Tag: police state

SHOCKING: South Korean Police RAID Former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn’s Party Office After He Dared to Question ELECTION FRAUD — Democracy Under Siege

South Korea, once hailed as a beacon of democracy in Asia, is now carrying out police raids on political opponents who dare raise questions about election fraud under the current pro-Chinese regime.

On August 20, armed police stormed the office of the Free and Innovation Party, led by former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, under the guise of investigating so-called “election law violations,” according to our contact in South Korea, Kim Yu-jin.

Hwang, along with hundreds of citizens organized under the Committee for Preventing Election Fraud, had officially registered as election monitors.

They followed legal procedures, participated transparently, and documented what they believed were serious irregularities. Instead of being commended for strengthening democracy, they are now being treated as criminals.

According to reports in the Herald Economy, the National Election Commission (NEC) filed complaints accusing Hwang and his group of “interfering” with elections, claiming they trained monitors on how to disrupt voting, induced invalid ballots, and even held rallies near polling places.

Police used those accusations as the basis for sweeping raids, ransacking offices and seizing materials.

Keep reading

Federal Agent Warns DC Residents Trump Is ‘Tired Of’ Public Marijuana Consumption Amid ‘Surge’ To Combat Crime In Nation’s Capitol

President Donald Trump is “tired of” marijuana and alcohol being consumed in public, a federal agent told a group of people sitting on a porch in Washington, D.C. in a video that was highlighted by Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver.

As the National Guard and multiple federal agencies—including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—take part in the federalization of law enforcement in the District of Columbia, there was one interaction over the weekend that caught national attention.

In the clip featured on Oliver’s HBO show Last Week Tonight, an agent approached a group, apparently on suspicion that they were publicly using cannabis outside their residence.

“We’re doing checks, keeping everybody safe down here,” the agent said, asking if they had “heard of the federal surge that Donald Trump’s putting out.”

He was referencing an executive action that activated the National Guard and other agencies to participate in policing in the nation’s Capitol, with the aim of tackling violent crime. Local officials have disputed the justification for the “surge,” pointing to lower-than-average crime rates in D.C. in recent years.

But as federal agents swept the streets of D.C.—which White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday resulted in 465 arrests over about two weeks—questions are being raised about the nature of the crimes those officers were targeting.

Oliver said that “the purest expression” of the disconnect was “this cringe-inducing encounter where a group of agents approach a man they mistakenly think is smoking marijuana on his back porch, which, by the way, is completely legal in D.C.”

(For the record, possession of limited amounts of marijuana by adults is legal in the District under a voter-approved law—but public consumption is prohibited.)

Keep reading

Crackdown on Individual Freedoms Continues in South Korea Under Communist Chinese Pressure

Our contact in South Korea sent The Gateway Pundit an update on the suppression of speech and loss of individual rights under the current pro-Chinese regime.

It is hard to believe that South Korea, a country that fought a bloody war against the communists 70 years ago, is now sliding under communist control.

The alarming suppression of freedom of expression currently taking place in South Korea:

In recent months, conservative civic groups and organizations supporting former President Yoon Suk-yeol have been systematically targeted by investigations. What makes this situation particularly serious is that these crackdowns are happening under clear pressure from China, with the current administration’s cooperation.

Key Cases

1. Banners Against Messenger/SNS Censorship (Prosecuted under Election Law)
A civic group hung banners calling for the protection of students’ freedom of expression. Just before the election, police raided the home and office of the group’s leader, claiming this violated the Public Official Election Act.
However, the banners simply said “No censorship” and did not name or support any candidate or party. This represents a dangerous misuse of election law to criminalize basic social criticism.

2. Welcome Event for U.S. Ambassador Mors H. Tan (July 18, 2025)
Citizens gathered at Incheon Airport to welcome U.S. human rights lawyer and former Ambassador-at-Large Mors H. Tan. Police classified this voluntary gathering as an “illegal assembly” and placed about 600 people under investigation.
Such treatment is in sharp contrast to how fan gatherings for celebrities or athletes at airports are tolerated without issue.

3. Protest in Front of the Chinese Embassy (Reported Aug 19, 2025)
During a rally condemning election fraud, members of a student group supporting former President Yoon tore a banner depicting Xi Jinping and the Chinese Ambassador. Police charged them under “insulting foreign envoys,” a criminal offense.
This shows how political protest is being suppressed through criminal prosecution.

4. China’s Direct Interference and Korean Government’s Compliance

Former Chinese Ambassador Xing Haiming openly demanded that the Korean government “crack down on anti-China forces.”

