Blog

Israel begins its war on cash

Starting August 1, Israelis will not be able to make cash and bank check payments above 6,000 Shekels. According to the country’s Tax Authority, the law is meant to combat tax non-compliance, organized crime, and money laundering.

“We want the public to reduce the use of cash money,” said Tamar Bracha of Israel’s Tax Authority, speaking to The Media Line. “The goal is to reduce cash fluidity in the market, mainly because crime organizations tend to rely on cash. By limiting the use of it, criminal activity is much harder to carry out.”

But some critics have rejected the argument that the law reduces cash in the market.

“We were in the discussions about the bill. The data we brought showed that since the first phase of the law was in effect, the amount of cash on the market only increased. So clearly, something’s not working,” said Uri Goldman, a lawyer who represented plaintiffs who opposed the law in 2018.

Goldman further noted that over one million people in Israel do not have bank accounts. As such the law “would prevent them from conducting any business and would, practically, turn 10% of the population to criminals.”

The new law prevents cash and bank check payments over 6,000 Shekel to a business. Transactions between citizens (not business) are limited to 15,000 Shekel.

There are two exceptions to the law; transactions with Palestinians in the West Bank and charitable institutions.

Keep reading

10 Times Texans Claimed To See Evidence of Alien Landings

Although this summer has been jam-packed with movie sequels such as Top Gun: Maverick, Minions: The Rise of Gru, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Thor: Love and Thunder and the disastrous Jurassic World Dominion, we still get an original movie every now and again. Get Out and Us director Jordan Peele continues his successful output of original storytelling with his latest genre film Nope, which topped the box office this past weekend.

While Nope isn’t based on any previously established franchise, it certainly feels like a callback to classic alien invasion movies. Aliens have always fascinated audiences, and not just thanks to Steven Spielberg. There have been various “alien sightings” over the years, with some that seem more plausible than others.
Perhaps the most famous “alien incident” in American history was the discovery of supposed crashed weather balloon wreckage in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. After spectators claimed they saw a UFO, officials at the Roswell Army Air Field announced that they were taking over the investigation. This incident has puzzled skeptics for generations.

You’d have to be a bit close-minded to claim definitively there’s no life form in the universe other than the Earthling kind. However, your mileage may vary on how much you choose to believe the supposed factual accounts of those who claimed to have experiences with aliens. We looked back at some of the strangest “alien encounters” in Texas.

Keep reading

The Justice Department Delegitimizes Itself

The ideal of justice is a blindfolded woman poised and still and holding slowly balancing scales. At the Department of Justice over the last several years, the practice of justice is more like an inflatable flailing tube man.  

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, everyone thought that federal prosecutors would decide whether to charge Hillary Clinton based on whether she knowingly violated a law that bars mishandling of classified material. It turned out that then-FBI Director James Comey would decide on the basis of what he thought was “reasonable.” After initially letting Clinton off, the tube man flailed right and Comey, breaking procedure against commenting on a pending investigation, announced that the Clinton probe was on again.   

The Justice Department only got worse from there. Comey told the country that one reason not to charge Clinton was that the government had never before charged someone for conduct similar to hers. Yet after Comey, the Department went on to spend years investigating Donald Trump, not only for conduct never before charged, but for crimes no one even knew were crimes—including rude tweets. A dusty old law chiefly prohibiting cheating the federal government out of money would be stapled to Trump’s tweets and taped to an obstruction-of-justice charge and then the president was going to be marched off to prison for conspiracy to steal an election—or so the Department led the country’s credulous Left to believe for years.  

Gone are the days of Comey’s somewhat evenhanded blundering. The flailing man’s hands are now in an unmistakable search for the necks of its political opponents. Consider the unruly Capitol protest following the 2020 election. For the protesters, the Department has dusted off the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”   

The last time the department pursued seditious conspiracy charges, in 2010, it went after a group of Christian nationalists. The charges were thrown out of court. The last time the department made the charge stick was about 30 years ago—against Islamic terrorists who plotted to blow up the FBI and United Nations headquarters. In that case, seditious conspiracy was icing atop an already well-baked cake of indisputable crime. 

But for the Capitol protesters, the charge is the essential means by which the government hopes to turn a protest into Pearl Harbor. Without seditious conspiracy, all the department can serve its political masters for dessert are uncoordinated offenses against the public peace, mostly misdemeanors like trespass, in a protest otherwise well within the guarantee of the First Amendment.  

Keep reading

Visa ‘Intended to Help’ Pornhub and Its Parent Company Monetize Child Porn, Judge Finds in Allowing Case to Move Forward

In a setback for Visa in a case alleging the payment processor is liable for the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek, a federal judge ruled that it was reasonable to conclude that Visa knowingly facilitated the criminal activity.

On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa’s motion to dismiss the claim it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn. (A copy of the decision is available at this link.)

In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff “adequately alleged” that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, “Visa knew that MindGeek’s websites were teeming with monetized child porn”; that there was a “criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa’s] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn”; and that “the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn” by “knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime.”

