NYT EDITORIAL BOARD URGES US TO PREPARE FOR FUTURE WAR WITH CHINA

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The New York Times editorial board released a video this week calling for the US to "prepare for the future of war" and urged the Pentagon to take drastic steps to be better prepared for a potential fight with China, a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.

"US politicians often boast that America has the ‘Strongest and most powerful military in the history of the world’ but behind closed doors, they’re being told a different story," the editorial board said. "New York Times Opinion has learned that the Pentagon has been delivering a classified, comprehensive overview of US military power called the Overmatch brief. The report shows what could happen if a war were to break out between China and the United States. The results are alarming."

The video said that a war with China might seem "purely hypothetical," but claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese military to be ready to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027. However, that timeline is based on claims from the CIA and has never been confirmed by Chinese officials. Xi reportedly told President Biden last year that there were "no such plans" to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.

The Times editorial board said that defending Taiwan “won’t be easy” and called on the US to invest more in new technologies, such as drones, rather than “symbols of might,” referring to large aircraft and warships.

“America must prepare for the future of war. This is the opinion of The New York Times editorial board. You might be thinking America should focus on peace, not war. But one of the most effective ways to prevent a war is to be strong enough to win it. That’s why it’s imperative that we change,” the board said.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The European Union sent shockwaves through financial and diplomatic circles after reports surfaced that officials are quietly considering a drastic step: reducing or offloading portions of the roughly $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasuries held across European central banks, sovereign funds, and institutional portfolios. 

@AB-rd6yo -- I'm assuming that the EU is well aware of the pitfalls. If you can spot them, they certainly can too. So they must have a plan behind it. The EU always has a plan behind every move. That's why it "takes so long" for the EU to decide: they think before they act. 

EU Just Threatened To Dump $2.4 Trillion US Treasuries Imploding The Bond Market

While not an official policy move, the internal discussion serves as a pointed message to Washington, signaling Europe’s unease with President Trump’s current foreign-policy shifts and the future of the transatlantic alliance.

European policymakers are increasingly concerned that U.S. strategic priorities are changing under President Trump, especially regarding NATO burden-sharing, long-term funding for Ukraine, and questions about America’s future role in Europe’s security landscape. Unlike past rhetoric, these concerns now revolve around active policy decisions: pressure on NATO allies to increase defense spending immediately, signals that U.S. military commitments may be reduced, and the possibility of a U.S.–Russia agreement negotiated without European involvement. For the EU, these moves introduce a level of uncertainty that complicates both defense planning and economic stability.

The threat to consider unloading U.S. Treasuries is not a symbolic gesture—it is one of the largest financial pressure mechanisms Europe possesses. By simply floating the idea, EU officials highlighted how much influence they still hold over global markets. Even a modest European divestment would raise U.S. borrowing costs, disrupt the bond market, and send ripples across the global financial system. While such a step could harm Europe as well, the fact that it is being discussed underscores how seriously EU leaders are reassessing their reliance on American fiscal and strategic decisions.

European leaders now question whether the U.S. can be relied upon as the guaranteed anchor of Western stability. If Washington pursues a security framework that sidelines European interests—especially in Ukraine or NATO’s future force structure—the EU wants leverage to protect its own position. Financial tools, including Treasury holdings, offer a way to exert influence without escalating military tensions. This is not simply retaliation; it reflects a broader strategic recalibration as Europe adapts to a world where American policy is more self-focused and less predictable.

For the United States, the message is clear: the era of unquestioned European alignment is fading. As President Trump reshapes America’s foreign policy, Europe is signaling that it will act to protect its economic and security interests—even if that means challenging the financial foundation that has linked the West for generations. The Treasury warning may remain a last-resort option, but its mere introduction into diplomatic conversation shows how deeply the transatlantic relationship is being redefined.

How Trump’s Administration Might Respond — Publicly and Privately

Publicly, President Trump’s administration would likely frame Europe’s warning as an overreaction and reaffirm the strength of the U.S. economy to calm markets and maintain confidence. Trump himself—consistent with his past communication style—may dismiss the threat as “bluffing,” argue that America holds the stronger financial position, and emphasize that the EU needs U.S. security protection more than the U.S. needs European investment. Treasury and State Department officials would likely issue statements insisting that the American bond market remains the world’s safest asset, projecting confidence to prevent panic among domestic and international investors.

Privately, however, the administration would take the warning far more seriously. Senior advisers would likely meet urgently with Federal Reserve officials, defense strategists, and key economic planners to assess the potential fallout if Europe moved beyond threats and began coordinated divestment. Diplomatic backchannels with Berlin, Paris, and Brussels would engage to determine whether the warning is a negotiating tactic or a genuine shift in Europe’s financial strategy. 

Defense officials might also begin evaluating alternative security arrangements if NATO cohesion continues to weaken. Inside the White House, Trump’s team would likely debate whether to double down on America-first policies to pressure Europe further, or strategically recalibrate to prevent a major bond market disruption. The administration’s private posture would be one of vigilance, recognizing that even the suggestion of mass divestment carries real economic implications that could influence everything from interest rates to the broader global balance of power.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

1 MIN AGO: 1,872 Tractors STORM London — Capital UNDER SIEGE Live! | News UK

London was thrown into chaos as an estimated 1,872 tractors rolled into the capital, forming one of the largest farmer-led demonstrations the United Kingdom has ever seen. The convoy stretched for miles, choking major routes into Westminster and slowing inner-city movement to a crawl as farmers demanded answers from a government they say has abandoned them.
Source: Farmer protest footage circulating on social platforms

The farmers argued that new environmental rules, rising fuel costs, and foreign trade policies have made it impossible to survive. Many accused the government of deliberately undermining local agriculture in favor of imports—policies they say benefit global interests while crushing the people who actually feed the country. To them, this was not a protest but a warning: British farming is collapsing, and leaders are pretending everything is fine.
Source: Statements recorded during the convoy by participating farmers

The visual of nearly two thousand tractors surrounding Parliament made clear that the movement is no longer fringe but a mass revolt by workers who believe they are being pushed out of their own industry. City residents were stunned to see the scale of rural anger boiling over into London, with many calling it a “siege” as roads, roundabouts, and bridges became gridlocked under the weight of farm machinery.
Source: Video snippets of the blockade shared by London commuters

Farmers also claim that the public is being misled about the long-term consequences of stripping domestic production. They warn that once local farms collapse, food prices will rise, supply chains will grow unstable, and foreign dependence will become unavoidable. Their message to Parliament was simple: support British agriculture now or face a national crisis later.
Source: Speeches amplified by union representatives during the Westminster gathering

Despite attempts by officials to play down the event, the protest demonstrated a growing distrust between rural Britain and the political establishment. Many participants said they are prepared to return again and again until they are heard, and some spoke openly about coordinated shutdowns if nothing changes. The tractors eventually dispersed—but the message remained: the countryside has declared a state of emergency, and London can no longer ignore it.
Source: Interviews captured at the end of the demonstration

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Freed Offender Assaults Chicago Doctor At Hospital

A violent assault inside Northwestern Memorial Hospital has renewed public anger over Chicago’s revolving-door criminal justice system. According to police and court records, cardiologist Dr. Kathleen Emmert was riding an elevator when 30-year-old Sean Popps allegedly followed her inside and began striking her repeatedly in the head. Hospital staff rushed to help her, and police quickly identified Popps as the suspect.