Chinese state media Global Times warned South Korea against cooperating with the U.S. in shipbuilding, even suggesting that Korea “could face risks” if integrated into the U.S. defense system.

Keep reading

AfD Candidate Excluded from German Mayoral Election with Court Upholding Decision

In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) faced a setback when one of its candidates was excluded from a local mayoral race.

Joachim Paul, an AfD state parliament member, was barred from running for mayor in Ludwigshafen am Rhein, a city of about 170,000 residents, due to concerns raised by opponents about his adherence to Germany’s constitutional principles.

An administrative court recently upheld this decision, limiting Paul’s options to a post-election challenge.

On August 5, 2025, Ludwigshafen’s election committee voted 6-1 to exclude Paul, citing doubts over his loyalty to the free democratic order outlined in Germany’s Basic Law.

The committee, composed of representatives from globalist center-left and center-right parties like the Social Democrats (SPD), Christian Democrats (CDU), and Free Democrats (FDP), but excluding the AfD, based its ruling on an 11-page report from the state’s interior ministry.

This report, requested by current mayor Jutta Steinruck, detailed Paul’s alleged connections to right-wing figures and statements deemed problematic.

The Neustadt an der Weinstraße administrative court dismissed Paul’s urgent appeal on August 18, 2025, ruling it inadmissible and stating that electoral stability takes precedence, with reviews only possible after the September 21 vote.

The judges found no clear error in the committee’s decision and noted that a full probe into the claims would be too time-consuming before the election.

They referenced Paul’s inclusion in the 2024 Rhineland-Palatinate constitutional protection report and a prior court confirmation of the AfD as a suspected extremist group.

Allegations included Paul’s 2022 article praising J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” for conservative themes like defending homeland and culture, which authorities viewed as promoting ethnic nationalism.

Other points involved his use of “remigration” for non-integrated migrants, a meeting with Austrian activist Martin Sellner, and descriptions of violence as linked to “young, male, oriental” individuals.

Paul’s office in Koblenz was described as a hub for right-wing events, including those with “New Right” affiliations.

Paul, a 55-year-old former teacher and AfD member since 2013, rejected the accusations, claiming they stem from political bias and that non-left views are unfairly labeled extremist.

He suggested the exclusion was premeditated to sideline the AfD, which polled strongly in Ludwigshafen during recent federal elections. In interviews, Paul vowed to continue fighting legally and encouraged supporters to rally.

Keep reading

Canadian man ARRESTED for assaulting intruder during home invasion

A confrontation inside a Lindsay apartment early Monday left one man in hospital with life-threatening injuries and another facing assault charges, according to police.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Service said the incident took place at an apartment on Kent Street shortly after 3 a.m. Officers were called after a resident reported confronting an intruder inside his home, reports CTV News.

Investigators allege the resident, a 44-year-old Lindsay man, attacked the 41-year-old intruder, leading to what police described as an “altercation.” The intruder was later airlifted to a Toronto hospital with serious injuries.

Following an investigation, police charged the resident with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The owner of the house, whose name is Jeremy, according to journalist Ezra Levant, has “launched a petition to strengthen the ‘castle doctrine’ in law.” The man’s lawyer will also be crowdfunded.

The man accused of breaking into the apartment is also facing charges. Police say he was already wanted on unrelated matters at the time of his arrest. He has now been charged with break and enter, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and two additional offences.

Keep reading

Civil liberties group opposes Garda access to messages

Plans to force encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to give Gardaí access to private conversations would “profoundly undermine” digital security, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has said.

In a statement issued this week, the group said cybersecurity experts were unanimous that so-called “backdoors” for law enforcement could not be created without also leaving users vulnerable to hackers and malicious actors.

“It is impossible to create ‘backdoor’ access pathways for law enforcement that can’t also be exploited,” the organisation said.

The ICCL added that encryption protects not only personal conversations but also online banking, shopping and wider digital activity.

“We all rely on encryption to safeguard our sensitive personal data when browsing, communicating or doing business online,” it said.

“Forcing companies to break their own encryption would profoundly undermine our digital security, as well as our fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.”

The council cited the position of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights in opposing laws that compromise encryption. It also highlighted the recent example of the UK government withdrawing a demand for Apple to install a backdoor into its cloud services, after the company refused.

“Apple stated it had never built – and never would build – backdoor access into any of its encrypted products,” the ICCL noted.

“Instead, Apple disabled its advanced data protection service in the UK and challenged the order in court.”

The group urged Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan to reconsider his planned legislation, describing the proposals as “neither proportionate nor technically sound.”

It called for “transparent consultation with cybersecurity experts, civil society and technologists before proposing any legislation that could irreversibly damage digital privacy and cybersecurity.”

