Tag: police state

6 Ways to Spot the Modern-Day Redcoats in our Midst

We’re surrounded by redcoats.

They might not be part of King George’s military, but their mindset, what they support and what they’re willing to impose, is everywhere. The founders didn’t just fight an army. They fought a long, bloody war to secede from a system built on a set of views they considered as a fate worse than death.

Here are 6 ways to spot a redcoat without ever seeing a uniform.

LOYALTY

The quickest way to spot a redcoat is one question: where does their loyalty lie?

Loyalty to a single person isn’t patriotism. It’s a complete rejection of the American Revolution. Decades before the War for Independence, Samuel Adams already warned again allegiance to one individual.

“It is a very great Mistake to imagine that the Object of Loyalty is the Authority and Interest of one individual Man, however dignified by the Applause or enriched by the Success of Popular Actions”

Adams knew this as a student of history: loyalty to one man leads to tyranny.

“This has led Millions into such a degree of Dependance and Submission that they have at length found themselves oblig’d to homage the Instruments of their Ruin, at the very Time they were at Work to effect it.”

John Adams saw the same kind of end game for those who bend the knee to a political party, and flat out refused to do it.

“I would quarrel with both parties, and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

Some founders, like Noah Webster, saw party-loyalty as the most dangerous of all.

“nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party-spirit.”

Loyalty to a person, a party, or even a nation: that’s a redcoat. The American view? According to Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson: it’s loyalty to liberty.

“our attachment to no Nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Embrace of Psychedelic Therapy Leaves Most Users on the Wrong Side of the Law

On Saturday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at “accelerating medical treatments for serious mental illness” by facilitating regulatory approval of ibogaine and other psychedelics that have shown promise as psychotherapeutic catalysts. Although the case for doing that is compelling, the medical model embraced by the president excludes most psychedelic use, which will remain illegal even if the “historic reforms” that Trump announced work as planned.

Trump takes it for granted that Americans should be allowed to use psychedelics only for reasons that the government recognizes as legitimate. Otherwise, they are criminals rather than patients, subject to arrest, prosecution, and potentially severe penalties for daring to assert sovereignty over their own bodies and minds.

The injustice of that policy is readily apparent when people use psychedelics in ways that manifestly improve their lives. Many combat veterans, for example, have found that ibogaine, which is derived from the root of an African shrub, provides dramatic relief from the constellation of problems known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

“It absolutely changed my life for the better,” former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, whose Afghanistan memoir inspired the 2013 movie Lone Survivor, remarked as Trump signed his executive order. “I was reborn,” says Luttrell’s twin brother, Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R–Texas), also a former Navy SEAL. “It is one of the greatest things that ever happened to me.”

Because ibogaine is banned in the United States, the Luttrell brothers had those transformational experiences at a clinic in Mexico. So did the 30 subjects of a recent Nature Mental Health study, which found that ibogaine, combined with magnesium as a safeguard against the drug’s cardiac side effects, “safely and effectively reduces PTSD, anxiety and depression and improves functioning in veterans” with traumatic brain injuries.

Research on ibogaine, which also is reputed to be remarkably useful for people struggling with drug addiction, is relatively limited so far. But the evidence supporting the use of MDMA (for PTSD) and psilocybin (for depression), both of which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated as “breakthrough” therapies, is strong enough that they may soon be approved as prescription medications.

If that happens, some people who could benefit from these drugs will be able to use them legally, provided they can obtain a diagnosis and a prescription. But where does that leave all the psychedelic users who can’t meet those requirements?

In a 2023 survey of psilocybin users, the RAND Corporation found that the most common motivations included “fun” (59 percent), “improved mental health” (49 percent), “personal development” (45 percent), “curiosity” (43 percent), and “spiritual growth” (41 percent). Although very few of those people would qualify for the medical exception that Trump advocates, that does not mean their reasons for using psilocybin should be dismissed as frivolous, let alone that they should be treated as criminals.

