Tag: police state

The Doomsday Government: Preparing for the End of the World, Not the End of Power

“Monsters in movies are us, always us, one way or the other… Monsters are us, the dangerous parts of us. The part that wants to destroy. The part of us with the reptile brain. The part of us that’s vicious and cruel. We express these in our stories as these monsters out there.”—John Carpenter

This time of year, there is no shortage of monsters to frighten us.

Hollywood has given us vampires, zombies, mad scientists, masked killers and creatures that emerge from the darkness to prey upon the unsuspecting.

But perhaps the most frightening monster of all is the government that has become so accustomed to wielding extraordinary power that it cannot imagine a future in which that power is diminished.

Enter the Doomsday Plan.

Imagine it: The power grid goes down. Supply chains collapse. Communications fail. Cities are plunged into darkness. Ordinary Americans are left scrambling for food, water, medicine and shelter.

Not to worry, though. The government has a plan for the coming apocalypse.

Unfortunately, the plan seems to have more to do with keeping the police state operational than keeping the American people alive.

In what sounds like a plot lifted straight out of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, the Pentagon has unveiled an initiative designed to keep the war machine running even if a catastrophic war devastates the country’s civilian infrastructure.

Under an initiative called FORTRESS, the military is preparing major installations across the United States to operate independently for at least 90 days in the event of a catastrophic disruption. The plan includes portable nuclear reactors, independent power grids, stockpiles of fuel and ammunition, backup communications systems and arrangements for civilian factories to switch over to wartime production.

The Pentagon calls this preparedness.

Keep reading

‘They Are Terrorizing Us’: Video Shows ICE Agents Slashing Tires of Lawful Observers

A video taken from the car of two legal observers in the Portland, Oregon area shows an unmarked vehicle with emergency lights flashing, following close behind their car on a street in the suburb of Hillsboro.

About 15 seconds into the video, both cars stop and two masked people get out of the unmarked vehicle and approach the other car, with one carrying a sharp object that they use to puncture the back tire. They approach a second time a few seconds later, slashing the tire again.

Both of the masked people are wearing vests emblazoned with the name of their government agency: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The people who filmed the attack, identified as AP and MP in an administrative complaint filed with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday, had been observing and filming the agents in a Safeway parking lot in Hillsboro, and had used whistles and honked their car horn to alert people about ICE’s presence, before the officers started following them.

Filming ICE agents and other federal officers who have been deployed to carry out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation operation is legal under the First Amendment, as top DHS officials were forced to admit under oath last February.

Keep reading

South Korean Prosecutor Seeks Death Penalty for Conservative Ex-President

South Korean Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-suk on Thursday demanded the death penalty for former president Yeon Suk-yeol, who touched off a national crisis by declaring martial law in December 2024.

Yoon, 65, declared a state of martial law in South Korea on December 3, 2024. He said this was necessary to “protect the Republic of Korea from the threats of North Korean communist forces” that had allegedly subverted and paralyzed South Korea’s government.

Yoon denounced the opposition in the South Korean National Assembly as a “hotbed of criminals,” and said martial law would remain in effect until he could “eradicate such anti-state forces and the culprits of the country’s ruin who have committed evil acts up until now.”

As it turned out, the state of martial law only lasted about six hours, until lawmakers were able to slip past a cordon of soldiers, establish a quorum in the National Assembly, and voted to nullify Yoon’s decree. Yoon was impeached ten days later, removed from office in April 2025 after a lengthy legal and political battle, and sentenced to life in prison for “leading an insurrection” in February 2026.

Yoon filed an appeal against his life sentence, which is now pending before the Seoul High Court. Cho responded on Thursday by arguing that Yoon can only be held fully “accountable” for “orchestrating a rebellion” by giving him the death penalty.

The special prosecution team pushed for capital punishment at Yoon’s first trial and still believe there is “no reason to hesitate to impose the death penalty,” in part because they believe there is enough evidence to prove that Yoon carefully planned his martial law insurrection.

Prosecutors also argued that Yoon deserved no leniency from the appeals court for “restrained” behavior during his “self-coup” because he was prepared to use extreme force against those who tried to stop him, but some police and military officials disobeyed his orders.

Yoon’s attorneys argued that the former president was merely trying to “raise awareness” of corruption and sedition among his political opponents by declaring martial law and had no intention of setting himself up as an authoritarian ruler. South Koreans lived under military dictatorships from the 1960s through the 1980s and they do not have fond memories of the experience, so the charges against Yoon touched a nerve with the public.