Last month, O’Callaghan told an audience that Gardaí must have powers to intercept modern communications.

“None of us would like to imagine living in a surveillance State,” he said.

Keep reading

Texas Senate Again Votes To Ban THC Hemp Products Despite Governor’s Push For Regulations

As the second special session of the Texas legislature commences, the state Senate has again approved a bill to that would ban hemp THC products.

Despite Gov. Greg Abbott (R) renewing his call for a regulatory model for intoxicating cannabinoids and an age limit of 21 to purchase such products, the Senate on Tuesday passed legislation from Sen. Charles Perry (R) to recriminalize the market in a 22-8 vote on third reading consideration. A day earlier the body had given initial approval to the measure on second reading.

This comes days after the Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously approved the proposal, which followed the full Senate’s passage of an identical bill in the first regular session this year.

“Nothing’s changed, other than the fact that more and more information comes out every week regarding the impact and effects of THC on the brain the body and long term use, and the impacts of that,” Perry said ahead of the initial vote on Monday. “This stuff is not good and it’s harmful for those that use it, specifically on a long-term basis.”

Before Tuesday’s final vote, Perry claimed that “every state that has legalized recreational pot may have less people in prison, but they have more people laying on the street—and definitely, from a business community, less people working because of lost productivity.”

“With that, I hope that the ban goes through…and sends a strong message: We don’t need to be another California, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, New York City,” he said.

Democratic House lawmakers staged a walkout during the first special session Abbott convened—denying the chamber a quorum in protest of a proposed redistricting plan for the state’s congressional map. Now as those members have ended their protest and head back to the legislature, hemp legislation is advancing again.

The bill approved by the Senate would continue to outright ban cannabis products with “any amount” of cannabinoids other the CBD and CBG. Even mere possession of a prohibited cannabis item would be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor, carrying up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Keep reading

California AG Bonta ‘running out the clock’ to stop parental rights initiative, appeals court hears

California law required Attorney General Rob Bonta to write a neutral title and summary for a 2024 ballot measure to mandate parental notification when children request to be identified as the opposite sex in school records, limit girls’ sports to females and prohibit puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and genital surgery for gender-confused youth.

Having just sued a school district for the same parental notification policy, the Democratic attorney’s title for the Protect Kids of California Act seemed predictable: “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.” 

His summary used the same framing, referring to males who identify as girls as “transgender female students,” claiming the parental notification mandate lacks an “exception for student safety” and referring to medicalized gender transitions as “gender-affirming health care.” 

Sixteen months after a trial judge upheld Bonta’s phrasing as “accurately and impartially” conveying the substance of the measure, which under Bonta’s language fell short of the required signatures for the ballot within the 180-day collection window, Protect Kids California’s crusade to give voters a direct say in the matter may founder on a technicality.

Polling suggests voters would approve the measure, with majority support for each of the three prongs, but an appeals panel repeatedly grilled the group’s lawyer at a hearing Monday on why the case wasn’t moot in light of Protect Kids California’s litigation choices.

The three judges essentially made Bonta’s argument for him as Liberty Justice Center counsel Emily Rae tried to redirect them toward Bonta’s “malfeasance,” for what its lawsuit called his “inaccurate, false, and biased” language. The panel, by contrast, asked deputy AG Malcolm Brudigam just a single question during the state’s argument.

Keep reading

BC nurse ordered to pay almost $100k for opposing gender ideology

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm has been ordered to pay nearly $100,000 for publicly declaring that gender is defined by biology.

In an August 14 press release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced that the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) mandated that Hamm pay $93,639.80 in legal fees and has suspended her license for one month for her statements opposing LGBT ideology.

“In our view, the panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court,” JCCF lawyer Lisa Bildy declared. “We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.”

“This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense,” she continued. “The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”

In March, a ruling from the BCCNM disciplinary panel found that Hamm committed “unprofessional conduct” by publicly discussing the dangers of the LGBT agenda in three articles and a podcast appearance.

Later that month, Hamm shared on social media that Vancouver Coastal Health fired her from her nursing position without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct.”

Hamm found herself targeted by the BCCNM in 2020 when she co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I (heart) JK Rowling.” This sign was a nod to the famous British author’s public comments defending women’s private spaces from being used by gender-confused men.

The BCCNM accused Hamm of making “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding (so-called) transgender people” while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.

According to the college, Hamm’s statements were “made across various online platforms, including but not limited to podcasts, videos, published writings, and social media” between July 2018 and March 2021.

Keep reading

The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States. Yeah. I’m dead serious.

The Flag America Protects

This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.

He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.

Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.

You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.

But not Israel.

Keep reading