Popps, however, was not an unknown figure. Records show he had been arrested more than a dozen times in the past year alone, many involving violent or disorderly conduct. Yet each time, he was released back onto the streets under Cook County’s no-cash-bail framework, designed to reduce incarceration but increasingly blamed for escalating community risk. Officers familiar with his history said his cycle of arrest, release, and re-offending has become routine.

The attack has intensified debate over whether policy reforms intended to make the system “fairer” are instead making hospitals, transit systems, and neighborhoods more dangerous. For many Chicago residents, this case feels like a breaking point—an example of a preventable crime committed by someone authorities knew was repeatedly violent yet continually freed.

Hospital workers expressed concern that if a doctor can be assaulted in a supposedly secure facility, anyone could be at risk. Doctors and nurses have increasingly reported harassment and assaults, yet little changes when offenders face no deterrent. The hospital stated it is cooperating with law enforcement to ensure staff safety and review security protocols.

Popps has again been taken into custody, but the larger question remains: how long before he is released again, and who will pay the price next time? The case highlights a growing divide between policymakers who defend these reforms and citizens who feel the system protects offenders more than victims.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Erika Kirk discusses "conspiracy theorists" with Harris Faulkner on Fox News, Tucker Carlson says he doesn't buy the official narrative about Charlie Kirk's assassination, and more people in the military have spoken up about our story yesterday confirming Harry stubbled into a highly classified meeting.

UH-OH! Erika Kirk Goes Off On "Conspiracy Theorists". | Candace Ep 278

She called the rumors and theories about Charlie Kirk’s assassination “evil,” a “mind virus,” and “garbage,” and said they are hurting her, her kids, and the Turning Point USA staff who are already grieving. 

She stressed that her earlier silence did not mean she agreed with any of the theories or that TPUSA was “in on it.” She said she’s “done” letting people twist her silence into consent and felt she had to finally speak up. 

A big focus was on people speculating about where Charlie is buried. She said her family wanted to keep that one thing private so the grave couldn’t be desecrated, and she asked people to stop digging and “let me have one thing.” 

Without always naming names, she was clearly aiming a lot of this at Candace Owens and others on the right who are pushing “inside job” and “Israel/U.S. military/TPUSA were involved” style theories. She accused them of exploiting a tragedy and said these claims are not just wrong but morally sick. 

She said she has “righteous anger” about all this, but that her priority is protecting her kids, defending her husband’s legacy, and asking people to think about the long-term damage these posts and videos could have when her children grow up and find them online. 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Israel is working urgently to build a new media strategy as foreign journalists are being allowed into the Gaza Strip for the first time since the conflict intensified.

Israel is scrambling to form a media strategy as foreign journalists enter the Gaza Strip for the first time.

Global Press Arrives—Israel Loses Control of Story

 Until now, most reporting has relied on second-hand footage, official statements, and limited access granted through controlled embeds. The arrival of independent international reporters marks a major shift, and Israeli officials know it will reshape global opinion. Without the ability to filter what the world sees, Israel faces renewed scrutiny over military operations, humanitarian conditions, and the ongoing reconstruction challenges inside Gaza.

Foreign media teams began entering Gaza after negotiations that had been underway for months, and their presence is already changing the information landscape. Journalists are documenting damage to civilian neighborhoods, interviewing families still displaced, and reporting on shortages of food, medicine, and clean water. These firsthand accounts carry weight, especially for audiences who were previously skeptical of footage they believed could be edited, staged, or distributed by groups with political motives. With reporters now able to walk through affected areas, Israel must adjust to a media environment where narratives move faster than official briefings.

Israeli officials say they are not opposed to foreign coverage but worry that uncontrolled reporting could present an incomplete or misleading picture. The government has started crafting new communications plans to address what it expects to be a flood of videos, photographs, and personal testimonies emerging from Gaza. These plans include daily press engagements, expanded digital outreach, and a push to share more of the military’s own surveillance and operational footage to counter claims of excessive force or intentional targeting of civilians. Media analysts say Israel is attempting to avoid a scenario where global perception shifts dramatically due to emotionally powerful imagery.

At the same time, reporters on the ground in Gaza say that their access is still limited and closely monitored. Some press organizations have raised concerns that restrictions could hinder accurate reporting or place journalists in unsafe areas without adequate support. Despite these challenges, the entry of foreign reporters represents a significant break from previous coverage cycles, where information about Gaza often came through intermediaries rather than independent observation. This change may help audiences around the world better understand the complexity and human impact of the conflict.

International governments are also watching closely. Countries that have supported Israel diplomatically or militarily may now face public pressure if footage from Gaza contradicts earlier justifications for the operation. Humanitarian organizations expect that global awareness will increase sharply as journalists document the conditions inside the territory. This heightened visibility could influence foreign aid, cease-fire discussions, and even long-term regional policy decisions as more nations respond to what their citizens see directly from the ground.

For Israel, the arrival of foreign journalists signals a shift in how the conflict will be understood going forward. With the world now seeing Gaza through its own eyes rather than through filters or official statements, the challenge becomes one of transparency, messaging, and rapid response. As coverage expands, Israel’s media strategy will play a central role in shaping how the international community interprets both the current situation and what comes next.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A new report has revealed troubling flaws inside the Affordable Care Act subsidy system. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, nearly $100 million in Obamacare premium subsidies were paid out on behalf of individuals who were already deceased. 

The finding is part of a wider pattern of waste and error that analysts estimate reaches into the tens of billions of dollars each year, raising serious questions about oversight and accountability within federal health programs.

The GAO report found that more than 58,000 Social Security numbers used to obtain advanced premium tax credits appeared in federal death records. In many cases, the individuals had died months or even years earlier, yet insurance companies continued receiving payments tied to their identities. Over 7,000 of those individuals were confirmed to have died before their health coverage even began, demonstrating large gaps between data systems that are supposed to verify eligibility in real time.

One of the most alarming discoveries involved a single Social Security number that was used to secure 125 separate insurance policies. Those policies totaled more than 26,000 days of coverage — the equivalent of roughly 71 years. Investigators highlighted this case as evidence that existing safeguards are not only insufficient but easily exploitable. The duplication suggests that systems meant to flag impossible enrollment patterns either failed to function or were never designed to detect such abuse.

