From the standpoint of many U.S. officials, one can easily see why they find the drug war advantageous. Like the drug lords and drug cartels, there is a huge drug-war federal bureaucracy that has grown dependent on the drug war. There are, for example, generous salaries for federal judges (plus lifetime appointments), federal prosecutors, DEA agents, court clerks and secretaries, law clerks, and others, all of which would dry up if the drug war were ended and drugs were legalized. Just like the drug lords and drug dealers, the last thing these federal bureaucrats want to do is let go of the source of their largess.

But there is another benefit to the drug war, one that President Trump is now using to expand his militarized police state across America. That’s the violence that necessarily comes with the drug war. Trump is using that violence as a way to complete the destruction of freedom in America.

Here is how the drug-war racket works.

The U.S. government enacts drug laws that make it illegal to possess, ingest, or distribute drugs that have not been approved by the U.S. government. It would be difficult to find a better example of the destruction of a free society than drug laws. With the enactment of such laws, the federal government is declaring to the citizenry: “You are the serfs and we are your masters. We, not you, will decide what you possess, ingest, and distribute. If you disobey our edicts, we will punish you with incarceration and fines.”

But that’s not the end of it. The drug war not only destroys individual liberty and sovereignty, it also produces a black market — that is, an illegal market. Notwithstanding the government’s drug laws, there are still a large number of Americans, for whatever reason, who wish to continue consuming drugs and who are willing to pay large amounts of money for them.

Thus, black-market sellers of drugs enter the illegal market to meet this demand. Angry and chagrined over this phenomenon, federal officials crack down by targeting both distributors and consumers with things like mandatory-minimum jail sentences, asset-forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, racist enforcement, killing of drug lords, burning of drug crops, and more.

But all that this crackdown accomplishes is higher black-market prices and profits arising from the sale of illegal drugs. The ever-soaring profits attract more people into the drug-supply business. Competition for consumers inevitably turns violent — extremely violent, especially given the unsavory nature of black-market distributors. There are, for example, turf wars where drug suppliers do their best to kill their competitors.

Keep reading

Burning the Flag or Torching the Constitution: Only One Destroys Freedom

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”Ray Bradbury

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than President Trump’s latest executive order calling for criminal charges for anyone who burns the American flag—a symbolic act long upheld by the Supreme Court as protected political expression.

This push is not about patriotism—it is political theater.

For an administration under fire—from the Epstein cover-up to tanking approval ratings and mounting constitutional crises—flag burning serves as symbolic outrage staged as political cover, a culture-war diversion to distract from more serious abuses of power.

Consider the timing: on the very same day Trump announced penalties for flag burning, he also signed an executive order establishing “specialized” National Guard units to patrol American cities under the guise of addressing crime.

This is the real bait-and-switch: cloak military policing in patriotic theater and hope no one notices the deeper constitutional violations taking root.

In other words, Trump’s flag fight is a decoy.

Yet in today’s climate, where mobs on the left and censors on the right compete to silence speech they dislike, even this form of protest is under fire.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag of the United States in protest is an act of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Montreal church fights back after city issues $2,500 prayer service fine

A Montreal church is refusing to quietly pay a $2,500 ticket for holding a prayer service. Instead, Ministerios Restauración Church is fighting back, filing a legal defence and a Charter challenge in Quebec Superior Court that accuses the City of Montreal of abusing its power and violating fundamental rights.

The fine was issued after a July 25, 2025, worship service featuring American musician Sean Feucht.

Roughly 150 people attended the free event, which was disrupted when anti-Christian protesters tossed a smoke bomb into the sanctuary.

Police and inspectors were on site, but rather than punishing the vandals, city officials targeted the congregation issuing a bylaw ticket claiming the prayer service wasn’t.

Lawyers funded by The Democracy Fund (TDF) have filed a not-guilty plea in municipal court while also launching a Superior Court appeal. That judicial review asks the court to:

  • Quash the fine and halt proceedings,
  • Declare that prayer and musical worship are legitimate uses of a church building, and
  • Award $10,000 in damages for what the filing calls intentional violations of Charter rights.

The appeal argues that the City of Montreal trampled on rights protected by both the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and equality without discrimination on the basis of faith or belief.