Keep reading

Home Education Must Be “Equivalent” to Public School: Lawmakers

Home educators in Connecticut are officially in the government’s crosshairs. In fact, under a new bill moving through the legislature, parents will need approval from child protection services to homeschool. And they will have to prove to bureaucrats that they are providing “equivalent instruction” to that offered by the government-school system.  Only about a third of children in the state’s public schools are even “proficient” in reading or math, federal data show. Suicide, mental problems, and other issues are off the charts and rising among government-educated children, too. So, it was not immediately clear why anyone would want homeschoolers to be subjected to “equivalent instruction.” 

The bill purports to require that every parent must send their child to a government school. The only exception is if the parent or guardian can “show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools,” the text of the Connecticut legislation declares. 

Lawmakers lambasted the provision. “What is equivalent instruction? Is it equivalent to Prospect’s education, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Greenwich, Darien, East Haddam? I don’t know,” argued Ranking Member Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, a Republican. Democrats on the committee dismissed the concerns.

To prove that parents are giving their children “equivalent instruction,” the statute purports to require that they keep records for three years. They are also required to provide a demonstration of their child’s work to government. Ultimately, the state Department of Education will provide “guidance” regarding what all of it means. 

Senator Heather Somers, also a Republican, warned this was a scheme to force homeschool families to do the same thing as government schools. “By homeschooling being evaluated and really being pushed to public school standards, this bill is pressuring families to mirror the public school system,” she explained, echoing other critics. 

The demands are especially ironic considering how well homeschoolers tend to do compared to their government-schooled peers. “Every single homeschooler that I’ve had the privilege of meeting, their kids are smarter,” Sen. Somers said. “They’re graduating early from high school. Some of them are taking college courses or actually getting two years of college before they even turn 18.”

The elephant in the room — the fact that the government is horrifically failing the children already in its school system — did not escape notice. “People are withdrawing their kids, they’re quitting their jobs, because they don’t feel their kids are safe in public school,” observed Representative Tina Courpas, a Republican. “To me, that is so basic.” 

Lawmakers should focus on fixing the government’s schools. “If this committee did nothing else for the next two years other than make our public school safe, that would be a big win,” the lawmaker continued. “But this bill doesn’t address that problem. Instead, it cuts off people’s options to solve a problem that this state has created for them.”

Under the new legislation that has already cleared several important hurdles, the homeschooling community in the state would also need to be cleared by Child Protective Services (CPS) to obtain permission to homeschool. The Home School Legal Defense Association says this is a major change.

“One of the most troubling aspects of the proposal is the idea that parents could need permission from a child welfare agency before teaching their own children at home,” noted Ralph Rodriguez, associate attorney for HSLDA. “That represents a significant shift in how homeschooling families are treated under the law.”

Lawmakers, too, were perplexed by the decision to get the CPS involved in approving homeschooling. “The child advocate … stated publicly yesterday to me in a hearing that she agrees the real cause of these tragic events is a catastrophic failure of the Department of Children and Families,” said Education Committee Ranking Member Sen. Eric Berthel, referring to two tragic cases in which children died despite child-welfare officials being involved.

“All of this begs the question: Why would we want DCF to be involved at all in the monitoring or regulation of homeschoolers when the agency has demonstrated they cannot handle the cases they are already monitoring?” added Sen. Berthel. Other critics suggested the bill against homeschoolers was an effort to blame innocent people for the failures of government.  

Keep reading

Appeals Court Sides With Texas on 10 Commandments in Classroom, Overruling Lower Court

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, marking a victory for upholding the nation’s Christian foundation of the law.

The 9-8 decision overrules a preliminary injunction put in place by a federal district court judge in November, who concluded that “displaying the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public-school classroom as set forth in S.B. 10 [Senate Bill 10] violates the [First Amendment’s] Establishment Clause.”

The First Amendment says in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But the Supreme Court has ruled that the Amendment’s protections apply to state law.

In the 5th Circuit’s majority opinion, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote, “To Plaintiffs, merely exposing children to religious language is enough to make the displays engines of coercive indoctrination. We disagree.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin.”