Budget analysts who reviewed the findings warn that the issue extends far beyond the nearly $100 million identified in this audit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that improper payments, identity misuse, and fraudulent enrollments across the Affordable Care Act may account for as much as $27 billion annually. Those losses ultimately fall on taxpayers and can drive up premium costs for families who rely on the system legitimately. This scale of waste has led some lawmakers to call for stricter verification rules, more frequent audits, and a complete overhaul of how subsidies are approved.

Supporters of reform argue that the underlying problem stems from a reliance on outdated federal databases, delayed reporting, and an enrollment system designed to prioritize speed over accuracy. Others say the fraud stems from deeper structural issues within large entitlement programs, where rapid expansion has often outpaced the government’s ability to properly monitor eligibility. Observers across the political spectrum agree that the situation underscores the need for more reliable identity-matching tools and improved communication between the Social Security Administration, insurers, and federal health exchanges.

While the investigation continues, the scale of the errors has intensified debate in Washington about the future of Obamacare and what reforms are necessary to prevent similar abuse. Many officials worry that continued failures could undermine public trust in federally managed healthcare. The new report makes one thing clear: without substantial improvements in oversight and verification, the system designed to help Americans afford coverage remains vulnerable to fraud, waste, and exploitation on a massive scale.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Skydance, has launched a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, a move that could reshape the entire entertainment industry. 

During his appearance on CNBC, Ellison explained that Skydance believes Warner Bros. Discovery is financially troubled but strategically valuable, making it a prime target for a complete rebuild under new leadership. His message was clear: the current media landscape is broken, and only aggressive action can save one of Hollywood’s biggest legacy studios.

Warner Bros. Discovery has struggled under the weight of massive debt, declining cable revenue, and disappointing streaming performance. Ellison’s team argues that years of mergers and corporate restructuring have left the company weak, unfocused, and unable to compete with giants like Netflix and Disney. Instead of waiting for the decline to worsen, Skydance is forcing a direct challenge, positioning itself as the entity capable of stabilizing the studio’s finances and revitalizing its brands. This includes major properties such as HBO, DC, CNN, and Warner Bros. Pictures, all of which have faced recent turbulence.

Skydance says its approach would streamline Warner Bros. Discovery’s operations and reduce the burden of debt that has limited growth. Ellison emphasized that the bid is meant to protect the long-term health of the company while also preserving the value of its entertainment libraries. Skydance believes its experience producing major film franchises has already proven its ability to manage large-scale storytelling, and the company intends to apply that vision to rebuild Warner Bros. Discovery into a stronger competitor. Observers note that this kind of takeover hasn’t been attempted in Hollywood at this scale in decades, signaling how much pressure the entertainment sector is under.

At the center of the discussion is the future of streaming. Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max platform has struggled to keep pace with Netflix and Amazon, raising concerns about whether it can survive without new investment or a major strategic shift. Skydance views a merger as the only viable path to strengthening the platform, arguing that without decisive change, Warner Bros. Discovery risks falling behind in a market that no longer forgives slow adaptation. Some industry analysts believe this takeover could trigger a wave of additional mergers across Hollywood as companies fight for market share.

Reactions throughout the entertainment world have been mixed. Some insiders view the bid as a much-needed rescue for a studio running out of runway, while others see it as an aggressive shake-up that could lead to job cuts, brand restructuring, and the selling off of divisions that don’t fit Skydance’s vision. Still, many acknowledge that Warner Bros. Discovery’s current path is unsustainable, and a takeover may be the only way to prevent further financial deterioration. For audiences, the consolidation of major studios raises questions about long-term choice and control in what they watch, as fewer companies may hold greater power over streaming libraries and original content.

The battle for Warner Bros. Discovery is only beginning, but the implications are already clear. This takeover attempt represents a struggle over the future of Hollywood itself—how entertainment will be funded, who will control the biggest franchises, and whether legacy studios can survive in an era dominated by data-driven streaming giants. Skydance believes the answer lies in bold action, and by going hostile, Ellison has made it clear he’s willing to push harder than anyone else to take control of the industry’s direction.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The Thanksgiving season was shaken by a violent attack that left two West Virginia National Guardsmen shot near the White House. 

CIA In A Soup! Watch Pics Of Shooter Rahmanullah From US Army Days In Afghanistan | National Guard

What began as confusion over a lone gunman quickly escalated into national alarm once authorities revealed his identity. According to federal officials, the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is an Afghan national who arrived in the United States four years ago after being resettled as part of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. His presence and actions have revived uncomfortable questions about who was brought into the country, under what vetting procedures, and what hidden backgrounds may have slipped through the cracks.

As investigators dug deeper, a darker detail emerged: Lakanwal was not simply a refugee or migrant. He had received specialized training linked to U.S. intelligence operations during America’s long involvement in Afghanistan. This type of training was designed for covert missions overseas, not for free movement inside the United States. His sudden appearance as the alleged perpetrator of a domestic attack raised concerns that individuals shaped for foreign conflicts may now be living within American communities without adequate monitoring or support.

DC shooting: Rahmanullah Lakanwal faces first-degree murder charge after Guard member dies - YouTube

People close to the case report that Lakanwal had been part of a group America once relied on for intelligence gathering, tactical support, and counterterror operations in the region. Those who worked alongside U.S. personnel often received weapons instruction, mission-planning skills, and advanced combat preparation in order to survive the violent realities of the Afghan theater. What no one anticipated was that someone trained for extreme situations abroad would end up acting violently on American soil. This possibility is now forcing officials to reassess how resettlement decisions were made and whether national security safeguards were weakened during the rushed evacuation process.

Residents and lawmakers reacted with disbelief that someone with this level of tactical background could enter the country and later engage in an attack only blocks away from the White House. A broader debate has emerged about the responsibilities of intelligence agencies once their foreign assets are relocated into the United States. Some say these individuals should remain under careful supervision to prevent skillsets meant for wartime missions from being misused. Others argue that the failure lies in a system that prioritized fast relocation over thorough evaluation, leaving Americans unprepared for the risks such decisions might bring.

The incident has now set off a deeper review of how many high-risk individuals may have been quietly resettled without full transparency. Questions are being raised about whether other trained operatives from foreign battlefields were brought into the country under emergency programs that bypassed normal screening. Investigators are also examining whether psychological trauma, ideological conflicts, or unresolved ties to militant groups could have influenced Lakanwal’s actions. The concern is not just what happened in this case, but what may still be unknown.

Who is Rahmanullah Lakanwal? The gunman accused of shooting National Guard troops in DC - YouTube

For many Americans, the shooting represents an uncomfortable intersection between foreign policy and domestic security. Training foreign nationals through intelligence partnerships has long been part of U.S. strategy overseas. However, when circumstances change and those individuals relocate to America, the government must determine how to manage the very skill sets it helped create. This event has revealed what can happen when those decisions are left unsettled or when communication between agencies breaks down.