“When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek’s monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges,” Carney wrote.

Keep reading

Jon Stewart Goes Full ‘Useful Idiot’ After Dems Sneak $400B Of ‘Mandatory’ Spending Into Veterans’ Health Care Bill

You may have noticed last week that pundit Jon Stewart went on a self-righteous rant about how evil Republicans are because they voted against the PACT Act this week, would have helped veterans affected by burn pits.

Stewart, however, failed to explain why Republicans shot down the bill – which was passed in June with bipartisan support, but was then put up for a re-vote after the House made a change to the tune of $400 billion – shifting it from the ‘discretionary’ spending category to ‘mandatory’ – which Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said last week was “completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans.”

The change would also exempt the $400 billion from annual congressional appropriations – essentially making it a blank check.

Keep reading

6 Canadian Medical Doctors Died Within 2 Weeks After 4th COVID Booster Shots for Employees Started at One Hospital

The alternative media was all a buzz this week as several previously young, healthy doctors all died within just a few days of each other.

The biggest story came out of Canada’s Trillium Health Partners-Mississauga Hospital in Toronto, where 3 physicians from that hospital died “unexpectedly” within the same week, and according to a nurse who also works in the same hospital, the deaths followed after the hospital started mandating the fourth Covid shot for their employees.

Three physicians at Canada’s Trillium Health Partners-Mississauga Hospital died unexpectedly in the same week. The cause of death for the three doctors has yet to be announced.

The news about the three deceased doctors was first shared by independent journalist Monique in a post that went viral. According to Monique, a concerned nurse shared with her a copy of the memo that was sent out by the hospital’s management.

According to the nurse, the three doctors died after the hospital started mandating the fourth Covid shot for their employees.

“Three physicians at the Mississauga hospitals have died this week,” the nurse told Monique. “1st memo Monday, 2nd Tuesday, 3rd Thursday. [The] cause of death wasn’t shared in the memo, but how many times have 3 doctors died in 1 week, days after the hospital started administering the 4th shot to staff.”

The three physicians who died the same week were Dr. Lorne Segall (July 17), Dr. Stephen McKenzie (July 18), and Dr. Jakub Sawicki (July 21).

The Gateway Pundit had reached out to Trillium Health Partners through their official Facebook page on July 24th to verify the deaths of the three doctors but did not respond to our inquiry.

The Gateway Pundit then contacted the hospital and spoke with Amit Shilton, the manager of media relations and services. Shilton told the Gateway Pundit that he could not confirm their death due to personal reasons.

On Wednesday, Trillium Health Partners finally released a statement and confirmed the deaths of the three physicians.

“It is with deep sadness that THP mourns the loss of three of our physicians who recently passed away,” the hospital announced on Twitter.

“Dr. Jakub Sawicki, Dr. Stephen McKenzie, and Dr. Lorne Segall were respected physicians who dedicated their lives to caring for their patients and community,” the post added.

The hospital claimed that the social media rumor that their deaths were related to the COVID-19 vaccination is “simply not true.”

Keep reading

Drug Legalization Leads to Significant Reduction in Foster System Admissions

Richard Nixon, in his effort to silence black people and antiwar activists, brought the War on Drugs into full force in 1973. He then signed Reorganization Plan No. 2, which established the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Over the course of five decades, this senseless war has waged on. At a cost of over $1 trillion — ruining and ending countless lives in the process — America’s drug war has created a drug problem that is worse now than ever before.

This is no coincidence.

For years, those of us who’ve been paying attention have seen who profits from this inhumane war — the police state and cartels. Since the 1980s and 90s, there has been a long-standing theory of the CIA’s connection to the crack epidemic.

If the CIA trafficking cocaine into the United States sounds like some tin foil conspiracy theory, think again. Their role in the drug trade was exposed in 1996 in a critical investigative series “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb for the San Jose Mercury News. The investigation, headed up by Webb revealed ties between the CIA, Nicaraguan contras and the crack cocaine trade ravaging African-American communities.

The investigation provoked massive protests and congressional hearings, as well as overt backlash from the mainstream media to discredit Webb’s reporting. However, decades later, officials would come forward to back up Webb’s original investigation.

Then-senator John Kerry even released a detailed report claiming that not only was there “considerable evidence” linking the Contra effort to trafficking of drugs and weapons — but that the U.S. government knew about it.

Also, as the Free Thought Project previously reported, in a book years ago, Juan Pablo Escobar Henao, son of notorious Medellín cartel drug kingpin, Pablo Escobar, explains how his father “worked for the CIA.”

In the book, “Pablo Escobar In Fraganti,” Escobar, who lives under the pseudonym, Juan Sebastián Marroquín, explains his “father worked for the CIA selling cocaine to finance the fight against Communism in Central America.”

Going even further down the rabbit hole, a History Channel series also addressed how US involvement in Afghanistan turned the country into a virtual heroin factory and how the drug war empowers cartels.