Keep reading

Ghost Funding Scandal: Connecticut Homeschoolers Push Audit Before Regulatory Showdown

Connecticut’s children’s agency failed to protect 11 year old Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres García, then helped turn her death into the emotional engine for a bill to regulate families who homeschool instead of fixing its own system.

AbleChild submitted emergency testimony to defeat the bill based on Mimi.  It laid out that DCF already had extensive involvement with Mimi’s family, the courts, and mandated reporters, and still allowed a faked Zoom “welfare check” to stand in for real protection. Now, as lawmakers head into a Thursday floor debate on HB 5468, homeschoolers have gone on offense, backed by a formal legal demand to follow the money.

Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson, on behalf of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC (NHELD) and Connecticut taxpayers, has filed a complaint and request for an immediate investigation and audit of the State’s “School Fund” and Education Cost Sharing (ECS) monies. She explains that NHELD has “reason to believe that certain monies in the ‘School Fund’ have been used to pay public school districts per pupil funding for students who are no longer enrolled in the public school system,” a practice “euphemistically called ‘double funding’.” In plain language, districts may be receiving ghost per pupil funding, money for children who have already left public school, at the same time the state is trying to build a system to track and report those very families once they’re gone.

Stevenson’s filing links this practice directly to the pending legislation. She notes that double funding has been happening in the past, “is going on currently, and is planned to continue in the future, as well, due to pending legislation in at least two bills about which we are aware – SB6 and HB5468.” Fiscal notes on those bills show that hundreds of thousands of dollars per year would not go to classroom instruction, but to hiring new staff and building a regulatory framework to process withdrawal forms, contact families no longer enrolled in public schools, report them to various state agencies, track their data, and run records checks on them with DCF. The audit request asks a simple question, how much of that money is coming from funds that, under the Connecticut Constitution, are supposed to be “inviolably” used only to support public schools, not to finance a tracking regime aimed at families who have left.

The constitutional stakes are explicit. The Connecticut Constitution’s “School Fund” provisions say that the fund must remain perpetual, that its interest “shall be inviolably appropriated to the support and encouragement of the public schools,” and that “no law shall ever be made” that diverts that fund to any other use. Stevenson’s complaint asks the State Auditors to determine, among other things, whether there is a clearly identifiable School Fund, how much is in it, how its interest is handled, whether ECS per pupil payments come from that interest, whether public schools are being paid for students who are no longer enrolled “in case” they return, and whether money from that fund or ECS is being used to hire staff and build systems that identify, process, report to DCF, correspond with, and data track families who are no longer in the public school system. If misuse is found, the filing calls for all responsible parties to be held fully accountable, civilly or criminally, so that public funds are truly safeguarded.

Keep reading

UK Blocks Entry for Anti-Islam Politician

The Home Office’s decision to block Valentina Gomez from entering the UK ahead of a next month’s London rally has re-opened the debate over free speech and government overreach. Gomez, a US-based anti-Islam commentator, had planned to speak at the “Unite the Kingdom” march on 16 May. However, the Home Office has now revoked her electronic travel authorisation, saying her presence is “not conducive to the public good”. The ban followed pressure from Muslim organisations and political figures who pointed to her previous remarks on muslims and immigration.

Gomez is a 26-year-old Christian conservative originally from Colombia. Last week, her Electronic Travel Authorisation was approved, but the Home Office revoked her permit on April 20th. Reports suggest that officials acted after renewed scrutiny of remarks she made during a similar appearance in London in 2025, where she delivered “inflammatory” comments about Islam and immigration. It’s also reported that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood personally intervened to revoke the permission.

In its April 17 open letter, the Muslim Council of Britain urged the Home Secretary to revoke Valentina Gomez’s entry permission on the grounds that allowing her into the UK to speak at a Tommy Robinson rally showed “double standards” in how the government applies freedom of speech and entry rules. The MCB argued that Gomez’s past anti-Islam rhetoric risked making the UK’s streets “less safe”, and said others had previously been denied entry for inflammatory remarks aimed at different faith groups, making her case appear inconsistent by comparison. Its core case was therefore not only that Gomez was divisive, but that admitting her would signal uneven enforcement of the public-interest test used in immigration decisions.