The tragedy has opened a national conversation about the risks of hasty resettlement, the unintended consequences of intelligence operations, and the duty to protect American communities from threats that originate in policy choices made years earlier. Families near the attack site say the shock still lingers, and military personnel across the country are watching closely for updates. The investigation continues, but one reality is already clear: America must now confront the possibility that people trained for violence in distant warzones may be living within its borders, carrying the knowledge and capabilities once meant for entirely different missions.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Meta’s December 16 privacy update, Wall Street’s push into “tokenization,” and the new fight over Biden-era pardons all sound like separate stories. But together they raise the same basic question: who controls your data, your money, and your legal rights? This article breaks down what is confirmed, what is exaggerated, and where the real long-term risks may be for ordinary Americans.  

OMG.. Alex Jones Comes Out With A CHILLING Scary W*rning For All America | Prepare Your Family NOW

@nancygould6789 -- That's right! I'm sick of hearing about crimes that aren't being prosecuted.

Meta’s December 16 change: what actually happens to your chats and photos?

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) has confirmed that starting December 16, 2025, it will use people’s interactions with its generative AI tools (“Meta AI”) to personalize content and ads across its apps. That means when you chat with Meta’s AI or ask it to edit an image, those AI interactions can be used as extra “signals” to decide what posts, reels, and ads you see. There is no opt-out if you choose to use Meta AI, although the company says this applies only to AI features, not all activity. 

Some viral posts claim Meta will suddenly read every private message and grab every photo on your phone. Fact-checks so far say that’s not accurate: the December 16 update does not change how ordinary direct messages are handled, and Meta still says end-to-end encrypted chats (like WhatsApp E2EE conversations) remain private. The new policy is specifically about content you send to or generate through Meta’s AI tools, not about your entire message history being dumped into an AI training set. Still, it does expand how much behavioral data Meta can quietly fold into its ad and feed algorithms. 

Tech writers warn that the real issue is less “they’re reading everything now” and more “your AI chats become one more way to profile you.” If you use Meta AI to ask about politics, shopping, health, or family topics, those themes can influence what the algorithm pushes back at you later. Critics say this deepens the “surveillance advertising” model by making AI conversations feel personal and helpful while still feeding a giant ad machine. Meta counters that this is just the next step in personalization and that people can choose not to use the AI tools at all. 

A more cautious, middle-of-the-road view is that Meta is not flipping some secret switch to suddenly expose all your chats, but it is tightening the net around people who stay inside its ecosystem. If you rely on Meta for messaging, photos, groups, and now AI help, your life becomes easier—but your digital “footprint” also becomes more detailed, permanent, and potentially valuable to governments and corporate partners who may seek data access later. That’s why some privacy advocates recommend turning off AI features where possible, using separate apps for sensitive conversations, and backing up important photos and content to platforms that don’t feed the same ad engine. 

Photos and videos: if you want visuals on the Meta change, look for recent explainer videos from reputable tech channels describing the December 16 AI-policy shift, and screenshots of Meta’s in-app privacy notices that show what exactly users are being asked to accept or acknowledge. 

Tokenization: from buzzword to “you will own nothing” fears

While social media is changing how your data is used, Wall Street is busy changing how your money and assets can be packaged. “Tokenization” means turning real-world assets—like cash, bonds, real estate, or fund shares—into digital tokens that live on a blockchain or similar ledger. BlackRock launched a tokenized dollar liquidity fund (BUIDL) in 2024, and by 2025 it had crossed billions of dollars in assets. Its CEO, Larry Fink, now openly describes the “tokenization of all assets” as a new era in finance.

Bank of America and other major banks are moving in the same direction, calling tokenization “mutual fund 3.0” and talking about tokenized money-market funds, tokenized deposits, and even stablecoins pegged to major currencies. Analysts at Bank of America say this is a “multi-year journey” toward a financial system where more value—stocks, bonds, maybe even loans and real estate—runs on-chain, with programmable rules and near-instant settlement. 

At the same time, U.S. and global regulators are experimenting with rules that make tokenized assets and stablecoins more acceptable inside the traditional system. A recent World Economic Forum report and multiple industry studies show tokenized U.S. Treasuries and money-market funds growing sharply, and major payment networks like Swift are developing blockchain platforms in partnership with banks such as Bank of America to handle tokenized payments and collateral. This isn’t science fiction anymore; it is happening inside the largest, most conservative institutions. 

This is where the “you will own nothing and be happy” concern comes in. The official line from banks and regulators is that tokenization will make markets faster, cheaper, and more efficient: 24/7 settlement, fewer middlemen, fractional ownership, and easier access for small investors. Critics on the right worry that once key assets are tokenized and tied into centralized rails, access can also be switched off more easily—for example, freezing a wallet instead of seizing a car, or revoking a tokenized title instead of going through a messy court process. They see a future where you “subscribe” to housing, vehicles, and appliances through tokens you never fully control. 

A more centrist perspective accepts that tokenization is coming but argues the main battle will be over rules, not the tech itself. Properly written laws could protect property rights, require due process before accounts are frozen, and keep some level of cash and non-tokenized options in the system so people are not forced into purely digital control grids. Without those guardrails, however, the combination of bank-issued stablecoins, tokenized assets, and AI-driven risk scoring could give governments and large financial firms an unprecedented ability to reward compliant behavior and punish dissent through access to credit, services, and even basic transactions. 

For visuals on tokenization, look for charts from reputable financial sites that show the growth of tokenized Treasuries and money-market funds since 2023, or short explainer videos from mainstream business channels describing how BlackRock’s BUIDL fund or similar products work on public blockchains. 

The autopen, Alex Jones, Biden pardons, and Trump’s response

The last piece of the puzzle involves Alex Jones, Joe Biden’s pre-emptive pardons, and Donald Trump’s recent statements. Before leaving office, Biden issued sweeping pardons to several groups, including members and staff of the January 6th committee, some law-enforcement officers involved in the Capitol investigation, advisers like Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and certain family members. Trump has argued on Truth Social that some of these pardons are invalid because they were allegedly signed using an autopen device instead of Biden’s physical hand. 

Alex Jones and similar commentators go further, suggesting that if Biden relied heavily on staff and autopen signatures, it proves he wasn’t really in control of his presidency. Trump recently reposted or “re-truthed” content along these lines and then publicly declared that any Biden-era documents signed by autopen—pardons, executive orders, and more—are “terminated” and “null and void.” This plays well with a base that already doubts Biden’s mental fitness, but it runs straight into long-standing legal precedent. 

Legal experts across the political spectrum say there is no clear constitutional mechanism for a later president to cancel valid pardons issued by a previous one, whether signed by pen or autopen. A Justice Department opinion from the early 2000s and an older Supreme Court ruling both support the idea that as long as the president authorized the act, the method of signature doesn’t by itself invalidate it. Courts could, in theory, examine evidence that Biden never approved certain pardons, but so far there is no public proof of that. To many constitutional scholars, Trump’s statements are political messaging more than a legally enforceable policy. 