TDF lawyers also say city officials crossed the line into outright hostility toward religion. Inspectors threatened enforcement before the service, and the mayor’s office publicly condemned the event as being “against values of inclusion, solidarity, and respect.”

Keep reading

How Tyranny Becomes Entrenched: 9/11 and the Police State’s Endless Power Grabs

hey said it was for safety. They said it was for order. They said it was for the good of the nation.

They always say it’s for something good… until it isn’t.

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, we are still living with the consequences of fear-driven government power grabs. What began as “temporary” measures for our security have hardened into a permanent architecture of control.

The bipartisan police-state architecture that began with 9/11 has been passed from president to president and party to party, each recycling the same justifications—safety, security, patriotism—to expand its powers at the expense of the citizenry.

So they locked down the country “for our safety.”
They expanded surveillance “for our security.”
They rounded up anyone who challenged the narrative “for the common good.”
They erased names, ideas, and histories “to prevent offense.”
They forced schools to teach only what was politically correct “for the children.”
They censored speech “for our protection.”
They targeted dissenters “to preserve peace.”
They militarized the streets and called it “law and order.”

These very abuses—once denounced when carried out by the Left—are now cheered, defended, and excused when carried out by the Right.

People who once spoke passionately about truth, freedom, and faith have now fallen silent in the face of injustice, or worse, convinced themselves that nothing is wrong. The very voices that should be warning against tyranny are instead excusing it or looking away.

This is the danger of double standards in politics: every tyranny is rationalized in the moment by its chorus of defenders.

But history teaches that what goes around comes around. If you justify it now, you’ll have no defense when the tables turn.

And yet, time and again, the lies we tell ourselves make it possible. The cult of personality. The blind loyalty to party. The belief that “our side” can’t be the villain.

It never ceases to amaze how far people will go to excuse the actions of their favorite tyrant, even when those actions are the very things they once swore to oppose.

The pattern of justifying tyranny is as old as power itself. Every abuse comes wrapped in the same excuse: we had to do it.

Keep reading

Australia enforces world’s harshest social media age crackdown

Australia is introducing the world’s toughest rules to keep children off social media, with platforms facing fines of up to $49.5 million if they fail to detect and remove underage users.

From December 10, social media companies must actively identify and deactivate accounts belonging to users under 16, block re-registration attempts, and provide proper appeals processes. Communications Minister Anika Wells has unveiled a list of “reasonable steps” platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube must follow.

The measures demand that age assurance technology not be a “set-and-forget” system and cannot rely solely on self-declaration. Platforms are encouraged to adopt a layered or “waterfall approach” using multiple checks across the user experience to detect underage accounts. They must also remove existing accounts “with care and clear communication” and provide accessible review options for those who believe they were wrongly flagged.

Wells and controversial eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant will present the guidance directly to tech companies during a visit to the United States later this month. After trials proved the technology exists to meet the requirements, Wells said there is no excuse for companies to fall short.

Keep reading

Speaker Johnson Blocks Massie’s Attempt To Repeal The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act

Since ascending to the seat of Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has had a tumultuous tenure that has raised serious questions about how committed Republican leadership is to disrupting the political establishment in Washington, DC, which it promised to vanquish. Ironically, the controversies that have marred his leadership the most have not been initiated by partisan opposition from the left. Instead, the most formidable challenges to Johnson have come from within the Republican Party itself. Representative Thomas Massie, who in stark juxtaposition has earned a reputation as one of the few members of Congress with any integrity, has proven to be Johnson’s greatest adversary in that struggle.From his crusade to prevent Johnson’s re-election to the seat at the head of the House of Representatives to his mission to bring transparency to the debacle over the release of the Epstein Files™, Massie’s efforts have painted the Speaker in the light of someone who has used the promise of putting America first as a vehicle for political expediency rather than as a testament to his commitment to the American people.

By actually fighting against the corrupt Washington establishment, Massie’s efforts have shown just how much Congress is still at odds with the American people under Johnson’s leadership. The congressman’s recent effort to repeal legislation that legalizes the use of state-sanctioned propaganda against the American citizens by their own government is the latest episode in the saga between Massie and Johnson. Massie’s revelation that his attempt to repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was blocked by Speaker Johnson amplifies concerns about whose interests are being fought for by Congress and how committed Republican leadership is to delivering on its promises to provide the public with greater transparency and integrity of the rule of law.