The odds of Yoon actually being executed seem fairly low. The death penalty is still on the books in South Korea, but its last executions were carried out in 1997.

Yoon has also appealed a 30-year sentence handed down in June for ordering a drone incursion of North Korea in October 2024, allegedly to heighten tensions on the peninsula and set the stage for his martial law declaration. Yoon’s lawyers said he did not personally order the drone operation and it was a reasonable response to North Korea sending balloons loaded with garbage across the border.

Keep reading

Democrats Want Me In Jail For A Post Explaining Election Security

The Democrats’ leading practitioner of weaponizing the government to attack political opponents, Marc Elias, recently called for my prosecution because I wrote on X that President Trump should exercise existing federal authority to make sure that electronic voting machines are not hacked or compromised in the midterm elections.

I argued on X that those who are demanding that President Trump declare a national emergency regarding the voting machines are asking him to do something he’s already done. On May 15, 2019, he invoked the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as the basis for issuing Executive Order 13873. That order authorizes the commerce secretary, after consultation with other federal officials, to restrict certain information and communications technology and services (ICTS) transactions involving foreign adversaries, including China, when they pose specified national security risks. It aimed to eliminate or mitigate vulnerabilities in various categories of technology and U.S. critical infrastructure, which includes elections.

Since then, the U.S. Department of Commerce developed and promulgated regulations implementing the order, which became effective in February 2024.

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has authority under ICTS regulations to require mitigation of threats to critical infrastructure. Elections are “critical infrastructure” thanks to President Obama and his secretary of Homeland Security in 2017. Because all electronic voting systems used in America’s elections are made in whole or in part in China, the ICTS regulations most certainly apply to voting machines.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, in an Aug. 24 letter to the White House, specifically noted the urgent need to mitigate threats to America’s elections infrastructure. That action, along with statements from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and President Trump’s primetime speech on election security in July 2026, provide all the necessary conditions for Commerce Secretary Lutnick to take action.

Keep reading

Germany’s Political Justice? AfD Lawmaker Convicted Over Innocent Family Protection Poster

Imagine running for office on a promise to protect families — and ending up with a criminal record because of a photograph of parents shielding their children.

That is what happened to Wilko Möller, a lawmaker from Germany’s right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

His alleged offense? Distributing a campaign poster featuring a mother and father forming a protective roof with their arms over three children.

The slogan read: “We Protect Your Children.”

German prosecutors argued that the father’s raised right arm looked like a Nazi salute.

Now, Germany’s highest criminal court has upheld Möller’s conviction.

The price: €11,600 and a criminal record.

A Family Photo Becomes a Criminal Offense

The controversy began during the 2024 state election campaign in Brandenburg, eastern Germany.

Möller’s campaign used a commercially available stock photograph showing two adults protecting three children beneath their raised arms.

The image was digitally mirrored by the advertising agency preparing the poster.

That detail became central to the prosecution.

In the original photograph, the man raised his left arm. After the image was reversed, he appeared to raise his right arm.

Under German law, the Nazi salute is prohibited. The ban also covers gestures deemed confusingly similar to it.

Prosecutors argued that the mirrored photograph crossed that legal boundary.

The Regional Court in Frankfurt (Oder) agreed.

Keep reading

Not again! Another senior cop in the GTA charged with serious criminal offences

Not again. Yes, again!

Another senior police officer in the Greater Toronto Area has been criminally charged with several serious offences. The charges include:

  • possessing property obtained by crime
  • possessing for the purpose of trafficking
  • breach of trust
  • breach of trust in accessing data
  • unauthorized use of a computer
  • possessing a counterfeit stamp
  • AND attempting to obstruct justice

Sgt. Kin Pong Wong, 44, who recently worked as a front-line patrol sergeant for the York Regional Police Service, was arrested on Oct. 23. His arrest followed an investigation by both York and Peel Regional Police.

In a news release, York Regional Police noted that Wong has been employed with the force since 2009 and that he has since been suspended with pay. (Isn’t that another descriptor for “paid vacation”? But we digress…)

Granted, Peel Police are assisting this investigation into a York copper. But given the torrent of police corruption stories of late, is anyone 100 per cent satisfied that this investigation will be fair and square? At the end of the day, this is yet again another story of police investigating other police. Isn’t this an inherent conflict of interest from the get-go?

Rebel News recently dropped by York Regional Police headquarters in Aurora, Ont., looking for answers. For starters, we experienced a feeling of déjà vu. The last time we visited headquarters was back in February, regarding the Project South investigation. This was the shocking investigation in which several members of the Toronto Police Service were charged with serious crimes ranging from bribery and drug trafficking to extortion and even conspiracy to commit murder. (Police told CP24 the charges against Wong are not related to Project South.)

