Blog

Israel wants to implement the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners. Here’s what you need to know. 

Israel is one step closer to passing a law that would allow Israeli courts to sentence Palestinian prisoners to death. On Monday, the Israeli Knesset passed the bill in a first reading with a majority of 39 votes in favor against 16 in opposition. The bill was presented as “exceptional” law, under a special status that allows it to be passed only with the majority of votes cast, and not the majority of the Knesset members, which is why absentees and abstentions were not counted. It still needs to pass two more readings before entering into force.

The law applies to individuals who are convicted for acts that led to the death of Israelis, if the acts were motivated by “racism or hostility towards the public” and “committed with the objective of harming the state of Israel or the rebirth of the Jewish people,” making it applicable exclusively to Palestinians. It was introduced by Knesset member Limor Son Har-Melech from the ultra-nationalist “Jewish Power” party with a strong support base by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, like Har-Melech herself.

The party is led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, a key ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government coalition. The death penalty for Palestinian prisoners has been a main political demand of Ben-Gvir, who has been behind the worsening of detention conditions of Palestinian prisoners in recent years.

Israel does have the death penalty in its law, but has only been considered applicable in rare situations of grave crimes, like genocide, and was applied once in 1962 against former Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann. The new law introduces three new stipulations which indicate the intention is to use the death penalty on Palestinians.

First, the bill’s wording allows the death penalty on individuals convicted of killing Israelis on “nationalistic or racist” grounds. This limits its application to non-Israelis and employs the euphamism of “nationalistic” crimes which is commonly used to describe Palestinian attacks against Israelis. Second, since it applies to Palestinians in the occupied territory, it gives Israeli military courts, who are the ones who issue penal sentences against Palestinians under occupation the power to put Palestinians to death. Third, it allows the death sentence to be given with a simple majority of judges, and not by consensus.

Even still, Ben-Gvir continues to push to loosen the law’s application even more to give Israeli forces the authority to execute Palestinians in the field. The law has several opponents, including Yair Lapid’s opposition “There is future” party, and the orthodox Haridi representatives. The opponents to the law abstained from voting, and many lawmakers were absent. But since it was introduced as an exceptional bill, requiring only a majority of votes cast, it passed.

Keep reading

ICE to Deploy Palantir’s ImmigrationOS AI to Track Migrants’ Movements

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is moving forward with ImmigrationOS, a new AI system built by Palantir Technologies to give officers near real-time visibility into immigrants’ movements and sharpen enforcement priorities nationwide. The agency awarded Palantir a $30 million contract in early 2025, with a working prototype due by September 25, 2025 and an initial operating period of at least two years, according to agency planning documents and contract disclosures. ICE frames the system as a way to speed removals of people already prioritized for enforcement, better track self-deportations, and coordinate federal data that now sits in disconnected silos.

What ImmigrationOS is meant to do

ImmigrationOS is designed to pull together a wide range of government-held records to sort, flag, and route cases to officers in the field. ICE officials say the tool will help them focus on individuals linked to transnational criminal organizations, violent offenders, documented gang members, and those who have overstayed visas.

The system is also built to register when people leave the United States on their own, so field offices can avoid wasted detention and travel costs on cases that no longer require action. While the agency describes the platform as a needed modernization step, civil liberties groups warn that an AI-driven system with sweeping data inputs risks mistakes that could touch the lives of lawful residents and even U.S. citizens.

Keep reading

Minneapolis Dem Carjacked After Winning Election on ‘Restorative Justice’ Platform

Minneapolis City Councilman Jamal Osman was carjacked Monday night, just days after winning reelection on a platform that emphasized criminal justice reform and alternative responses to crime.

Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed the incident Tuesday, saying two juveniles — ages 15 and 16 — were arrested after stealing Osman’s car and crashing it shortly afterward.

According to police, the suspects approached Osman, threatened him with mace, and stole his vehicle.

The two teens then collided with several cars and a fire hydrant before fleeing on foot.