The “Unite the Kingdom” marches have become a focal point for a growing anti-establishment constituency centred on immigration, Islam, public disorder and distrust of political institutions. The European Conservative reported that more than 100,000 people attended the September 2025 London march, presenting it as one of the largest demonstrations of its kind in recent years, though crowd figures at such events are often disputed.

The decision to exclude Gomez sits awkwardly with the UK’s self-image as a country committed to open political speech. It is one thing to prosecute criminal conduct or incitement; it is another to use border powers to decide which foreign political voices may be heard on contentious public questions. Once that principle is applied, the state is no longer merely keeping order. It is deciding, in advance, which arguments are too dangerous to enter the country. That is a serious threshold for a liberal democracy to cross.

Keep reading

Palantir’s Technological Republic is a blueprint for digital tyranny

Walking through the glass-and-steel corridors of the modern tech-security apparatus reveals that the telescreen is a tireless processor of our very souls.

Palantir Technologies’ vision of a “Technological Republic” arrives as a manual for the refinement of the boot, the one destined to remain on the human face, provided the boot remains equipped with the latest predictive sensors. In the spirit of a clear-eyed look at the clock striking thirteen, we must dissect the alliance between corporate algorithmic power and the Zionist state. This is a new Newspeak, where “defense” is a moral debt and “deterrence” is the silent humming of an algorithm deciding who shall disappear.

The foundation of this digital fortress is built upon the claim of a “moral debt” that the engineering elite owes to the State. In George Orwell’s world of 1984, this represents the ultimate synthesis: the Party and the Corporation becoming indistinguishable. This “affirmative obligation” to participate in national defense is literalized in Palantir’s “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Finalized in early 2024 during a high-stakes visit by co-founders Peter Thiel and Alex Karp to Tel Aviv, this pact seeks to harness advanced data mining for “war-related missions.” The software engineers of Palo Alto have been drafted as the new Inner Party: high priests of a digital armory. Their corporate identity is so entwined with the Zionist project that Palantir held its first board meeting of 2024 in Israel, signaling that their “Technological Republic” transcends borders when it comes to the enforcement of state power.

We are told that the age of “soaring rhetoric” and atomic deterrence is fading, replaced by a “hard power” built entirely on software. Here is the transition from the clumsy violence of the truncheon to the invisible violence of the code. Reports from Gaza suggest that Palantir provides the underlying scaffolding for a system where human intuition is replaced by mathematical certainty. By synthesizing massive datasets – surveillance footage, intercepted communications, and biometric records – the software assists in the production of targeting databases that function as automated “kill lists.”

Keep reading

Bank of Korea Vows to Create CBDC

The Bank of Korea has now made its position unmistakably clear, and this is precisely what I have been warning about for years. In his very first address, Governor Shin Hyun-song did not merely suggest innovation in digital finance, he explicitly prioritized a system built around central bank digital currencies and bank-issued deposit tokens, while deliberately omitting stablecoins entirely from the discussion. What you are witnessing is not competition in money, it is the consolidation of control.

They are trying to rebrand this as modernization, but behind the curtain this is about power. Shin outlined that CBDCs and deposit tokens will form the core of South Korea’s future monetary system, reinforcing a structure where the central bank and regulated banking institutions remain the gatekeepers of all financial activity. This is not accidental. Deposit tokens are essentially programmable bank liabilities tied directly into a centrally controlled system, ensuring that even when money becomes “digital,” it never leaves the institutional framework.

What stands out is not what he said, but what he refused to say. Stablecoins, which represent a competing form of digital liquidity outside direct state control, were entirely absent from his inaugural speech despite ongoing legislative efforts in South Korea to establish a domestic stablecoin market. That omission speaks volumes. Central banks do not fear volatility, they fear competition.

