Secrecy and the Divine Right to Deceive

Secrecy and lying are two sides of the same political coin. The Supreme Court declared in 1936, “An informed public is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment.” Thus, conniving politicians have no choice but to drop an Iron Curtain around Washington.

Politicians guarantee that Americans are left clueless on the most controversial or dangerous federal policies. The government is creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year. The total is equivalent to “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with double-spaced text on paper,” according to The Washington Post. If those cabinets were laid end to end, they would stretch almost to the moon. The feds have accumulated the equivalent of hundreds of pages of secrets for each American, blighting any hope for citizens to learn of their rulers’ rascality.

“All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers,” George Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is where government classification—i.e., secrecy—comes in handy. The more information government classifies, the easier it becomes for politicians to dupe the American people. In Washington, deniability is better than the truth.

Secrecy was usually not a grave peril to most Americans’ rights, liberties, and safety until the U.S. government began warring in the 1940s and on into this century.

Secrecy helped deliver a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. President Lyndon Johnson fabricated claims about an alleged North Vietnamese attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to sway Congress to give him unlimited authority to attack North Vietnam. Johnson assumed he was entitled to deceive Americans to vastly expand the war he decided to fight to boost his 1964 presidential election campaign. But other federal officials claimed a prerogative to blindfold the American people. When Assistant Defense Secretary Arthur Sylvester visited Saigon in 1965, he hectored American correspondents covering the Vietnam War: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid!” Sylvester declared that he expected the American press to be “the handmaidens of government.” Most of the American media has followed orders regarding foreign reporting most of the time since then.

In March 1972, President Richard Nixon, as part of his “pledge to create an open Administration,” ordered radical changes in how Uncle Sam kept secrets. Nixon announced that the classification system “failed to meet the standards of an open and democratic society, allowing too many papers to be classified for too long a time. Classification has frequently served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes or to prevent embarrassment to officials and administrations.” He promised “to lift the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds” federal documents. Nixon’s campaign against secrecy faltered after the Watergate coverup destroyed his presidency.   

In 1978,  President Jimmy Carter created the Information Security Oversight Office to oversee classification but secrecy regime continued and grew. In 1989, former Solicitor General of the United States Dean Erwin Griswold complained that “there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another.” In 1991, former National Security Council official Rodney McDaniel estimated that “only 10% of classification was for legitimate protection of secrets.” In 1997, a federal commission headed by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) lamented that “secrets in the federal government are whatever anyone with a stamp decides to stamp secret.”

In the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the percentage of Americans who trusted the federal government doubled. The George W. Bush administration exploited the new credulity to boost the number of classified government documents almost tenfold. The New York Times reported in 2005 that federal agencies were “classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like ‘sensitive security information.’” William Leonard, former chief of the federal Information Security Oversight Office, complained of seeing information “classified that I’ve also seen published in third-grade textbooks.”

But secrecy again signed a death warrant for thousands of Americans. President George W. Bush persuaded Americans to support invading Iraq by blaming Saddam Hussein for the 9/11 attacks, among other pretexts. Bush could vilify Iraq thanks to a sweeping coverup of the role of the Saudi government in bankrolling and directly assisting the 9/11 hijackers.

Keep reading

Biden’s Pardon Of Son’s Drug-Related Crimes Draws Calls From Advocates To Free Marijuana Prisoners

President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter, for drug-related and other crimes is drawing cries from criminal justice and marijuana policy reformers, who call the action hypocritical and say the president should do more to grant clemency to cannabis prisoners before his term expires next month.

“In pardoning Hunter Biden, the president noted that despite believing in our justice system, sometimes the outcome of that process is not fair or just,” said Sarah Gersten, executive director and general counsel for Last Prisoner Project (LPP), a nonprofit that focuses on drug policy reform. “That is certainly the case for the nearly 3,000 cannabis prisoners who remain incarcerated federally for activity that has been widely legalized.”

Biden over the weekend pardoned his son, who had been convicted on felony gun and tax charges earlier this year. Three of those convictions were related to lying on a federal form about drug use when buying a gun in 2018, a time when he was using crack cocaine.

In a statement, the president said his pardon reflected the belief that his son was “being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,” noting that “people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form.”

That’s a claim that even some Republicans have echoed. Following the convictions, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Hunter Biden “might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it.”

“There are millions of marijuana users who own guns in this country, and none of them should be in jail for purchasing or possessing a firearm against current laws,” the congressman said.

Then-Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a supporter of cannabis reform, said at the time that the “Hunter Biden gun conviction is kinda dumb.”

Nevertheless, advocates point out that thousands of people are still behind bars for cannabis-related offenses.

Keep reading

Justice Department Orders DEA to Halt Airport Searches Because of ‘Significant Issues’ With Cash Seizures

The Justice Department has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to suspend most searches of passengers at airports and other mass transit hubs after an independent investigation found DEA task forces weren’t documenting searches and weren’t properly trained, creating a significant risk of constitutional violations and lawsuits. 

The deputy attorney general directed the DEA on November 12 to halt what are known as “consensual encounter” searches at airports—unless they’re part of an existing investigation into a criminal network—after seeing the draft of a Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) memorandum that outlined a decade’s worth of “significant concerns” about how the DEA uses paid airline informants and loose criteria to flag passengers to search for drugs and cash.

OIG Investigators found that the DEA paid one airline employee tens of thousands of dollars over the past several years in proceeds from cash seized as a result of their tips. However, the vast majority of those airport seizures aren’t accompanied by criminal prosecutions. This has led to years of complaints from civil liberties groups that the DEA is abusing civil asset forfeiture—a practice that allows police to seize cash and other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity such as drug trafficking, even if the owner is never arrested or charged with a crime. 

The memo, released publicly today by the OIG, found that failures to properly train agents and document searches “​​creates substantial risks that DEA Special Agents (SA) and Task Force Officers (TFO) will conduct these activities improperly; impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of, innocent travelers; imperil the Department’s asset forfeiture and seizure activities; and waste law enforcement resources on ineffective interdiction actions.”

The OIG memo and directive is a victory for advocacy groups that oppose civil asset forfeiture, such as the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is currently litigating a class action lawsuit challenging the DEA’s airport forfeiture practices.

Keep reading

Rumble Sues California; Says State’s “War Against Political Speech Is Censorship”

Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.

Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.

ADF stated in a press release that the law “deputizes” Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,” uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.

“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.

“Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,” Sechler further urged.

He added that “Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.”

Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”

“Rumble
will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression,” Pavlovski asserted.

The Democratic Party is pushing hard to enact laws that force censorship.

Keep reading

Meet the Spyware Companies Preparing to Unleash Their Tech During Trump’s 2nd Term

In late September, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement signed a $2 million one-year contract with controversial Israeli spyware vendor Paragon Solutions. The contract involved Paragon’s US subsidiary based in Chantilly, Virginia and ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Division 3.

Paragon claims its tools can help law enforcement and governments remotely crack encrypted messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and Facebook Messenger.

The agreement calls for Paragon to provide ICE with a “fully configured proprietary solution including license, hardware, warranty, maintenance and training.” The agreement was first reported on by Wired.

Within weeks of the ICE-Paragon contract becoming public Wired reported the contract was under review by the White House to see if it violates a 2023 Executive Order issued by the Biden administration. Executive Order 14093 was signed by President Joe Biden in March 2023 as part of an ongoing US government effort specifically aimed at restricting the use of commercial spyware by U.S. agencies.

The EO says the US government will continue to promote the “responsible use” of spyware that aligns with promoting “democratic values”. Despite the U.S. government efforts to prosecute journalists like Julian Assange, the EO claims the U.S. has an interest in “promoting respect for human rights; and defending activists, dissidents, and journalists against threats to their freedom and dignity.”

The Biden administration has also made efforts to impact the commercial spyware market, including placing spyware vendors like Israeli firm NSO Group and Intellexa on the “Entity List” which prevents any US companies from doing business with them. The Biden White House has also implemented a visa restriction policy for individuals “who have been involved in the development and sale of commercial spyware or who are immediate family members of those involved.”

Keep reading

Legal Plunder: Indiana Police Prey On Packages Transiting Huge FedEx Hub

From a federal government operating far beyond the bounds of the Constitution to law enforcement agencies routinely entering private property without warrantstyranny takes many forms in the United States. However, few are as shocking to the sensibilities as civil asset forfeiture, the controversial practice that empowers police to seize money, cars, trucks, houses or anything else they merely accuse of having a link to criminal activity — regardless of whether the property owner is charged with a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture is an affront to anyone who’s sincerely committed to the American justice system’s cornerstone presumption of innocence. With law enforcement typically keeping some or all of the assets that are seized, the practice has rightly been called “policing for profit.”