Both the York and Toronto brass hosted the presser, and Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw reiterated that moving forward the cops would be committed to “transparency” and “accountability” to restore public trust.

Really?

Because when cameraman Lincoln Jay and I showed up to attend the presser, we were denied entry. We were even threatened with arrest for filming OUTSIDE police headquarters!

For starters, does that seem “transparent” and “accountable” to you? Apparently, only members of the government-funded media were allowed to attend.

Secondly, this “law” that we were allegedly breaking by filming outside a police station? There is no such law. It’s just a bogus rule that the cops use to intimidate people, and it’s completely unenforceable. So again, we must ponder: where’s the “transparency”? Where’s the “accountability”?

At the end of the day, the Wong matter boils down to yet another disturbing story of a police officer allegedly breaking the law, resulting in police policing police. And so it is that we must yet again defer to our favourite Latin phrase: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Translation: Who guards the guardians?

Keep reading

Canada’s Liberal Government Pushes Bill Allowing Doctors to Euthanize Unwitting Dementia Patients

Canada’s Liberal government has introduced legislation that would allow doctors to euthanize unwitting dementia patients.

The bill, introduced Tuesday, would allow Canadians to request euthanasia in advance, meaning doctors could carry out the procedure after a patient becomes incapable of providing informed consent.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the legislation would ensure that people diagnosed with incurable illnesses could have their wishes respected even if their condition deteriorates.

He insisted that the government would introduce safeguards to prevent patients from being pressured into ending their lives.

The proposal marks another expansion of Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, which allows the euthanasia of vulnerable and seriously ill patients.

Keep reading

Why We Must Stand with Major Jason Watson

For almost two months, an Air Force officer has been sitting alone in a cell, twenty-four hours a day. When they let him out to eat or exercise, he’s still alone, according to his attorney.

His name is Major Jason Watson. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Under military law he is presumed innocent, yet he’s still in that cell.

I know something about solitary confinement. I also know what it feels like when a government would rather silence you than answer for its transgressions. That’s why I can’t stay quiet about Major Watson. And it’s why I think we need to talk about the kind of courage this country says it admires, right up until someone actually shows it.

What Major Watson Did

On July 1, Major Watson walked up the House steps of the U.S. Capitol in uniform and stood there holding a sign that read “Impeach. Convict. Remove.” He was calling for the removal of President Trump and Vice President Vance. Capitol Police arrested him. The D.C. charges were dropped, but he was taken from the courthouse straight into Air Force custody and restricted to base. In August he went on CNN and said it again. The next day, the Air Force ordered him into pretrial confinement.

He now faces ten charges under three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): three under Article 88 for allegedly using “contemptuous words” against the president, five under Article 92 for failing to obey orders or regulations, and two under Article 133 for “conduct unbecoming an officer,” as his lawyers confirmed in a public statement.

I’m not here to argue about uniform regulations. What bothers me, and what should bother anyone paying attention, is what the Article 88 charges and that solitary cell tell us about how power handles real dissent.

Watson didn’t hide behind a fake name. He didn’t retain or leak anything classified. He put his own name and face on what he believed, in public, knowing what it would cost.

Before he took that stand, he asked himself, “What’s the highest price that I’m willing to pay?” His answer was, more or less, whatever it takes. That’s what bravery looks like. You’re still afraid. You go anyway, knowing hell is coming.

Punished Before He Is Tried

Here is what troubles me most. The military is punishing Major Watson while claiming to follow the very rules that forbid it. Article 13 of the UCMJ says no one being held for trial may be punished, and that pretrial confinement may be no “more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure his presence.” The idea is straight-forward. Someone waiting for a court-martial is presumed innocent, and the military isn’t allowed to treat him as guilty.

Locking a person alone in a cell for months is punishment by any ordinary meaning of the word. Watson’s attorney has said solitary is usually reserved for people who are violent or disobedient, and even then only for a few days or a week. At Watson’s Article 32 hearing, the hearing officer said the isolation was required because he can’t be housed with civilian inmates.

Even if you accept that explanation, it doesn’t undo what isolation does to a person’s mind. And it doesn’t answer the bigger question: why is a peaceful man whose only “offense” was speaking locked up at all? You can’t even argue that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, because officially it isn’t punishment. When the people offended by your words also get to decide what counts as a crime, and what counts as punishment, the law stops being fair or predictable.