Even when pressed previously, Shin made it clear that stablecoins would only play a “supplementary” role, not a foundational one. In other words, private digital money may exist, but only within boundaries defined by the state. This is the same pattern we are seeing globally. Governments will tolerate innovation only to the extent that it does not threaten their monopoly over money and taxation.

The Bank of Korea is already expanding real-world testing through initiatives like Project Hangang, aiming to integrate CBDCs and deposit tokens into everyday transactions and even government spending. This is how it always unfolds. First comes the pilot program, then limited adoption, and finally full integration under the justification of efficiency and stability. By the time the public realizes what has happened, the infrastructure is already in place.

They will argue this is about improving payment systems, reducing friction, and enhancing transparency. But transparency for whom? Governments will gain unprecedented visibility into every transaction, every movement of capital, and ultimately every individual’s economic behavior. The original promise of cryptocurrency was decentralization and financial sovereignty. What is being constructed here is the exact opposite.

Keep reading

Ontario landowners push back against high-speed rail and property rights threats

Landowners gathered at the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) general meeting in Cobourg to voice strong opposition to the federal government’s proposed $90-billion Alto high-speed rail project, warning it threatens private property rights through aggressive expropriation and sweeping legislative changes.

The project, aimed at linking Toronto and Quebec City, has sparked alarm among rural residents and farmers in eastern Ontario as letters from Alto arrive, requesting access to private land for surveys, soil testing, and environmental assessments.

Many fear that allowing entry could weaken their legal standing and pave the way for forced takings.

“There is no law that requires property owners to allow anyone onto their property with respect to Alto,” OLA president Jeff Bogaerts relayed. “The moment you allow Alto onto your property, your property rights are going away.”

Attendees noted that the lack of clear route details, crossing plans, or impact assessments has left landowners in the dark.

Critics like Conservative MP Philip Lawrence argue that the project is fundamentally flawed. At speeds requiring grade separation, every road, farm lane, or crossing demands expensive overpasses or underpasses, costing millions each.

For him and concerned landowners, the economics don’t add up: an estimated $8,000 per Canadian household, with most taxpayers (outside of the 1,000 km corridor between Toronto and Quebec City) unlikely to ever use the service.

“It’s my property. I should be able to do what I want with it,” one farmer stated plainly. “We don’t need it, we can’t afford it, and it’s just a bad idea,” said another.

Others pointed out practical inconveniences, such as disrupted local travel patterns that could force longer drives for basic needs like groceries.

Concerns extend beyond cost and disruption, with speakers highlighting potential conflicts of interest, noting involvement of firms like SNC-Lavalin (now rebranded Atkins Realis), compounded by the fact that Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s partner is vice-president of Alto’s environmental division.

Questions also arose about the project’s alignment with broader global agendas under Prime Minister Mark Carney, with former MP Jack MacLaren saying, “I hope the train goes where the new world order goes, and that’s nowhere.”

Nowhere — that’s exactly where a 2018 Ontario government proposal for a high-speed rail line ended up, despite plans to have it running by 2025 and an $11 billion ‘commitment’ to the failed project.

Ironically, a copy of that year’s OLA magazine was shared with attendees, showing just how relevant those same concerns persist nearly a decade later.

Keep reading

Facial recognition to be ‘rolled out’ across UK after human rights challenge fails

Facial recognition systems will be introduced across the country, the government has said as it welcomed the failure of a legal challenge to the technology.

The case against the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition technology (LFT) in London was brought by two people over concerns it could be used arbitrarily or in a discriminatory way.

The cameras are usually mounted on vans in busy high streets and designed to identify people on police watchlists if they pass by.

Youth worker Shaun Thompson, one of the claimants, said he was misidentified by the technology. The other person bringing the claim was Silkie Carlo, from the group Big Brother Watch.

Their lawyer told the High Court that LFT would also make it “impossible” for Londoners to travel without their biometric data being taken.

But judges ruled on Tuesday that the claimants’ human rights had not been breached and the force’s policy gave “adequate indication of the circumstances in which LFR will be used”.

They also said the argument the technology risked discriminating against people due to their race had not been convincing.

Keep reading