I’ve previously examined the raw tyranny of civil asset forfeiture, spotlighting the story of a Mississippi man who took $42,300 in cash to Houston with the intent of buying a second semi truck for his fledgling trucking business, only to have it seized — or, in legal jargon, “forfeited” — by Harris County police, who pulled him over for allegedly following the vehicle in front of him too closely.

Now I’m compelled to share a new example of this legalized theft — the most brazenly unjust and opportunistic one I’ve encountered yet: In an ongoing, multi-million-dollar racket in Indianapolis, police are routinely seizing cash they find in FedEx packages that happen to be routed through that company’s second-largest hub.

Like bears wading into a river teeming with salmon, state and local Indiana police officers routinely stride up to the conveyer belts at FedEx’s sprawling Indianapolis facility, where tens of thousands of packages flow by every hour, pouncing when they see a package with traits that meet their absurdly broad definition of “suspicious.”

Keep reading

Canadian Town Fined And Mayor Sent For Compulsory Education After Failing To Hoist Pride Flag

CBC News is reporting that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the small town of  Emo to pay damages after failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” in celebration of Pride Month. One problem is that the town of fewer than 2000 inhabitants does not have a flagpole (though you could presumably “show the flag” in other ways).

The National Post reports, that there has been a lengthy arbitration process between the tribunal and the town.

In a decision handed down last week, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Emo, its mayor, and two councilors violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. The tribunal admitted in a later opinion that “the record indicated the Township did not receive many requests for declarations or proclamations or requests for display of a flag.”

Indeed, in a single 12-month period, they received only four — two from Borderland Pride.

Emo does not have a central flagpole, other than the Canadian flag over the front door of the Emo Municipal Office.

One issue that factored greatly in the tribunal hearings occurred during the debate over the flag proposal, which the council rejected by a vote of three to two. In the meeting. Mayor Harold McQuaker stated, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”

Doug Judson, a lawyer and a member of Borderland Pride’s board of directors, said that “the important thing we were seeking here was validation … as 2SLGBTQA plus people.”

The tribunal ruled that Borderland Pride will be awarded $15,000, with $10,000 coming from the township and $5,000 from Emo mayor Harold McQuaker.

At first, the fine against “McQuaker” in the town of “Emo” for failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” on a non-existent flagpole seemed too contrived.

However, the mayor of Emo is a McQuaker, and the Canadian press is standing by the story.

For years, the Canadian human rights tribunals have been the spearhead of the anti-free speech movement. We have previously discussed the tribunals (herehere, and here) in such controversies.

Not only must the town pay the fines, but McQuaker and Emo’s chief administrative officer were ordered to complete an online course called “Human Rights 101” and “provide proof of completion … to Borderland Pride within 30 days” as recompense for their disobedience.

Keep reading

Disabled Brits Fearful as UK Pushes Assisted Suicide Bill

Multiple disabled individuals in Britain have expressed fear or anxiety that if the bill the UK Parliament just approved becomes law, people in the country will not only be able to choose to kill themselves if they have a terminal diagnosis, but those lives deemed less valuable could be ended by an anti-life medical system. After all, British babies have been taken off life-support against their families’ wishes in the past because doctors didn’t want to treat them.

The Nazi mentality of ending lives that the authorities consider arbitrarily to be valueless has spread from justification for abortion to justification for assisted suicide—and what is essentially murder of the elderly and sick. “I am a doctor and I have a disability,” posted Dr. Callum Miller from London, England. “I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt Doctors do NOT have the time or the understanding to protect disabled people from assisted suicide[.] Doctors will be killing vulnerable disabled people if this bill passes.” 

MP Nigel Farage agreed, “The right to die may become the obligation to die.”

The UK House of Commons has reportedly voted to approve a bill that would allow those with a terminal diagnosis of less than six months to live to kill themselves in medically assisted suicide. The Christian values of honoring sufferers and praising brave deaths have been replaced by the pagan desire to end physical pain through any means possible, even suicide or murder. But it is easy to predict that once assisted suicide is allowed, even for a few exceptions, it will soon be encouraged for many other reasons, too.

Miller is not the only person worried that disabled Brits will be pressured into killing themselves. Catholic campaigner and mother Caroline Farrow posted, “People in wheelchairs openly weeping, here outside of Parliament. The atmosphere is one of profound sadness and terror. A dark cloud has descended over the UK.” 