A conservative, America-First reading of this situation focuses less on Biden himself and more on the danger of an unelected staff “government” signing laws, orders, and pardons in his name. The concern is that the autopen fight exposes how much of Washington is run by aides, lawyers, and agencies instead of accountable, elected leaders. A more moderate viewpoint agrees that transparency is needed but warns that treating long-used tools like the autopen as inherently illegitimate could create chaos—inviting every change of administration to relitigate the last president’s signatures instead of respecting the stability of the office. 

There are already news clips, short explainers, and legal commentary videos walking through this autopen controversy. If you search for recent segments from major networks or legal analysis shows, you’ll find split-screen discussions that spell out both Trump’s claims and the pushback from constitutional lawyers who say the courts are unlikely to erase Biden’s pardons on this basis alone. 

Putting it all together: what should ordinary Americans do?

Across all three stories, the common thread is concentration of power: Big Tech over your data, Big Finance over your money, and powerful political factions over the meaning of presidential acts. From a constitutional and America-First standpoint, the priority is to defend individual privacy and property rights, keep due process strong, and resist systems—digital or legal—that let unaccountable actors flip switches behind the scenes. From a more centrist perspective, these technologies and tools can also be used to improve services and efficiency, as long as laws are updated to protect citizens and not just corporate or partisan interests. In the end, understanding what is actually happening on dates like December 16, and how tokenization and presidential powers really work, is the first step to making informed decisions for yourself and your family. 

How to Turn Off Meta AI on Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp

In 2023, Meta launched an AI assistant across their platforms, called Meta AI. But not everyone saw this feature as a good addition to the platform, as many users raised privacy concerns. If you’re among them, here’s how to turn it off. 

How to Turn Off Meta AI on Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp | AI Hub

One Tech Tip: Want to turn off Meta AI? You can’t — but there are some workarounds

Meta AI hasn’t been universally welcomed. Here are some tips if you want to avoid using it:

One Tech Tip: Want to turn off Meta AI? You can't — but there are some workarounds | AP News

Meta

What's App

Sources and further reading

Meta AI and December 16 update

• Reuters – “Meta to use AI chats to personalize content and ads from December 16”
  https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/meta-use-ai-chats-personalize-content-ads-december-2025-10-01/

• Yahoo / USA Today fact check – “Meta’s planned policy update won’t let it read all your messages”

• PCWorld – “Warning! Meta will start snooping on your AI chats in its apps in December”

• memoryKPR blog – “What is the Meta AI update December 16, 2025, and what does it mean to you?”

Tokenization, BlackRock, and Bank of America

• Forbes – “BlackRock’s $10 Trillion Tokenization Vision: The Future Of Real World Assets”

• World Economic Forum – “Asset Tokenization in Financial Markets”

• BitGo – “How Digital Asset Tokenization Is Transforming Finance”

• Yellow Research – “Tokenized U.S. Treasuries Hit $7.3B in 2025”

• CoinDesk summary of BofA report – “Tokenization Is ‘Mutual Fund 3.0,’ Bank of America Says”

• Reuters – “Major banks explore issuing stablecoins pegged to G7 currencies”

Autopen, Biden pardons, and Trump’s claims

• CBS News – “Trump claims Biden pardons are void because he used an autopen”

• PolitiFact – “Are Biden pardons ‘void’ because he used an autopen? No.”

• Reuters – “Trump says he is terminating any pardons, commutations signed by Biden using autopen”

• The Times (U.S. edition) – “Trump says all documents signed by Biden with autopen ‘terminated’”

Key recent coverage on tokenization, Meta’s AI update, and the autopen fight

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Charlotte is facing renewed outrage and fear after a homeless illegal alien—who had already been deported from the United States twice—was arrested in connection with a stabbing on the city’s light rail system. 

33-year-old Oscar Solarzano faces several charges, including the felonies of attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon causing serious injury, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.

Man charged in stabbing on Charlotte light rail may not be legal citizen

Authorities say the suspect, who had re-entered the country unlawfully, attacked a passenger without provocation, reigniting debates over border failures and the growing number of violent offenses committed by repeat offenders who slip back into the country despite prior removals. The incident comes at a politically charged moment, with many residents frustrated that federal immigration laws and local enforcement gaps continue to intersect in ways that leave public spaces vulnerable.

Tensions in Charlotte were already high following the recent fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, who was killed by a homeless man with an extensive criminal record that had gone unaddressed despite multiple interactions with law enforcement. The pair of cases—occurring only weeks apart—have intensified scrutiny on the city’s handling of homelessness, mental health, and violent crime, as well as its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Critics say these tragedies show what happens when individuals with dangerous histories are repeatedly released into the community, while supporters of current policies argue the issues are rooted in deeper systemic failures that no single agency can fully control.

Charlotte officials are now under pressure to explain how someone deported twice could reappear on city transit lines, armed and unstable. Federal authorities note that repeat re-entry is increasingly common as cartels and smuggling networks move migrants across the border through less-monitored channels. Local residents, however, are focused on the immediate reality: two high-profile violent attacks in a short period, both involving individuals who were known risks long before the crimes occurred. As investigations continue, the city is bracing for a difficult conversation about enforcement, safety, and what it truly means to protect vulnerable communities in a system struggling to hold itself together.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

In a stunning escalation that has sent shockwaves through Washington, the FBI and DEA launched a coordinated raid on the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense as part of a sweeping federal crackdown on drug-smuggling networks with suspected ties inside military channels.

FBI & DEA Raid Defense Secretary’s Office — 3,800 Arrests, 8 Tons of Drug Seized | US Military

 According to early briefings, the joint operation has resulted in more than 3,800 arrests nationwide and the seizure of nearly eight tons of narcotics—one of the largest coordinated drug interdictions in modern U.S. history. Federal officials have stated that the investigation uncovered evidence suggesting cartel-linked operations may have penetrated deeper into U.S. defense structures than previously believed, raising new questions about internal oversight, chain-of-command vulnerabilities, and how far the criminal networks reached.

While details remain tightly restricted, officials familiar with the operation say investigators were tracking encrypted communications, financial transfers, and logistics patterns for months before the surprise raid took place. The decision to target the Defense Secretary’s office directly reflects both the seriousness of the intelligence and the potential that high-level personnel may have unknowingly—or in some cases knowingly—intersected with trafficking routes routed through U.S. military infrastructure. This possibility has intensified political pressure in Washington, where lawmakers on both sides are calling for emergency hearings to determine how contraband pipelines could have exploited federal systems intended for national security.

What makes this case even more volatile is its timing. The U.S. military is already facing scrutiny over unilateral strikes on alleged drug-running boats and the legality of those operations. Now, with federal agents revealing that internal corruption may have played a role in shielding cartel movements, the narrative has shifted dramatically. Instead of a purely external threat, investigators are suggesting a layered system of internal access points—logistical gaps, compromised contractors, and even uniformed intermediaries—that enabled traffickers to move product under the guise of legitimate military transport.