I can tell you from experience that solitary is built to grind you down. I was thrown into solitary in prison because I wouldn’t let a guard on a power trip treat me as anything less than a human being. My punishment for standing up for my dignity was a cell less than half the size of my usual cage. No window. No sunlight. Nothing to remind me there was a world outside. No contact with anyone, including my family, who went days without hearing from me and had no idea what was happening.

That kind of isolation isn’t about safety or order or paperwork. It’s about breaking someone, and about sending a message to everyone else. Major Watson stood up against an administration he believes is trampling the Constitution. For that act of conscience, they’re trying to make him disappear.

Keep reading

A Surveilled Country Is Not a Free Country

f you currently live in the United States, I regret to inform you that you no longer live in a free country. You are no longer a free person. Actually, you haven’t been for quite some time.

This may sound harsh with this being the year America celebrated her big Two-Five-Oh. But think about it. Think back to the last time you drove from your home to the grocery store. How many automatic license plate readers did you pass along the way? How many apps logged your route? What information did your car collect about you and anyone who may have accompanied you?

When you finally arrived at the store, surely there were cameras, but were they simply there to help catch and deter shoplifters — maybe help police investigate a more serious crime on the off chance one were to occur? Or were those cameras serving other purposes? Was the grocery store implementing facial recognition to deliver you targeted ads when you checked out? Did those cameras automatically link to some local real-time crime center, enabling law enforcement to track you from one location to the next, even if you traveled on foot?

Although your routine trip to pick up eggs and milk may not have been recorded for posterity by all of these technologies, it was by no means a private affair. Nor was your most recent trip to church, a political rally, a protest, or your doctor’s office. And this doesn’t even touch any of the many items in your home that have come to serve as data collection devices.

Now, reflect on this for a moment, then ask yourself: “How much of this did I really consent to?”

Yes, you chose to drive a car. You chose to have a cell phone. You chose to buy food. But did you choose to have countless government and corporate bodies monitor your every move? Do you really feel like you consented to an arrangement in which any entity with the financial and technological means to record and analyze every detail of your life, from the trivially mundane to the deeply intimate, holds the right to do so? If not, how much do you feel you could demand that they stop?

To return to the initial assertion, if the government and an endless number of corporations can treat the details of your life as some natural resource to be mined, assessed, and sold, and you have no meaningful way to opt out, can you really say you’re a free person? I mean, no, you’re not a slave or a prisoner. But you’re not exactly free either.

There’s no great analogy, but, at best, maybe you’re like a wild animal, chipped by some field ethologists, looking to study your natural behavior, or a teenager, whose parents gave you a fair amount of freedom after school and on weekends but insist you have the family tracking app turned on. At worst, maybe you’re more like a citizen of some alternate version of the erstwhile DDR if the Stasi were a little more hands-off and had way better tech. But again, you’re not exactly free.

Keep reading

France’s Senate Approves Bill Expanding Police Powers Over Online Speech

France’s Senate has approved a bill that was originally tabled as a means to make rioters pay for the damages they cause – but ended up with provisions that are meant to allow for faster removal of online content at the police’s behest, ban people from social media for committing protest-related offenses, allow the police to fly as many drones as they want equipped with cameras, and use AI to analyze footage from those drones, as well as from CCTV cameras.

All this was added to the “casseurs-payeurs” (rioters-pay) bill in the form of amendments, which senators approved on October 27 by 229 votes to 105. The bill was first submitted on September 16, and it had only five articles that made no mention of any of these issues.

The government’s use of the accelerated procedure means that after one reading in the National Assembly, the bill can go to a joint committee of both chambers.

All the quotes below are from the Senate’s record of the debate, translated from French.

“Social networks can contribute decisively to violence and damage, in particular through the dissemination of content calling for these offenses to be committed,” is how the government justified its amendment that was adopted with 219 votes to 115.

The amendment allows the administrative authority, rather than a judge, to order platforms and hosts to remove content that is seen as provoking crimes such as attacks on life, theft and destruction, where it is likely to cause a serious disturbance of public order.

If a host fails to remove such content within 24 hours, it will face six months in prison and a 150,000 euro fine, or up to two percent of its worldwide turnover for a company. The authority will also be able to have the site blocked and removed from search results.

The request goes to a designated reviewer, rather than a judge, before the content is removed.

The original filing of the amendment had a one-hour emergency procedure for content that calls for “an attack, for insurrection or for arming against the State” – but Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez pulled it in the chamber, saying, “I have just rectified my amendment so that we can secure the emergency procedure during the shuttle [between chambers], in view of risks regarding [EU-law] conformity and constitutionality.”

So this provision is expected to be back later in the legislative process.

Keep reading