Tag: police state

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 The Christian values of honoring sufferers and praising brave deaths have been replaced by the pagan desire to end physical pain through any means possible, even suicide or murder.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

The Prosecution Of Daniel Penny Is A Soviet-Style Attack On The Right Of Self-Defense

American justice has become politicized — a weapon against enemies with hall passes for favored groups. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and dozens of big city, George Soros-funded leftist district attorneys routinely prosecute innocent citizens while letting criminals walk free.

The actions of these powerful officers of the law fit a pattern that the great Soviet-era Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn not only would have recognized, but he also detailed.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecutions of both Donald Trump and Daniel Penny — closing arguments for Penny’s trial are scheduled for after Thanksgiving — combined with his leniency for deadly criminals are a case in point.

In “The Gulag Archipelago,” Solzhenitsyn wrote of the “Voroshilov Amnesty,” granted three weeks after Stalin’s death in 1953, which “flooded the whole country with a wave of murderers, bandits, and thieves, who had with great difficulty been rounded up after the war.” Communist authorities thought a general amnesty would endear them to the people — of course, many non-violent political prisoners weren’t eligible.

This amnesty was compounded by Article 139 of the Criminal Code of 1926 which defined the “limits of necessary self-defense.” As Solzhenitsyn described the law, “you had the right to unsheathe your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise, you would be the one put on trial.” Solzhenitsyn then observed that “This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense led to total spinelessness as a national characteristic.”

Returning to Bragg’s prosecution of Penny, by now, much of the nation knows that Penny, a former Marine, intervened when Jordan Neely became aggressive and threatening on a subway train. Neely, who tragically died, either during the confrontation or shortly after, was not simply a man in need of help; he had a long history of violence and assault. By stepping in, Penny averted harm to fellow passengers. Yet instead of being hailed as a protector, Penny was prosecuted. It appears Bragg is a fan of the Soviet Union’s Article 139.

As Solzhenitsyn explained, the Soviet state reserved for itself the monopoly on force, punishing self-defense as a form of insubordination. Such policies deliberately cultivated fear and compliance, demoralizing citizens and teaching them to rely solely on the state for protection — a state that often failed to provide it. Solzhenitsyn recounted the case of soldier Aleksandr Zakharov, who, when sentenced to 10 years for murder for defending himself from a hoodlum’s attack, asked, “And what was I supposed to do?” To which the prosecutor responded, “You should have fled!”

The chilling effect of cases like Penny’s is already visible. People who might otherwise intervene in dangerous situations now think twice, fearful of becoming the next defendant in the crosshairs of prosecutors like Bragg.

Keep reading

The FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Has a New Target: Animal Rights Activists

On a chilly, early morning in January 2019, a group of animal rights activists descended upon a poultry farm in central Texas. Donning plastic gloves, medical masks, hazmat suits, and T-shirts emblazoned with “Meat the Victims,” they slipped through the unlocked door of a massive, windowless barn. 

Inside, they found 27,000 chicks densely packed across the floor, like “just a sea of yellow,” recalled Sarah Weldon, one of the activists. “There were a lot of chicks that were already deceased, in various stages of decomposition,” she said. “Some were so deformed you couldn’t even tell they used to be baby chicks, just fluffs of feathers.”

Activists with Meat the Victims, a decentralized, global movement to abolish animal exploitation, later uploaded gruesome photos of injured and dead chicks to social media platforms. This is how, Weldon suspects, the police identified her and issued a warrant for her arrest, along with 14 other activists. She was charged with criminal trespassing, a Class B misdemeanor, and quickly turned herself into jail.

The local police weren’t the only ones paying attention. An FBI agent in Texas had been secretly monitoring the demonstration. His focus? Weapons of mass destruction. 

The FBI has been collaborating with the meat industry to gather information on animal rights activism, including Meat the Victims, under its directive to counter weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, according to agency records recently obtained by the nonprofit Animal Partisan through Freedom of Information Act litigation. The records also show that the bureau has explored charging activists who break into factory farms under federal criminal statutes that carry a possible sentence of up to life in prison — including for the “attempted use” of WMD — while urging meat producers to report encounters with activists to its WMD program.

Keep reading

U.N. Chief Demands Governments ‘Rein in Hate Speech and Disinformation Online’

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres encouraged world governments on Tuesday to “rein in hate speech and disinformation spreading online” through a global censorship framework.

Guterres suggested that “unchecked digital platforms” were amplifying the “worst impulses of humanity” and threatening global stability and peace, requiring world governments to buy into U.N. programs such as the “Global Digital Compact” to silence speech the world body considers threatening. He made his remarks on the same day that the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared global intervention to “educate” online social influencers in how to avoid “misinformation” was an “urgent” priority. UNESCO launched an expansive campaign in early 2023 to promote global censorship regulations to silence “hate speech,” equating online discussions that run afoul of U.N. speech norms to “insects thriving in the dark.”

More recently, U.N. leaders used their platforms at the G20 summit this month to pressure the world’s most powerful economies to silence “disinformation” through a program promoting “information integrity on climate change.” The U.N. paired on that initiative with radical leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whose government is leading a sprawling, violent effort to use the court system and police raids to intimidate conservative voices into silence online.

Guterres made his comments on Tuesday at the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations global forum, hosted this year in his native Portugal. The Alliance describes itself as “a unique and inclusive platform for Member States, the private sector, youth, civil society and the media to exchange views and commit to dialogue and new partnerships.” The U.N. chief listed silencing “disinformation” as his second priority for the event.