Political fallout has been swift. Supporters of the crackdown argue that the raids prove federal agencies are finally confronting cartel infiltration head-on, regardless of rank or title. Critics warn that such a massive sweep, particularly one touching the highest levels of defense leadership, indicates systemic instability rather than isolated misconduct. Both sides agree on one point: the scale of the arrests and the volume of seized narcotics point to a criminal architecture far larger and more sophisticated than previously acknowledged.

As investigators continue to process evidence and interrogate those detained, Washington is bracing for the next wave of revelations. Whether the operation exposes a handful of bad actors or a sprawling network woven into portions of the military itself, this moment marks a turning point in America’s internal battle against narco-terror influence. And with the raid reaching all the way to the Pentagon’s upper floors, the country is left to confront an unsettling question: how deep does the infiltration truly go?

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

As New York City prepares for a new administration, incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani is already facing sharp criticism from financial analysts and energy commentators, including hosts of “The Big Money Show,” who argue that his opposition to new fossil fuel construction is colliding head-on with the city’s deepening affordability crisis. 

'GOOD LUCK NYC': Mamdani ripped over gas ban lowering energy prices

'The Big Money Show' criticizes New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for opposing new fossil fuel construction despite a deepening affordability crisis.

They warn that freezing or blocking gas and fuel infrastructure during a period of rising utility costs could push working-class families further into economic strain. According to these critics, Mamdani’s push for a rapid transition away from traditional energy sources may sound visionary on paper, but in practice risks creating higher heating bills, unstable energy supplies, and a widening gap between political rhetoric and the daily reality of New Yorkers struggling to keep the lights on.

Mamdani’s supporters argue that New York must accelerate its shift toward renewable power to meet long-term climate goals. But detractors counter that such ambitions cannot ignore the immediate financial burden on households already weighed down by rent spikes, grocery costs, and general inflation. They contend that refusing to authorize new fossil-fuel-related projects—such as natural gas plants or updated pipeline systems—handcuffs the city’s ability to stabilize prices during peak demand seasons. With winter approaching and no clear backup plan to offset the strain on the grid, critics say the timing of Mamdani’s policy posture is increasingly out of step with the needs of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

What has fueled the backlash is the growing sense that New Yorkers are being asked to shoulder the cost of political symbolism. Analysts argue that the mayor-elect’s stance represents a broader ideological movement that prioritizes climate branding over pragmatic energy management. While no one disputes the eventual move toward cleaner technology, the concern is that Mamdani’s hardline approach could leave the city exposed to avoidable shortages or skyrocketing bills—conditions that disproportionately impact low-income neighborhoods already fighting to stay afloat.

As Mamdani prepares to assume office, the battle lines over New York’s energy future are becoming clearer. His critics say the city cannot afford to gamble its economic stability on idealism, while supporters insist that delaying bold environmental action will only create larger problems down the line. In a city where affordability is already strained to its breaking point, the question now is whether Mamdani’s policies will ease the burden—or intensify it.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Key Recent Incidents & Trends

NYC Mob ‘STORMS’ Police Station... as "Socialist" Mayor WAGES WAR on AMERICA

• Violent Protests Disrupting Immigration Enforcement

• In New York City’s Chinatown area, a recent federal immigration raid was disrupted by about 200 protesters. Videos show demonstrators forming barricades, confronting agents, and chasing government vehicles down Canal Street. Federal agents responded with chemical irritants. Several protesters were arrested. 

• This is at least the second major protest in lower Manhattan in six weeks tied to immigration enforcement — fueling debate over policy, civil rights, and law-enforcement methods in immigrant communities.

• Local “Mob Violence” in Neighborhoods & Unregulated Crowd Behavior

• In Queens, NY, police recently arrested a 19-year-old man for involvement in a violent mob attack on a couple during an illegal late-night car meet-up. The incident reportedly began with reckless driving and stunts, then escalated to gang assault, property destruction, and a vehicle set on fire. 

• While not a politically motivated riot, this episode underscores how “mob violence” can erupt in urban areas when large, uncoordinated groups act with impunity — especially under the cover of anonymity.

• Escalating Tensions at National Level: Immigration, Extremist Probes & Domestic Unrest

• In response to recurring violent protests and reported extremist activity, the U.S. Attorney General has ordered federal law enforcement to intensify investigations into groups labeled as “extremist,” including some connected to anti-immigration, radical-left, or anti-authority causes. The directive encourages prosecutors to prioritize related crimes, including potential domestic-terrorism prosecutions.

• Across major cities, demonstrations against immigration enforcement (“mass deportation”) — such as those in Los Angeles and Portland earlier in 2025 — have repeatedly escalated into clashes with police and federal agents. In LA, one such wave led to looting, violent confrontations, arrests, and deployment of National Guard troops. 

• Ongoing Legacy of Political-Mob Violence in the U.S. and Abroad

• The attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 remains the most infamous recent example of a politically motivated mob assault on government authority. More than 140 police officers were assaulted, windows broken, and the building vandalized — an event widely condemned as an insurrection. 

• Historically, the United States has seen many episodes of mob violence and racial terror following emancipation — violent white mobs targeting Black residents, suppressing civil rights, and undermining the promises of Reconstruction. 

What We Know — and What Remains Unverified

• There are verified incidents of protest-related violence, looting, assault, and large crowd clashes with police or federal agents across multiple U.S. cities. The nation appears to be experiencing a surge in unrest tied to immigration policy, political polarization, law-enforcement actions, and social grievances.

• Some recent events labeled as “mob activity” stem from non-political causes (illegal street racing, gang aggression, protest escalation), showing that mob violence in 2025 is not limited to political contexts.

• What wasn’t found: credible, verified reporting that supports the claim “NYC Mob ‘STORMS’ Police Station” as a coordinated, large-scale takeover of a police precinct. The videos floating online appear sensational, and no mainstream news outlet corroborates the story.

Why This Matters — Broader Implications

• The growing frequency of violent clashes and mob-style behavior reveals a potentially deteriorating boundary between protest, civil disobedience, and mob aggression. Authorities and communities alike are under pressure to balance civil liberties, security, and justice.

• Political-mob violence (or even general mob violence) undermines public trust — in institutions, law enforcement, and democratic processes. If unchecked, these patterns can widen social fractures.

• With mass migration, aggressive law-enforcement action, economic instability, and rising social polarization, many U.S. cities may face repetitive cycles of unrest. The recent crackdown orders and expanded investigations into extremist groups suggest the government anticipates more waves of unrest or wants to deter them.

More recent mob & protest violence news

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A high-ranking Venezuelan government source is claiming that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul appears on what is being called the “Venezuela List,” a roster of political figures allegedly receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Maduro regime and its associated narcoterrorism networks. 

Senator Warns Trump Moves Could Fragment MAGA Support #worldnews #news

According to the source, the money is tied to drug-trafficking operations that have moved deadly narcotics into the United States, contributing to an epidemic that now kills roughly 120,000 Americans every year.