Keep reading

Why the United States is Doomed

QUESTION: I believe you have said that the United States practices the law of tyrants, conspiracy, which only proves a thought crime, not that you committed a crime. Is this why you say we are doomed, because nobody will do real legal reform?

Wes

ANSWER: Our legal system adopted the tyranny of the king and replaced him with the Department of JUST US. Its combination of the Pinkerton rule, broad federal statutes like RICO, and the strategic, frequent use by prosecutors makes American conspiracy law one of the most potent and expansive in the world. The United States has the most anti-human rights legal system on the planet. For example, under Canon Law used in France, they cannot compel any family member to testify against you. In the United States, they can imprison your children until they testify against you. The only privilege is granted to a spouse or a priest. Then they will use a divorce to get around the spouse rule. Under the Canon law of the Catholic Church, the sanctity of the family unit comes first. Under English Common Law, precedent takes precedent. We had a revolution against the king’s tyranny, replacing him with local tyranny.

They love to call Russia and China authoritarian and communist. But look at the stats. You have a 340% greater chance of going to jail in the United States compared to China. The United States has the highest percentage of its population in prison of any country in the world, so much for liberty. Suppose you lie to a government official; that is perjury, punishable by up to 5 years. If a government official lies to you, that is legal.

Without the rule of law, civilization crumbles. Courts rule in favor of the government. Rarely will you find a judge who will truly defend the Constitution, and good luck in prosecuting a judge or a prosecutor.

Keep reading

California Bills on Social Media and AI Chatbots Fuel Privacy Fears

Two controversial tech-related bills have cleared the California legislature and now await decisions from Governor Gavin Newsom, setting the stage for a potentially significant change in how social media and AI chatbot platforms interact with their users.

Both proposals raise red flags among privacy advocates who warn they could normalize government-driven oversight of digital spaces.

The first, Assembly Bill 56, would require social media companies to display persistent mental health warnings to minors using their platforms.

Drawing from a 2023 US Surgeon General report, the legislation mandates that platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat show black-box warning labels about potential harm to youth mental health.

The alert would appear for ten seconds at login, again after three hours of use, and once every hour after that.

Supporters, including Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Attorney General Rob Bonta, claim the bill is necessary to respond to what they describe as a youth mental health emergency.

Critics of the bill argue it inserts state messaging into private platforms in a way that undermines user autonomy and treats teens as passive recipients of technology, rather than individuals capable of making informed choices.

Newsom has until October 13 to sign or veto the measure.

Keep reading

Feds provide anti-cannabis group a platform to bash legalization

A federal health agency on Monday hosted a leading marijuana prohibitionist group for an event focused on cannabis use trends and youth prevention, giving the organization a prominent platform for a discussion that largely promoted an anti-reform agenda.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) invited Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), to speak at a webinar on cannabis-related emergency incidents, the “potential negative impacts of state legalization” and methods of deterring youth usage.

The conversation skewed heavily toward the prohibition side of the cannabis reform debate, with Rear Admiral Christopher Jones, the director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, opening by overviewing data on “an upward trajectory of marijuana use” and its potential harms.

“What we hope to do today is sort of unpack some of the data that are underneath these trends,” he said. “But certainly the recent uptick is concerning as we look at past-month marijuana use.”

While Jones acknowledged that youth cannabis usage in recent years as more states have legalized cannabis have been “a little bit flatter” compared to rising use rates for adults, there was no discussion about how that might be related to the enactment of regulated markets for adults, which require IDs to ensure that underage people are not accessing the products. A question about the issue submitted by Marijuana Moment during the event was not addressed.

Sabet, for his part, accused pro-legalization advocates and industry stakeholders of selectively promoting data around youth consumption trends to demonstrate that legalization is not associated with an increase among that cohort.

“What you will find the industry often do is cherry pick some of those studies and find one or two states in the timeframe that suits them to show that there was a decrease—you know, remarkably worse there—or there was no increase, they often say, because it’s even hard for them to say there’s a decrease,” Sabet said. “That’s almost impossible. But they can finagle the numbers to say that there was no increase.”

SAMHSA’s just this summer put out data showing that youth cannabis consumption has remained stable amid the state legalization movement.

Keep reading