Officers later captured both suspects, who are being held pending charges.

Keep reading

Israel destroys over 1,500 buildings in Gaza since start of ceasefire

The Israeli military has destroyed more than 1,500 buildings in the Gaza Strip since the ceasefire deal was reached last month, according to new satellite images – the latest of which was captured on 8 November.

The images, analyzed by BBC Verify, show that the Israeli army has wiped out entire neighborhoods in less than a month, mainly through demolitions. 

“The destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” the investigation says. 

The BBC used a change-detection algorithm to analyze radar photos – taken before and after US President Donald Trump’s ‘peace plan’ came into effect – which revealed the scale of damage and the number of visibly destroyed buildings.

The images show buildings beyond the Yellow Line, the perimeter to which Israeli forces agreed to withdraw their troops as part of the agreement.

Many of the demolished buildings did not appear to have sustained damage before their destruction, for example, near Rafah, Khan Yunis, and parts of Gaza City. 

“According to the agreement, all terror infrastructure, including tunnels, is to be dismantled throughout Gaza. Israel is acting in response to threats, violations, and terror infrastructure,” the Israeli army claims. 

Trump’s ceasefire plan calls for the destruction of all “terror infrastructure” under the “supervision of independent monitors.”

However, the satellite imagery and testimonies from Palestinians confirm the destruction of civilian homes and residential sites.

“This is definitely a violation of the ceasefire,” Dr. H. A. Hellyer of the UK-based RUSI think tank told BBC. “But [Washington] DC is unwilling to recognize it as such, insisting that the ceasefire has to hold, even when it isn’t actually holding.”

Hugh Lovatt, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said these demolitions would continue to pose a problem until Israel withdraws from Gaza, and could jeopardize the ceasefire.

Yet the US plan allows Israel to maintain a presence in the strip until the resistance is completely disarmed. 

“Ultimately, the sense that Israel is stalling its withdrawal and looking to create new permanent facts on the ground, as it has in the West Bank, will become an increasingly greater threat to the maintenance of the ceasefire,” Lovatt added. 

Keep reading

Calling It ‘Biden’s FBI’ Diminishes The Real Threat Of A Bureaucracy Gone Wild

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s latest revelations regarding Operation Arctic Frost demonstrate that the weaponization of our government is far more dangerous than previously understood. However, what is truly infuriating is the Republican reflex to attach Biden’s name to abuses carried out by the FBI, CIA, or any one of our endless alphabet agencies. Framing it as “Biden’s FBI” or “Biden’s CIA” misses the point entirely and diminishes the severity of the structural threat.

These labels make Operation Arctic Frost and other abuses sound like political controversies. They ignore the grave reality that it is the product of a permanent bureaucracy that is so powerful, it operates as an unelected “fourth branch of government” that seems to be unencumbered by the Constitution.

It also demonstrates a judiciary gone rogue, where some judges like James Boasberg elevate ideology over the Constitution. These judges shield a bureaucracy that routinely violates the rights of the American people with impunity. Calling it “Biden’s FBI” implies that if Republicans are in power, the problem will fix itself. The hard truth is it won’t, and we can see it hasn’t. The corruption didn’t begin under Biden, and it won’t end under a Republican administration.

There is clear evidence that the bureaucracy operates independently of the administration regardless of which party controls the White House. For Republicans to think that President Trump’s return to office will make the bureaucracy suddenly obey constitutional limits is dangerously naïve.

Just look at President Trump’s first term. Not only did the bureaucracy target him, but it also went after his allies and millions of ordinary Americans, including Catholics and parents concerned about their children’s education. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump won the presidency. When the Russian collusion narrative collapsed, the bureaucracy pivoted to a new front. A leaked phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became the next weapon. They were determined to remove a duly elected president by any means necessary.

Even while Trump was still president, the permanent bureaucracy pivoted to censorship and information warfare to target him and his supporters. Several federal agencies pressured tech companies to censor Americans on a wide variety of topics, including Covid and elections. In addition, the FBI sought to suppress and discredit the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, even though it had been authenticated and in their possession for more than a year. Subsequently, 51 intelligence officials colluded to mislead the American public and falsely claimed it was Russian disinformation.

And it wasn’t just the law enforcement and intelligence community engaging in these abuses. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS), responsible for delivering mail, not surveilling Americans, got into the mix through its ICOP program to monitor Americans’ online activity. The Stanford Election Integrity Partnership was nothing more than a DHS-run operation to silence millions of Americans online under the pretense of combating “misinformation.”

A plethora of other examples exist, and while the abuses escalated under the Biden administration, we cannot ignore that this weaponization has unfolded over decades. It’s rooted in a bureaucracy that has amassed so much power and operates with impunity because of a feckless legislative branch that refuses to exercise meaningful oversight. The entrenched bureaucracy is also aided and abetted by ideological judges who legitimize actions that blatantly violate both the Constitution and the public trust.

I have watched the endless parade of Republican lawmakers express outrage over the latest revelations. They call for more investigations and demand accountability, but accountability without reform is meaningless. Congress has the power to rein these agencies in, yet little has been done in the way of meaningful legislation.

Firing a few bad actors, holding another round of hearings, or implementing internal reforms that can be easily undone by the next administration, won’t stop the bureaucracy that has come to view itself outside of constitutional constraints. Congress must also impeach and remove Judge James Boasberg. The rule of law collapses when the judiciary abandons its role as a neutral arbiter and check on executive power. It seems that the very institutions designed to protect liberty have become the greatest threat to it.

This isn’t about who sits in the Oval Office. It’s about a permanent government that disregards the separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.

Keep reading

Immigration and Climate Activists Want a Nation of Renters

It’s harder than ever to buy a home, thanks to immigration, environmental regulations, and zoning restrictions. The word “crisis” gets used too often, but housing certainly qualifies.

On the heels of an election won by Democrats who stressed “affordability,” the Trump administration has floated the idea of introducing 50-year mortgages to lower the entry cost of buying a home. Is that a good idea?

“I bought my first condo in the early 1990s in Washington, DC. Paid $115,000 for it. It was in McLean, Virginia, a nice area, and it was three times my income,” says Peter Schweizer, host of The DrillDown podcast. “How many people today could say they can take their income, triple it, and buy a house for that price?”

Co-host Eric Eggers does the math. “Don’t get a 50-year mortgage,” Eggers cautions. “On a $350,000 house at 6 percent interest, you would pay $250 a month less, but you would spend an extra $367,000 in interest.”

Housing costs have risen for many reasons, but immigration is a big factor. Since 1995, immigrants — legal or illegal — to the U.S. have risen by about 30 million people and now account for 15.8 percent of the population, according to Pew Research. That adds demand for housing.

Environmental restrictions and zoning restrictions are another large factor. A recent study quantified their effects on housing prices. In San Francisco, as the hosts note, restrictive zoning laws added $400,000 to the cost of a home. “In Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City, it’s much better: it’s only $200,000 added to the costs there,” Schweizer adds.

Keep reading

Wisconsin’s Leftist Supreme Court Justices Have A Recusal Problem

Michael Gableman is asking another leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to recuse herself from his disciplinary case before the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, according to court documents obtained by The Federalist. 

Gableman, the former state Supreme Court justice tapped by Republican legislative leadership in 2021 to lead a politically-doomed investigation into Wisconsin’s irregularity-filled 2020 presidential election, could have his law license suspended at the hands of a liberal-led court that clearly loathes him. 

The court will ultimately decide if the recommended 3-year suspension is proper.

‘No Reasonable Person’

On Wednesday, Gableman’s attorneys filed a motion with the court calling on Justice Janet Protasiewicz to step away from the proceedings, citing biased comments she made on the campaign trail. Protasiewicz, who in 2023 defeated former Justice Daniel Kelly in what was at the time the most costly judicial election in U.S. history, released a caustic press release effectively declaring Kelly and Gableman enemies of the state. 

”It’s too bad that Dan Kelly continues to join Mike Gableman in courting extremists who oppose democracy,” the Milwaukee County liberal opined. “Dan Kelly and Mike Gableman have demonstrated to the citizens of Wisconsin that they are not fit to be on the bench.”

In the same campaign statement, Protasiewicz denigrated all Republicans concerned with election integrity, accusing them of being part of “disgraceful effort to promote Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.” 

Given her history, Gableman argues Protasiewicz is unable to live up to a core judiciary standard: Avoiding even the appearance of bias. 

“Because of her statements on the campaign trail, she can’t comply with this standard while deciding whether Gableman has breached his professional responsibilities or, if he has, determining the appropriate discipline,” the recusal motion states, adding that “no reasonable person would want a judge to rule on his or her case after publicly and zealously attacking the person‘s professional judgment and character.”

The motion quotes from a 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, which borrows from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 Estes v. Texas decision, cementing the basic requirement of due process, and the pursuit of preventing even “the probability of unfairness. . .”

Noble words. But In Wisconsin, the justices alone are the final arbiters of recusal, each deciding the question of whether to recuse, or not to recuse. 

‘Rubber Stamp’

Last month, leftist Justice Rebecca Dallet denied a similar request to recuse herself from the Gableman disciplinary proceedings. 

On the campaign trail in 2017, Dallet accused Gableman, a justice at the time, of running “one of the most unethical campaigns in state history.” She attacked him for refusing to recuse himself from what she banally described as a “criminal campaign-finance” investigation, accusing Gableman of being a “rubber stamp for his political allies.” Dallet was referring to Wisconsin’s notorious “John Doe” investigations, politically-driven probes led by left-leaning government agents who secretly targeted Wisconsin conservatives. Gableman wrote the majority opinion that found the star chambers unconstitutional and that the special prosecutor “was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent…” 

In her denial order, Dallet insisted that none of the public statements she made about Gableman while she campaigned for her Supreme Court seat “create a serious risk of actual bias…” The justice claims she can act fairly and impartially in Gableman’s case. 

“In short, the opinions I expressed about Gableman’s judicial and campaign conduct from 2008 to 2018 say nothing about the conduct he is now accused of committing, let alone demonstrate that in either fact or appearance I cannot act impartially in this matter,” Dallet wrote. 

Keep reading

Trump Administration Moves to Protect U.S. Taxpayers — Foreign Visa Seekers With Costly Medical Conditions Like Diabetes and Obesity May Be Denied Entry Under New Directive

The Trump administration has quietly issued a sweeping directive instructing U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to tighten visa‐issuance standards for applicants with costly medical conditions.

The new policy will give visa officers discretion to deny individuals with conditions such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and mental‐health disorders if their lifetime care is deemed likely to become a burden on U.S. taxpayers.

According to KFF Health News, the U.S. Department of State reportedly instructs consular officers to assess whether visa applicants, and in some cases, their dependents, could become a “public charge” due to medical costs over their expected lifespan. Conditions flagged in the guidance include, but are not limited to:

  • Cardiovascular diseases
  • Respiratory diseases
  • Cancers
  • Diabetes and metabolic diseases
  • Neurological or mental health disorders
  • Obesity, explicitly mentioned as a red flag due to its connection to sleep apnea, asthma, hypertension, and other expensive conditions.

“Does the applicant have adequate financial resources to cover the costs of such care over his entire expected lifespan without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense?” the guidance stated.

“Self-sufficiency has been a long-standing principle of US immigration policy … and the public-charge ground of inadmissibility has been a part of our immigration law for more than 100 years.”

The Trump administration frames this directive as a taxpayer-protection measure.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News, “It’s no secret the Trump administration is putting the interests of the American people first. This includes enforcing policies that ensure our immigration system is not a burden on the American taxpayer.”

Keep reading

Global Transformation of Food Systems – The Killing Off of Food Sovereignty

A significant event took place last month at the Stockholm Food Forum, based on a recently published ‘global health’ document by ‘EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0’ calling for a top down “global transformation of food systems”.

It was presided over by none other than Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director General of The World Health Organisation, with the close support of foundations – including Bill Gates, Bloomberg and Rockerfeller, as well as corporate giants Nestle, Cargill and Unilever – with The World Economic Forum also featuring high on the list of backers.

Tedros Ghebreyesus stated that the central theme of the gathering was the need for “a top down, inclusive and equitable transformation of food systems” and the need for countries ‘to regulate food production and consumption’.

I think we know what he meant by this – the late Dr Henry Kissinger declared a few decades earlier,

“He who controls the food controls the people.”

But the official public relations message spins this global control heist as a push for the ‘better health’ of the world, postulating what sounds like a fashionable list of general dietary improvements as recommended by ‘The One Health Initiative’: less red meat, fish, eggs, dairy products and a reduction of highly processed foods – as well as outright bans and health warnings printed on packaging, like with cigarettes. 

The end goal is stated to be ‘the integration of food policy with trade, agricultural and climate policies’.

Well, trade, agricultural and climate policies are already an inpenetrable disaster, so food is to be locked into the same prison camp.

Yes, Mr Tedros, admirable proclamations for the unwary, but we have woken-up to your spin on what constitutes ‘world health’ and we know that what you actually want to tell us – because it’s completely in line with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Agenda 2030, Green New Deal and the Net Zero fantasy, all of which you already directly or indirectly preside over.

This, as you know, includes the end of farming as we know it (Methane/CO2 releases) and the removal from the land of the last truly independent human beings – farmers – who just might resist being told what to do by a bunch of deluded technocrats and psychotic power obsessed criminals.

The Lancet report, upon which this conference was based, highlights the coming role of digital tools in monitoring citizens’ diets and lifestyles, stating that soon it will be possible to introduce CO2 emission tracking systems linked to food consumption and ways of identifying compliance with nutritional recommendations. 

Well, well, that certainly has a familiar ring about it.

Could the authors possibly be referring to the need for ‘Smart Cities’ to act as ‘reservations’ for those swept up in the moral crusade to rid the planet of all who fail to comply with the cult’s preplanned hunger games?

No – Gates, Tedros, Cargill, Nestle and the WEF only have humanitarian motivations behind their wish to be in control of the transformation of food systems. I must apologise for allowing any such thought to come to my mind.

Keep reading

The Obamacare secret at the heart of the shutdown: insurers made billions at taxpayer expense

The 42-day federal shutdown forced by Democrats thrust the economics of Obamacare into the limelight, and exposed an uncomfortable truth: An insurance industry whose executives are increasingly liberal donors has seen its earnings soar with the injection of taxpayer-funded subsidies that propped up Barack Obama’s signature health program from collapse.

The nation’s largest health insurance companies have seen good business since Obamacare was first passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014. This has come in no small part because of federal government subsidies to the insurance industry, which government estimates show totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023 alone.

Those subsidies were greatly expanded by the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic as an emergency measure, but Democrats have fought to keep them permanent.    

Obamacare brought health insurance companies historic profits

A Just the News analysis of public financial records from four of the nation’s largest health insurance companies found that net earnings ballooned about 216% from 2010 to 2024. UnitedHealth Group in particular, which dominates the industry with a market share of around 15%, saw the largest explosion of profits. The other three companies, Elevance, Centene, and Cigna also experienced a marked growth in net earnings after the implementation of Obamacare. 

The healthcare legislation was also a boon for these companies’ stock prices. One study found the weighted average of health insurance stock prices has grown 1,032% from 2010—when the law was passed—and 448% from 2013—the year the legislation’s key provisions were implemented. 

This performance far outstripped the most popular S&P 500 exchange-traded fund, which grew 251% and 139%, respectively, the Paragon Health Institute reported last year. ETFs are designed to track the performance of specific stock indices and, as such, generally represent average market growth.

Keep reading