The allegation suggests more than financial misconduct; it implies that certain American officials may have knowingly or unknowingly provided political cover to criminal networks operating throughout Latin America. These networks are said to cooperate with the Maduro government, using corrupt port infrastructure, military protection, and forged documentation to ship vast quantities of illicit substances toward the U.S. border. The source claims that individuals on the list played some role—either obstructing oversight, easing diplomatic pressure, or shaping public narratives—to keep these routes open.

Senator Paul has long positioned himself as a critic of foreign intervention and as a defender of civil liberties, which has made these accusations all the more explosive. Some observers believe that if the list is real, it may have been compiled internally by Venezuelan power brokers who track which foreign officials can be influenced, pressured, or rewarded. Others argue that the list could be part of internal factional warfare inside Venezuela, where competing intelligence groups often leak information to settle political scores or influence foreign governments.

Sen. Rand Paul “fearful” Venezuela boat strikes are “prelude to war” #shorts #venezuela #trump

The claim emerges at a moment when tensions in Latin America are rising, drug cartels are expanding their reach, and the United States is confronting the steep human cost of fentanyl, cocaine, and poly-drug mixtures flooding through the southern border. If even a portion of the allegation proves accurate, it would represent one of the most far-reaching corruption scandals involving a sitting U.S. senator in recent history. For now, the information remains sourced to Venezuelan insiders, and no official U.S. investigative body has confirmed the existence of the so-called Venezuela List.

Nonetheless, the severity of the claim is prompting discussion about how deeply foreign regimes attempt to infiltrate American political structures. The possibility that narcoterrorism networks could influence congressional decision-making raises questions about national security, border policy, and oversight mechanisms meant to protect the public from criminal infiltration.

Whether this allegation signals the start of a major political investigation or another unverified claim in a chaotic geopolitical environment remains to be seen. But the conversation has already begun, and the potential implications reach from Caracas to Washington.

 What the Records Show — Rand Paul’s Objections

• On October 27, 2025, Rand Paul publicly called the Trump administration’s airstrikes on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boats “extrajudicial killings.” He pointed out that Congress had not been presented any evidence about who was onboard the boats, whether suspects were armed, or what evidence existed — and still, the administration ordered them destroyed. 

• He warned those operations “muddle the line” between law-enforcement and warfare — arguing that targeting boats abroad without due process is deeply dangerous and legally questionable.

• Following revelations — including that survivors of a first strike were allegedly eliminated in a second “follow-on” strike — Paul demanded that Pete Hegseth (Defense Secretary) testify under oath about the decision-making and evidence justifying such lethal force. 

• He also joined a bipartisan group of senators in efforts to impose war-powers constraints on further strikes, stressing that Congress had not properly authorized such military campaigns. 

 Context — What He’s Reacting To

• The strikes began in September 2025 under operations the administration claims target “narco-terrorist” drug-trafficking vessels from Latin America to the U.S. 

• As of the most recent counts, more than 80 people have been killed across multiple such strikes — including a controversial “double-tap” attack where survivors of a first strike were later killed. 

• Legal scholars and human-rights experts have argued these attacks may constitute extrajudicial killings, and some call them unlawful under both U.S. and international law. 

 Why This Matters (and What’s Still Unclear)

• Rand Paul’s objections highlight a critical constitutional and legal debate: whether these strikes—outside declared war zones—are lawful without congressional authorization.

• They raise the deeper question: Should drug policy ever be treated like wartime engagement? Paul argues no.

• However, the public record lacks transparent evidence (names, indicted persons, captured contraband) for many of the strikes — this lack of transparency fuels concern over due process and accountability.

• At the same time, supporters argue the strikes are necessary to stem the flow of fentanyl and other lethal drugs.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A near-catastrophic collision involving the USS Harry S. Truman is raising urgent concerns about the state of U.S. naval readiness, discipline, and command oversight. 

CVN 75 USS Truman aircraft carrier captured floating on the sea

According to an investigation released by the Navy, the guided-missile carrier narrowly avoided disaster when a merchant vessel struck its hull near Port Said, Egypt, on February 12. More than 100 sailors were sleeping only yards from the impact point, while eight others stood watch a mere ten feet away. The incident has shaken confidence in how the bridge team handled its responsibilities during one of the most sensitive navigational transits in the world.

The Navy’s report suggests that critical errors occurred on the bridge in the minutes leading up to the collision. Signals were missed, communications were unclear, and situational awareness broke down at the worst possible moment. The Truman’s position should have made it the most visible and controlled vessel in the channel, yet investigators say the crew failed to respond correctly to the merchant ship’s movements until the impact was unavoidable. This raises broader questions about whether the Navy’s surface fleet is suffering from a systemic training deficit or leadership fatigue during extended deployments.

Critics argue this incident is another example of a troubling pattern. Over the last decade, multiple U.S. warships have experienced collisions, near misses, and lapses in bridge management—issues often linked to overworked sailors, inconsistent training, and command teams reluctant to challenge flawed decisions. Supporters of the fleet say that high operational tempo and global commitments strain even the most prepared crews, but the Truman event shows that the margin for error has grown dangerously thin.

The severity of the near miss becomes clearer when imagining the alternative. Had the merchant vessel struck slightly deeper or closer to the berthing compartments, the Navy could have faced dozens of casualties or even the loss of a major carrier. Investigators warn that such an outcome was not only possible but narrowly avoided. The Truman had to undergo immediate inspection, and internal teams scrambled to assess whether the hull breach risked flooding or structural weakness.

The broader implication for national security cannot be ignored. A carrier strike group represents one of America’s most powerful strategic assets. Any vulnerability—whether born of human error, training gaps, or leadership oversights—ripples across global readiness. Lawmakers are already calling for updated training reforms and greater accountability for bridge crews, demanding assurance that the U.S. fleet is fully prepared for increasingly crowded and contested waters.

As investigations continue, the incident serves as a stark reminder that even the most advanced warships depend on the vigilance of the humans guiding them. The collision with the Truman was avoidable. The next one might not be.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Reports emerging from multiple regional media sources suggest rising internal conflict within the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), with some units showing signs of outright defiance against senior leadership.

Mutiny in Israeli Defense Force DESTROYS Israel, Forever!

@astorrian6247 -- When our World is being torn apart with misinformation, manipulated division, chaos, fear, lies from our so called governments, hatred and a televised genocide for TWO YEARS we need/ deserve honest, factual, authentic, intelligent reporting of the facts.

 While Israeli officials deny that a “mutiny” is underway, insiders describe a widening rift between field soldiers and the political and military authorities directing ongoing operations.

Early accounts indicate that frustration has been building for months as troops face extended deployments, unclear operational objectives, and escalating civilian unrest across contested regions. Some IDF members reportedly claim the government is making strategic decisions without consulting commanders on the ground, leaving soldiers to absorb the fallout from choices they view as politically driven rather than militarily sound. These concerns have led to quiet refusals, stalled directives, and a handful of coordinated non-compliance incidents—behavior some analysts say resembles the early stages of insubordination within a national army.