The final chapter of the series examines how the attacks on September 11thintertwined the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, transforming Afghanistan into a narco-state teeming with corruption. It also explores how American intervention in Mexico helped give rise to El Chapo and the Super Cartels, bringing unprecedented levels of violence and sending even more drugs across America’s borders.

Both the crack and heroin epidemics had similar effects when it came to the communities most harmed by the drug war — Black people. There have been dozens of studies highlighting the effects of the CIA’s clandestine crack operations which targeted minority neighborhoods and all of them have the same underlying theme — the destruction of the family.

For decades, millions of Black men — whose only “crime” was possession or sale of crack — were torn from their home and incarcerated. This led to millions more children growing up in fatherless environments which, in turn, put these future families in major deficits from their difficult childhoods. The effects have spanned decades and have turned once thriving communities into high-crime areas in which violence is the only constant.

When we add marijuana prohibition into the equation, the damage done to the American family through the enforcement of the drug war could be considered a crime against humanity.

Drug laws are now evolving but not fast enough. Despite knowing the effects of mass incarceration for victimless crimes, the state still aggressively pursues people for non-violent drug possession.

Perhaps with the release of a new study out of Oxford, Mississippi published in the journal Economic Inquiry, this paradigm of destroying families over the war on drugs subsides more quickly.

In the study, titled, Recreational marijuana legalization and admission to the foster-care system, a pair of economists with the University of Mississippi assessed foster care admission trends in states pre and post-legalization. What they found was both encouraging and infuriating at the same time.

“Legalization may impact foster-care admissions directly by changing the welfare of children or indirectly by changing policies and attitudes towards marijuana use in the home. Direct effects may arise because marijuana use itself causes behaviors that affect child welfare, or because it changes the likelihood of using other drugs,” the authors wrote.

“We also find that placements due to physical abuse, parental neglect, and parental incarceration decrease after legalization, providing evidence that legalization reduces substantive threats to child welfare, although the precise mechanism behind these effects is unclear.”

Imagine that. When parents aren’t torn from the home over substances deemed illegal by the state, children suffer less… Significantly less.

Keep reading

Things Just Got A Whole Lot Worse for Bishop Robbed During Sermon, as His Criminal Past Suddenly Gets Exposed

A New York City pastor who said he was robbed in the middle of his sermon on July 24 may not be the innocent victim he portrayed himself as.

According to The City, a lawsuit filed last year in Brooklyn Supreme Court accused the pastor, Lamor Whitehead, of defrauding 56-year-old Pauline Anderson out of $90,000.

Anderson alleged Whitehead convinced her to invest most of her savings into one of his firms. She was a parishioner at the Brooklyn campus of Leaders of Tomorrow International Churches, where Whitehead is a bishop.

Anderson said Whitehead promised in turn for the money, he would help her buy a house despite her bad credit history.

In the lawsuit, she said she wrote a $90,000 cashier’s check to Whitehead in November 2020. She said he was supposed to give her a monthly allowance of $100 to pay living expenses.

According to the lawsuit, Whitehead allegedly had not paid the monthly payments or given any update on buying her a home.

When Anderson questioned him about it, he allegedly said he was treating the $90,000 as a donation to his then-campaign for Brooklyn borough president and did not need to pay it back.

“Mr. Whitehead fraudulently induced Ms. Anderson to liquidate her entire life savings to pay him the ‘investment’ of $90,000.00, promising to use the funds to purchase and renovate a house for her,” the lawsuit alleged.

“Ms. Anderson was instead left with nothing but a vague promise by Mr. Whitehead to pay the funds back in the future followed by an assertion that he had no further obligation to do so.”

Keep reading

TV Host Says She Quit Because She Was Blocked From Questioning Fauci

A host of The Hill’s morning show says she abruptly resigned because she was blocked from taking part in a recent interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser.

Kim Iversen joined The Hill’s “Rising” in 2021. The show is described as a weekday morning program with bipartisan hosts that “breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before.”

Iversen has repeatedly discussed COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, the government response to the disease, and other related subjects.

She told supporters in a video on July 29 that she vowed when she joined the show that she would maintain independence and not be censored. The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group.

Some of the segments made colleagues uncomfortable, but executives and producers never approached Iversen to shift her tone.

On the evening of July 24, Iversen says, she was told that Fauci’s team asked earlier in the month who the hosts would be when he appeared on the show and that Iversen wasn’t included because the interview was going to take place earlier than she typically reports to work.

Iversen told the producers to go back to Fauci’s team and say Iversen had to be included. If the interview was then canceled, then The Hill could run a segment about the development, she proposed.

While an agreement seemed to be reached, Iversen received a call the next morning from the show’s executive producer.

“They had made the final decision not to approach Fauci’s team but to instead move forward with the interview without me. They wanted me to come on the show, record a couple of segments, and then ask me to leave so they could interview Fauci,” Iversen said.

During the actual interview, Fauci falsely said that he never recommended lockdowns over COVID-19.

Keep reading