Keep reading

The $267 Million Price Tag on Censorship Efforts Under Biden

A lot has been said about how the outgoing US administration’s focus on censorship (“combating misinformation“); it negatively affected online speech and now a number of federal spending documents examined by a non-profit show the price of that effort – or at least a part of it.

A new report prepared by OpenTheBooks details the grants the Biden-Harris administration started giving out as it took over in early 2021, and this doesn’t include the taxpayer money spent internally, by various departments and agencies.

The grants figure comes to $267 million – a massive increase (44 times more) compared to the $6.7 million that Trump’s first administration set aside for the same purpose.

The grants went toward researching what the outgoing White House chose to consider misinformation, which in many cases resulted in third parties – organization, academia, etc., – promoting and/or censoring speech, opponents of the practice say, effectively (and unconstitutionally) – as government proxies.

Covid was one of the major topics covered by this type of “research” and here, the report notes, the approach was both to offer monetary incentives, and to pressure companies operating social networks in order to promote government narratives, but also shut down not only criticism, but even skepticism.

To make matters worse – many of these issues whose official explanation was treated as gospel, resulting in people getting deplatformed and demonetized if they questioned these interpretations, shortly after turned out to be anything but “misinformation” – such as the origin of the virus, the efficacy of mask-wearing, social distancing, the safety of vaccines, etc.

But, $127 million of US taxpayers’ money in total was used to enforce those narratives, through pro-vaccine advocacy, studies meant to stop “misinformation” on the internet, and the like.

Keep reading

Germany Tightens Grip on Online Speech as Vice Chancellor Defends Arrest of Online Critic

Germany’s authorities continue to double down on their crusade against all manner of free speech on the internet: from the right of citizens to criticize them, to satirical content like memes.

Instead of considering apologizing to a pensioner whose home was recently raided by law enforcement for an online post unflattering of his person, German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck is now urging even stricter regulation of social media.

And it’s clear what kind of regulation Habeck – who was referred to as “an idiot” in the post that got 64-year-old Stefan Niehoff in hot water with the prosecution – wants to see more of.

The Green Party politician cited the EU’s controversial, sweeping censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), as a tool that could be used to “regulate” algorithms used by social media.

According to the German press, Habeck told the ARD broadcaster not only that he wouldn’t apologize but went on to try to explain – or, justify – why he filed a criminal complaint against the pensioner in the first place.

Habeck suggested that being called an “idiot” was just the straw that broke the camel’s back; his grievance supposedly originates from a previous “racist” post by Niehoff.

Keep reading

This Is How It Begins: The Deep State Wants to Terminate the Constitution

This is how it begins. This is how it always begins, justified in the name of national security.

Mass roundups. Raids. Indefinite detentions in concentration camps. Martial law. The erosion of habeas corpus protections. The suspension of the Constitution, at least for select segments of the population. A hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.

This is what you can expect in the not-so-distant future.

Once you allow the government to overreach the restraints imposed  by the Constitution, no matter what that threat might be, it will be that much harder to restrain it again, no matter which party is at the helm.

We’ve seen this played out time and again.

Some years ago, for instance, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board suggested that government officials should mandate mass vaccinations and deploy the National Guard “to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

In other words, they wanted the government to use the military to round up and lock up the unvaccinated in concentration camps.

That didn’t happen, but it so easily could have.

Now the script has been flipped, and it’s the soon-to-be Trump Administration promising to use the military to round up and lock up undesirables in concentration camps.

At this moment in time, those so-called “undesirables” are illegal immigrants, but given what we know about the government and its expansive definition of what constitutes a threat to its power, any one of us could be next up in the police state’s crosshairs.

Once you give the government a taste of that kind of power—to disregard the Constitution, even for a day; to use the military for domestic policing; to rely on mass deportations and concentration camps in order to sidestep due process procedures—it won’t be so easy to rein it in when it runs amok.

And it will run amok.

Keep reading

Israeli lawmakers vote to sanction Haaretz newspaper citing ‘damage to legitimacy of the state’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet unanimously voted on 25 November to cut ties with Israel’s oldest newspaper, Haaretz, citing its critical coverage of the war on Gaza and comments made by the paper’s publisher expressing support for Palestinian “freedom fighters” and calling for sanctions on Israeli leaders.

The liberal Israeli daily newspaper is Zionist in orientation but sometimes publishes reports that are critical of the government and sympathetic to Palestinians.

The cabinet voted to approve a proposal that would end government advertising in the newspaper and cancel all subscriptions for state employees and employees of state-owned companies.

Haaretz responded by saying the initiative was an attempt to “silence a critical, independent newspaper.”

The proposal came in response to comments made by Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken, who expressed support for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation during a speech in London last month.

According to CNN, Schocken stated during his speech that “It (the Netanyahu government) doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists.”

“In a sense, what is taking place now in the occupied territories and in part of Gaza is a second Nakba … A Palestinian state must be established and the only way to achieve this, I think, is to apply sanctions against Israel, against the leaders who oppose it and against the settlers,” he added.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who spearheaded the proposal to cut funding to Haaretz, was angered by Schocken’s comments.

“We must not allow a reality in which the publisher of an official newspaper in the State of Israel will call for the imposition of sanctions against it and will support the enemies of the state in the midst of a war and will be financed by it,” Kari said in a statement.

Karhi also criticized the paper’s coverage of the war on Gaza.

“The decision came in the wake of many articles that damaged the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the world and its right to self-defense,” he said.

Keep reading