Disability Rights UK announced it was “deeply dismayed” by the House of Commons vote, arguing, “This legislation sends a chilling message: the government prioritises the right to die over the right to live.”

To provide context on how easily legalized assisted suicide could be abused, in 2018, British baby Alfie Evans (see photo above) was ordered taken off life support against the wishes of his parents. Italy granted Alfie citizenship, and the Vatican offered to treat Alfie at a hospital there, but UK authorities refused, and Alfie was taken off life support and died. In 2023, a UK judge ruled that baby Indi Gregory needed to be taken off life support, and authorities would not let her be evacuated, even though, once again, a Vatican hospital was willing to provide little Indi the care she needed to survive. She died in November 2023. 

In both of these cases, the UK authorities arbitrarily decided the babies’ lives were worthless and not only refused care, but actively prevented the Vatican from providing care, ensuring the babies would die in the UK. 

Keep reading

Some Questions to Ask on Thanksgiving

What if the government’s true goal is to perpetuate its own power? What if the real levers of governmental power are pulled by agents, diplomats, bureaucrats, donors, central bankers and arms manufacturers? What if they have power no matter who is elected president or which political party controls either house of Congress?

What if the frequent public displays of adversity between Republicans and Democrats are just a facade? What if both major political parties agree on the fundamental issues of our day?

What if the leadership of both political parties believes that our rights are not natural to our humanity but instead are gifts from the government? What if those leaders believe the government that gives gifts to the people can take those gifts away?

What if the leadership of both parties gives only lip service to Thomas Jefferson’s assertions in the Declaration of Independence that all persons “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that when the government assaults our natural rights, we can “alter or abolish” it?

What if the leadership of both parties quietly dismisses those ideas as Jefferson’s outdated musings? What if Jefferson’s words are core American values that all in government have sworn to uphold?

What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the constitutional requirement of due process somehow permits mothers to hire doctors to kill babies in their wombs, out of fear or convenience? What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the president may lawfully kill any foreigner out of fear, because due process is an inconvenience?

What if the last four presidents — two from each political party — have used high-tech drones to kill innocent people in foreign lands with which America was not at war and claimed that they did so legally, relying not on a declaration of war from Congress but on erroneous and secret legal arguments that claim American presidents can kill with impunity?

What if the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war or due process whenever the government wants anyone’s life, liberty or property, whether convenient or not, and whether the person is American or not? What if due process means a fair jury trial, not a secretly ordered killing?

What if most members of Congress from both political parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt? What if the political class believes that war is the health of the state? What if the leadership of that class wants war so as to induce the loyalty of its base, open the pocketbooks of the taxpayers, gain the compliance of the voters and enrich its benefactors? What if the government has been paying for war by increasing its debt?

Keep reading

Explosive Report Exposes Biden-Harris Regime Weaponizes Dept. of Education Against Christian Colleges and Universities

The Biden-Harris regime has turned the Department of Education (DOE) into a battering ram against Christian colleges and universities.

According to an explosive report by the American Principles Project (APP), the DOE’s Office of Enforcement, resurrected by President Biden, has disproportionately targeted faith-based institutions, imposing massive fines and creating a hostile regulatory environment.

According to the report:

Days before his inauguration then President-elect Joe Biden wrote in a statement that “ensuring freedom of religion remains as important as ever” and that government must safeguard “bedrock protections.” No one should be “afraid to attend a religious service, school, or community center,” the statement asserts.

That statement is not representative of what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris actually believe. Since assuming office, the administration has waged an unprecedented assault against Christian colleges, universities, and students, while systematically protecting “elite” public and private institutions, foisting woke ideology on reluctant students, and enabling antisemitic, violent protests on campuses across the nation.

It’s done so by weaponizing the Department of Education’s Office of Enforcement—an obscure subsidiary of the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) that was created with the implicit intent of shutting down schools and programs that do not conform to the administration’s radical agenda.

This campaign, which has been advanced under the auspices of protecting students from “predatory” colleges and universities, threatens to erode traditional family values from higher education and financially squeeze and shut down schools that align with Christians’ values and beliefs.

Data analysis from the American Principles Project reveals that nearly 70% of enforcement actions by the Department of Education targeted faith-based or career-focused schools, which represent less than 10% of the student population.

Institutions like Grand Canyon University (GCU) and Liberty University—two of the country’s largest Christian universities—faced record-setting fines of $37.7 million and $14 million, respectively.

Keep reading