Tag: police state

UK Police Show Up at Cancer Patient’s Door Demanding an Apology For Social Media Post

Just when you thought British speech policing had reached the bottom of the absurdity barrel, they bring a jackhammer.

In June, Thames Valley Police managed to dispatch one of their elite to investigate a grave national threat: an American cancer patient who may have written something a bit spicy on social media.

Yes. That’s not a joke. That is, in fact, the plot of a low-budget dystopian sitcom that the real world seems hell-bent on adapting in full.

Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, a member of the Free Speech Union, a cancer patient, and, as she put it herself, “an elderly woman,” was enjoying the blissful serenity of not being in prison when a Thames Valley Police officer showed up at her front door.

Why? Because “something that we believe you’ve written on Facebook has upset someone.”

Let’s pause here.

We are no longer talking about crime. We are no longer talking about justice. We are now fully submerged in the soggy underworld of “upset someone.”

This is what policing has become in Britain; knocking on doors to gently scold the sick and the elderly because someone got their feelings hurt.

“I’m a member of the Free Speech Union, and I’m an American citizen. I’ll have Elon Musk on you so quick your feet won’t touch,” Anderson told the officer, who probably realized at that exact moment that his day’s mission had veered into Monty Python territory.

The officer, in all his taxpayer-funded wisdom, suggested that Deborah Anderson could simply apologize and make the whole thing go away, as if groveling before the offended masses had suddenly become a formal step in police procedure.

It was less “serve and protect” and more “say sorry and maybe we won’t waste more of your time.”

Keep reading

Bipartisan Push in Congress to Weaken Section 230, Expand Online Surveillance, and Increase Platform Liability

During this week’s testimony before both chambers of Congress, FBI Director Kash Patel and several lawmakers made a concerted push to weaken protections for online platforms, advance surveillance partnerships, and promote government intervention in digital speech spaces.

The hearings revealed a rare bipartisan consensus around dismantling Section 230 and tightening control over how people interact and communicate online.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham opened his questioning by linking online platforms to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, then repeatedly pressed Patel on whether the internet was a breeding ground for radicalization and crime.

Throughout their exchange, Graham blurred the lines between criminal behavior, such as grooming or inciting violence, and broad categories like bullying.

“Is there any law that can shut down one of these sites? For bullying children or allowing sexual predators on the site,” Graham asked.

He repeatedly implied that websites hosting objectionable content should be held legally responsible, asking, “Would you advocate a sunsetting of Section 230 to bring more liability to the companies who send this stuff out?”

Patel replied, “I’ve advocated for that for years.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a legal provision that protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users.

Keep reading

Now British ‘thought police’ order Trump-supporting pensioner to apologise for ‘upsetting’ Facebook post or face investigation

British police have been accused of a ‘dystopian’ attack on free speech after an American woman was threatened with investigation – over her posts online. 

Footage of the encounter has been seen more 1.3million times since it was posted last night and has sparked a furious response from campaigners. 

It shows a woman, named as American cancer patient and Donald Trump supporter Deborah Anderson, being confronted in her home in Slough, Berkshire, by Thames Valley Police.

The MAGA-backing mother-of-two was accused of ‘upsetting’ a person following an alleged ‘threatening’ post she made on Facebook, which was reported to police. 

The officer declined to say which of the alleged posts had been complained about.   

In the video, ‘elderly’ Ms Anderson then flatly refuses to apologise for her comments online before she is threatened with the potential of a formal interview at a police station. 

The incident, filmed in June, prompted an intervention by the Free Speech Union (FSU), who last night claimed Thames Valley Police had since dropped the case. The force today confirmed no further action was taken over the allegations.

It comes as Britain faces fierce criticism over a recent clampdown on free speech, which has seen people being arrested, convicted or jailed over posts made online. 

The issue has prompted concern from US President Donald Trump – who is in the UK on his state visit – and warned earlier this month ‘strange things are happening over there, they are cracking down… I’m very surprised to see what’s happening’.

Keep reading

Digital ID: Vietnam to delete 86 MILLION “unverified” bank accounts

tarting this month, banks all across Vietnam will begin deleting over 86,000,000 bank accounts that have not been “verified” under the countries new digital ID scheme.

The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) are calling it a “system clean-up measure”.

This “clean up” is part of the government’s “digital transformation” plan, a drive to “modernise” the country’s information infrastructure, and more specifically a drive to promote non-cash payments.

Speaking at a press conference promoting “Cashless Day” earlier this year, Pham Anh Tuan, Director of the Payment Department at the SBV called it “a data-cleansing revolution”.

Central to this “revolution” is the new “Decree on Regulations for Electronic Identification and Authentication”, passed in July of 2024 and coming in to force July 1st of this year.

Keep reading

House passes bills giving president power to choose D.C. judges, loosen police pursuit rules

The Republican-led House approved legislation on Wednesday that would give the president greater authority in choosing D.C. Superior Court judges and would relax pursuit restrictions for the Metropolitan Police Department, further overriding the District’s control over its criminal justice system.

The bills’ passage followed the House’s approval on Tuesday of legislation that seeks to lower the age at which juveniles can be charged as adults in the District and revoke the sentencing leniency that young adult convicts can receive in court.

The four proposals are part of a package of more than a dozen bills aiming to curtail public safety laws enacted in the District. House Democrats accused their Republican colleagues of being too eager to trample on the District’s autonomy, but the GOP members were unfazed.

Keep reading

Liberals admit to pushing emissions cap without studying impact on Canadian families

The Liberals are pushing ahead with their oil and gas emissions cap, a production ban in everything but name, while failing to study how it will impact Canadian families.

Conservative MP Arnold Viersen asked the Liberals to spell out the real-world consequences:

  • What will it mean for the price of groceries, gas, and home heating over the next eight years?
  • How many jobs will be lost in the oil and gas sector?
  • What impact will it have on imports from countries with lower environmental and human-rights standards?
  • How will it affect other sectors like construction, manufacturing, finance, and hospitality?
  • And how does Canada compete if global rivals like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, or the U.S. face no such restrictions?

Instead of answering, Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin pointed to modelling in the Canada Gazette. That “analysis” claimed the cost to families would be “minimal” because energy prices are set internationally, but it gave no breakdowns for household bills. Instead, the government focused on industry stats: oil and gas production is projected to rise 16% with the cap versus 17% without, and labour spending to grow 53% instead of 55% — a 1.6% difference Ottawa is holding up as proof Canadians won’t feel a thing.

The government never studied the effect on families’ wallets. By refusing to account for higher energy costs, job losses, or the knock-on impact on food and housing, Ottawa is leaving Canadians in the dark about how much this policy will cost them.

The emissions cap, announced in November 2024, is supposed to cut oil and gas emissions by one-third starting in 2030.

Keep reading

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading

How The Drug War Benefits Donald Trump And The State

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

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

Here is how the drug-war racket works.

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

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

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

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

Keep reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading