Blog

Antifa Terrorists Sentenced to 50 to 100 Years in Prison for Attack on Texas ICE Detention Center

Eight of the ten Antifa members convicted of terrorism charges for an attack on a Texas ICE detention center were sentenced to at least 50 years in prison on Tuesday.

The Antifa ringleader Benjamin Song was sentenced to 100 years in prison.

CBS News reported:

Eight people who were found guilty of terrorism-related charges earlier this year for a 2025 attack on an ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, learned their punishments on Tuesday. One member of the group, identified as the group’s leader, was sentenced to a century in prison.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas said on Monday that sentencing for the defendants would happen Tuesday morning. The verdicts, handed down in March, came as the defendants stood accused in the July 4, 2025, plot targeting the Prairieland ICE detention center following weeks of testimony from investigators, law enforcement and cooperating witnesses.

Benjamin Song was hit with the longest prison sentence: 100 years behind bars. Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years in prison. Autumn Hill was sentenced to 50 years, along with Zachary Evetts, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, and Elizabeth Soto. Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived.

In March, a jury found nine Antifa members guilty of terrorism charges in an attack on an ICE detention center in Texas.

The nine indicted defendants: Cameron Arnold, a/k/a Autunm Hill, Zachary Evetts, Benjamin Song, Savanna Batten, Bradford Morris, a/k/a Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, Ines Soto, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada.

Last 4th of July, nearly a dozen Antifa members dressed in black bloc and body armor descended on the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.

The terrorists fired off explosives, vandalized federal vehicles, and fired shots at police officers.

A police officer was shot in the neck.

The defendants were found guilty on riot charges, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and using and carrying an explosive, three counts of attempted murder of an officer, three counts of discharging a firearm during a violent crime, corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents.

Keep reading

Automakers Race Into Humanoid Robots As Timeline For Blue-Collar Job Disruption Emerges

Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee is out with a fascinating note explaining why automakers are making a mad dash into the world of humanoid robotics, arguing that their manufacturing scale, supply-chain depth, and years of investment in autonomous driving give them a structural lead in the emerging physical-AI market.

Lee writes that automakers are also seeking new revenue streams beyond the core vehicle business, with humanoids poised to move from factory floors into the physical world across retail, security, public service, and eventually homes.

From Tesla and Hyundai to XPeng, Xiaomi, BYD, Geely, and Chery, automakers are quickly moving beyond EVs and into humanoids through in-house development, acquisitions, minority stakes, and strategic partnerships. Lee said this trend became visible in China, where multiple OEM-linked robots were showcased at the 2026 Beijing Auto Show.

“OEMs are entering humanoid robotics to boost productivity and unlock new revenue streams,” Lee wrote in the note.

She noted, “Automakers have several advantages across hardware, software, and scale. There is significant overlap between vehicle and humanoid components—motors, reducers, sensors —as well as manufacturing.”

Keep reading

California-Based Biden Judge Issues Nationwide Block on ICE’s Policy of Arresting Illegals at Courthouses

A federal judge on Tuesday issued a nationwide block on ICE’s policy of arresting illegal aliens at courthouses.

California-based US District Judge Casey Pitts, a Biden appointee, ruled that ICE cannot detain illegal aliens at immigration courts.

The Supreme Court previously ruled that federal district courts lack the statutory authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

However, Judge Pitts says he was able to issue a nationwide injunction in this case because the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for class certification.

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order called “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”

“It is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people. Further, it is the policy of the United States to achieve the total and efficient enforcement of those laws, including through lawful incentives and detention capabilities,” Trump said in his executive order.

Judge Pitts vacated the Trump Administration’s policy targeting illegal aliens at courthouses.

“For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” Judge Pitts wrote in a 70-page opinion. “That instruction—codified in the Administrative Procedures Act—does not require an agency to make the choice that a reviewing court might deem preferable.”

“Because the record before the Court demonstrates that ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA,” the judge said.

This is the second time Judge Pitts has blocked the Trump Administration from making arrests at immigration courthouses.

Earlier this year, Judge Pitts blocked ICE from making arrests in his district in the Northern District of California.

Keep reading

California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing

Three California residents are suing a fuel pricing company and several gas station operators, alleging that they use artificial intelligence-based pricing systems to raise gasoline prices in an uncompetitive manner.

“Californians are being forced to pay surcharges that cannot be explained by crude oil costs, refining costs, environmental regulation, or taxes,” said the June 22 class action lawsuit, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

“Part of the cause of California’s astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state’s largest fuel retailers.”

The company’s Kalibrate Fuel Pricing software, an algorithmic, AI-based pricing system, “connects directly to gas stations’ pumps and signs. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing relies on the data of competing gas stations to coordinate high prices and wring more money from the pockets of consumers throughout the state,” the lawsuit states.

This is contradictory to historical trends where gas stations have competed to secure customers by “aggressively undercutting” retail prices, the lawsuit said.

The “artificial surcharge” from the algorithmic pricing scheme inflicts a “severe, daily financial toll” on millions of Californians, the lawsuit said. For people whose livelihoods are tied to road transport, such as truck drivers, the higher gas prices eat into their incomes.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, a gallon of regular gasoline costs $5.56 on average in California as of June 23, the highest in the country.

A month ago, prices were at $6.11 per gallon amid US-Iran war tensions. A year ago, prices were still close to $5 at $4.66 per gallon.

California’s current gasoline price of $5.56 per gallon is more than $1.6 higher than the $3.92 national average.

In their lawsuit, the defendants said that Kalibrate Fuel Pricing even has a feature that enables almost all gas stations in a market to raise gasoline prices simultaneously.

Keep reading

USAID Liberal Corruption and Circular Funding: How Taxpayer Dollars Were Used Against U.S. Policies and Interests

President Trump was criticized for cutting USAID funding shortly after taking office in his second term. He argued that USAID was plagued by waste, fraud, and corruption, with taxpayer money funding projects such as DEI workplace training in Serbia and transgender theater productions in Ireland.

The White House released a documented list of expenditures that included hundreds of thousands of dollars to a nonprofit linked to designated terrorist organizations after an OIG investigation had been launched, millions to EcoHealth Alliance, which was involved in research related to the Wuhan lab, and funding that resulted in hundreds of thousands of meals being distributed to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria.

Beyond waste and fraud, USAID funds also flowed to organizations that were at odds with U.S. interests, including groups that funded protests against U.S. policies within the United States and undermined US policy abroad.

George Soros, one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party and left-wing causes in the United States, became a central figure in the USAID corruption debate. Open Society Foundations has stated that claims it receives USAID funds or directs USAID spending are “manifestly false.” However, the organization’s own records and federal grant data indicate a financial relationship with USAID.

The Soros Foundations’ 2001 annual report listed USAID as a “donor partner,” while congressional testimony by Tyler O’Neil, citing USASpending.gov records, documented USAID grants to the Alliance for Open Society International, a legal arm of the Open Society Foundations. The grants were identified by federal grant numbers AID122A000200042, SLMAQM11GR635, and SLMAQM11GR0635. The arrangement creates a circular flow of taxpayer money, with federal funds flowing to Soros-linked organizations that then support left-wing activism, protests, and Democrat-aligned groups.

In addition to funding Soros-linked organizations directly, USAID awarded more than $27 million to the Tides Center, an organization that has received tens of millions of dollars from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

The Tides Center functions as a donor-advised fund that masks the identity of original donors. Its grants do not disclose which donor directed the funds, and the IRS does not require donor disclosure. Tides founder Drummond Pike stated, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” In 2023, the Tides network took in nearly $800 million, with major donors including Soros, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Ford Foundation.

Keep reading

The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson’s Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani..

At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.

Gorsuch wrote that the “historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the”‘history and tradition’ metric” and called for the Court to “revisit” the case.

Declaring Bruen “unworkable,” Jackson called for the restoration of the “means-end scrutiny – the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric – offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, “it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'”

Justice Jackson added that “Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to “resolve contemporary problems” under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded “solutions” for contemporary problems.

That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.

Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.

Keep reading

FCC Probe into ‘The View’ Heats Up: Media Research Center Submits 2,473 Separate Pieces of Evidence Documenting ‘Pervasive Bias’

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

In February, the FCC is launched an investigation into ABC’s “The View” following an appearance by Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, the first political candidate to appear on the program following the announcement in January.

At the time, Talarico was facing other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), in the Democrat primary. Republicans Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), state Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) faced off in the GOP primary.

Yet, as Fox News reported at the time, ABC’s parent company, Disney, never made an equal-time filing to the FCC regarding Talarico’s recent appearance, which would implicitly indicate to the FCC that Disney believes “The View” is bona fide news and would be exempt from the policy.

The equal opportunity requirement applies to all legally filed candidates on a ballot regardless of political party, meaning all eligible Democratic primary candidates would require equal time. Notably, Talarico received roughly nine minutes of airtime in one segment while his top primary rival, Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, had roughly 17 minutes of airtime across three segments during her appearance on “The View” last month.

The source noted that not only would ABC require equal airtime for Republican candidates on the ballot like incumbent Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn and his primary rivals. It would also apply to Ahmad Hassan, the little-known candidate running against Talarico and Crockett in the Democratic primary.

In a letter to FCC division chief Maria Mullarkey, Media Research Center (MRC) President David Bozell wrote, “For nearly four decades, the Media Research Center (MRC) has been an unrelenting media watchdog and a counterforce to activism in America’s newsrooms, broadcast networks, and Big Tech platforms. As such, the MRC is uniquely qualified to respond to the Commission’s request for comment on Disney/ABC’s petition to declare that the daytime television program The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program.”

Keep reading

MP Materials’ Lawsuit Against USA Rare Earth Highlights Battle For America’s Future In Minerals

USA Rare Earth has dismissed a lawsuit filed by MP Materials, calling the claims “completely without merit” and arguing the case is an attempt to slow its growth. The company said it will deny all allegations that it improperly obtained confidential information from a former MP employee, according to Bloomberg.

The dispute underscores intensifying competition in the U.S. rare-earth sector, where both companies are racing to build domestic mining, processing, and magnet-production capabilities. USA Rare Earth said MP is trying to impede its progress as it develops the Round Top deposit in Texas and a magnet facility in Oklahoma.

Bloomberg writes that MP sued last month, alleging a coordinated effort by USA Rare Earth to recruit MP employees and misuse proprietary information. The lawsuit also questioned the viability of USA Rare Earth’s projects. MP declined to comment on the latest filing.

Keep reading

“I Think Kamala Won” – Election Deniers Rosie O’Donnell and Jim Acosta Push Conspiracy Theory That Trump Stole the 2024 Election and is Rigging Midterms

Rosie O’Donnell and former CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta put their Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display this week, teaming up to push what has been referred to as “election denialism” and a “threat to democracy.”

During an interview on Acosta’s show, Rosie declared that Trump stole the election from Kamala Harris. Though Acosta was skeptical about the theory, he endorsed the idea that the midterms will be stolen or outright canceled by Trump.

“So most people are very, very, very shocked, scared, and absolutely astonished that he is the President of the United States, and I think I am too. I mean, part of the reason that I left is I never in a million years thought we would put a convicted felon who tried to start an insurrection back in office,” O’Donnell said. Very ironic considering Trump saying the election was stolen is what these people considered insurrection.

“How did that happen? I don’t think it happened. I think Kamala won. I do,” she continued, as Acosta called her idea “interesting.”

O’Donnell went on with her crazed theory, suggesting that Elon Musk was the golden ticket and that, perhaps, the tech billionaire had something to do with rigging the votes.

“And I think that we’re going to find all this out. It’s going to come out, and it’s, I’m not the first person to say this, there are all these researchers who are saying it. I read it online again today. And you know, the Elon Musk, of it all,” she said, asking Acosta, “What did he do for Donald that was able to give him back all that he gave him back? What did he do, you think, for the Donald in that election?”

But Acosta wasn’t willing to admit that it’s possible to cheat in elections. After all, that would make him a hypocrite after denying that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

“It’s hard to believe, I mean, especially now, that he, that he, that he won. I mean, it’s, it is hard to believe that. I mean, I, I tend to, you know, maybe it’s because I’m old-fashioned, you know, and patriotic, and grew up in this country, you know, watching, you know, Tom Hanks and Saving Private Ryan, I would never think that something like that can happen. So I tend to trust it,” he stammered. “But I do worry he’s going to try to steal the next one.”

Rosie took the conspiracy theory even further, claiming that Trump isn’t going to steal the election, but cancel it, calling him a “Fascist.”

“Well, I don’t think he’s going to try to steal it. I think he’s going to come up with some big tragedy. We’re going to have an event here in the United States in some capacity, maybe another assassination attempt, and he’s going to declare that the elections are off,” she said. “That’s what I think is going to happen because that’s in the Fascist playbook.”

Acosta was audibly agreeing with her, saying “yes” as she spewed her insane theories.

Keep reading

Invasion of the Killer Data Centers

Who controls what data?

Wikipedia tells us that a data center is “a facility used to house computer systems and associated components, such as telecommunications and storage systems. Data centers are critical infrastructure for the storage and processing of information, and they support the global financial system….and artificial intelligence.”

Data centers are being constructed now on a scale never seen before. These big, beautiful data centers have been described as “foundational to how modern society functions.” And, like so many other nefarious things, they are said to be vital to national security. This would be the same society that is so concerned about national security they left the southern border completely open for decades, and are now hot and heavy to merge our military together with that of another nation. In January, 2025, our beloved former President Biden signed an executive order on Advancing United States Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure, with a decided emphasis on AI’s central role in shaping the economy and our national defense. This order triggered the development of “domestic AI infrastructure,” visibly represented by large-scale data centers. We have to “ensure U.S. economic competitiveness,” after all. It’s not like building factories and reviving domestic industry would do that.

So who is paying for all these data centers? That’s a bit unclear, as you might expect. We do know that Google invested $40 billion just in Texas for AI and new data centers. One report said Microsoft was planning to spend $80 billion on the same thing in 2025. Something called Digital Realty operates more than 300 data centers worldwide. All we know is that it’s a “real estate investment trust.” A company owned by a Dubai billionaire friend of Donald Trump is kicking in $20 billion. The U.S. worked out some kind of “investment agreement” with Saudi Arabia that amounts to $600 billion. Taxpayers are kept in the dark about lucrative data center subsidies, and one source claims we are paying about $1 million for every data center job created. In Israel, Larry Ellison’s Oracle is building a new data center that takes up nine stories. Underground. For “security” reasons. “Experts” warn that “anti-Israel protesters” are among those objecting to all these new data centers.

As always, the Zionist connection is prominent. In a remarkably revealing recent speech, “AI researcher” Dr. Maya Ackerman told the American Jewish Committee, “instead of trying to control the whole world, and trying to somehow manage what’s happening in this big blob of Wikipedia and social media, we can go directly to the companies with clear technical and advocacy solutions. For the first time, there is a path to correcting the digital world.” I’m certainly no “AI researcher,” but I think the lovely Zionist is confessing to an Israeli desire to control the world here. Just imagine if an Iranian “AI researcher” said this. Or a Russian. Bari Weiss would be up in arms. Jerry Seinfeld might cheer a little less loudly at the next Knicks game. Clearly, there is a powerful consortium pushing for these data centers, and an expansion of AI. In my state of Virginia, over 600 new data centers have been, or are being built. Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger is ecstatic about that. But so are Trumpenstein and his cult.

I worked in Information Systems for nearly thirty years, in three different data centers. So my knowledge of data centers is limited to what they historically were. Companies, or government agencies, would utilize a data center to store the data specific to their company or agency. So these sudden super data centers baffle me. One in Utah is said to be envisioned as twice the size of Manhattan. What? How many servers would that require? And what data in Utah is being stored? No particular company built it. No special government agency did. So what is its purpose? What is the purpose of the over 600 data centers springing up in Virginia? Was that much of the state really offline, to require 600 new data centers? Shouldn’t someone be asking these questions? What else could they be used for, other than nefarious AI monitoring? If they’re not for surveillance, explain what they are for. Whose data are they storing, and why is there so much of it? Where was all this data before?

Keep reading