The growing tension reflects deeper divisions within Israel’s political landscape. Critics argue that the government’s rapid policy shifts have strained both resources and morale, pushing soldiers into situations where their ethical judgment conflicts with official commands. Supporters of the government counter that maintaining discipline is essential, and any defiance—no matter how small—jeopardizes national security during a period of heightened instability.

Adding to the unease are reports of reservists refusing to report for duty, citing moral objections to the current operations or claiming fatigue from repeated call-ups without clear end goals. While not unprecedented, the scale of these refusals suggests broader dissatisfaction. Former IDF officials warn that if left unaddressed, the rift could weaken the country’s military readiness at a critical juncture.

Despite denials from top brass, the emergence of these stories has forced public debate about the state of Israel’s armed forces. Questions continue to surface about how far dissent has spread and whether it signals a temporary morale issue or a deeper crisis within the ranks. As the government attempts to present a unified front, many observers believe the coming weeks will determine whether internal defiance fades—or evolves into a more significant challenge to Israel’s leadership and military cohesion.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

While a controversial immigration operation takes place in Minneapolis, local leaders are under intense scrutiny as the largest fraud in American history keeps getting bigger...

Meanwhile... Poor "Tampon" Tim is crying about being called a Retard.

80,000 Somalis 'FORCIBLY EVICTED’... as Trump'"Deportation Army" RECLAIMS Minneapolis

Reports out of Minnesota are painting a picture of a city undergoing the most aggressive federal immigration operation in modern U.S. history. According to local activists and community leaders, as many as 80,000 Somali residents in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area have been “forcibly evicted” or displaced during sweeping raids carried out under President Trump’s new enforcement initiative — an initiative critics are calling the “Deportation Army.” Federal officials argue the mission is focused on individuals with expired status, flagged documentation, or prior removal orders, but residents describe a campaign far broader and more chaotic than anything previously seen.

For years, Minneapolis has been portrayed by the national media as a symbol of multicultural harmony. But behind the scenes, tensions had been building as large pockets of the Somali population struggled with housing instability, identity-document problems, and inconsistent federal oversight that left thousands in an unclear legal category. Trump’s return to office brought those tensions to the front line. The administration insists it is “reclaiming the city,” restoring order in neighborhoods where crime, fraud cases, and political factionalism had risen sharply. But for families watching armed teams arrive at apartment complexes at dawn, the message feels less like law enforcement and more like mass upheaval.

Local officials are divided and increasingly overwhelmed. Some city leaders accuse federal agents of targeting entire neighborhoods regardless of individual status, describing scenes of families pushed out of units, possessions dumped in hallways, and children left scrambling to understand why their homes were suddenly no longer theirs. Others privately admit that Minneapolis had long lost control over its own immigration landscape, and that the federal government was bound to intervene eventually. Even within Somali political circles, internal fractures have opened up as community figures blame one another for failing to secure status protections or prepare residents for what was coming.

Supporters of the operation argue that this is exactly what federal enforcement should look like: decisive, unapologetic, and aimed at correcting decades of political neglect. They contend that Minneapolis had become a sanctuary system without legal foundation, where local politics insulated certain groups from accountability. In their view, reclaiming the city is not only about immigration — it is about restoring equal application of the law and dismantling what they see as a parallel political structure inside a U.S. city.

Opponents counter that the operation is destabilizing an entire region, rupturing families, and fueling resentment that will echo for decades. They warn that the scale of displacement could trigger a humanitarian crisis as community networks collapse and thousands struggle to find shelter or legal recourse. To them, this isn’t “reclaiming Minneapolis,” but reshaping it by force.

What comes next is uncertain. The federal government appears committed to continuing the operation, while Minneapolis leaders struggle to find footing amid lawsuits, protests, and growing public fear. One thing is undeniable: whatever Minneapolis becomes after this, it will not resemble the city it was before Trump’s deportation campaign began.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Haiti’s security crisis spiraled into a new and deadly phase over the weekend as heavily armed gangs launched coordinated attacks across the country’s central Artibonite region. 

BREAKING: Marco Rubio Calls for International Support to End Haiti Gang Violence | DRM News | AC14 - YouTube

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio calls for international support to combat gang violence in Haiti, praising Kenya’s leadership in the Multinational Security Support mission. With Port-au-Prince under armed gang control and 1.3 million displaced, Rubio urges more countries to contribute personnel and resources to restore stability in the Caribbean nation.

Witnesses described scenes of sheer terror: gunmen sweeping through towns like Bercy and Pont-Sondé, firing on civilians, burning homes, and forcing entire families to flee into the darkness with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Men, women, and children were killed in the assault, while survivors say they now face the impossible choice of hiding in the countryside or attempting dangerous crossings to reach safer areas. For many Haitians, this wasn’t just another eruption of violence — it was a signal that the state has lost control of yet another region.

Police issued urgent calls for reinforcements as the attacks unfolded, with officers on the ground warning that nearly half of Artibonite — Haiti’s largest agricultural region — had already fallen under gang control. The scale and coordination of the operation stunned even seasoned security observers.

These were not isolated raids or clashes between rival groups; this was a strategic takeover meant to seize territory, cripple local authority, and send a message that the gangs, not the government, now govern daily life in vast swaths of the country. Schools, businesses, and transportation routes have been paralyzed, leaving tens of thousands trapped in fear with no meaningful support from the central government.

Haiti’s police union SPNH-17 issued a stark assessment, calling the simultaneous collapse of the West and Artibonite departments “the greatest security failure in modern Haitian history.” For many Haitians, that statement reflects not only the present crisis but a years-long erosion of national institutions.

The police are understaffed, outgunned, and stretched thin across multiple fronts. Meanwhile, the government in Port-au-Prince has been unable to assert authority, hamstrung by political vacuum, economic collapse, and international hesitation. As a result, the gangs have evolved into de facto rulers, setting up checkpoints, controlling trade routes, and dictating who may enter or leave entire regions.

From a broader perspective, Haiti is no longer facing a crime problem but a full-scale territorial fragmentation. With each new assault, gangs consolidate their power and expand their influence into once-stable areas. Humanitarian groups warn that displacement numbers could rapidly grow as families abandon farmland and homes, setting off a crisis that the already-strained nation cannot absorb.

Without decisive intervention — from within or from the international community — Haiti risks becoming a country where formal governance exists only on paper, and where armed groups dictate the fate of millions. For now, the people caught in the crossfire are left to navigate a landscape ruled by fear, fire, and the absence of any state capable of protecting them.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Reports and commentary on the right are circulating a big claim: that President Donald Trump is preparing to push the Justice Department to indict Hillary Clinton over the origins of “Russiagate,” using 18 U.S. Code § 371 — the federal statute for conspiracy against or to defraud the United States.

 So far, there is no public indictment against Clinton, and neither the DOJ nor Special Counsel-style filings mention her by name as a charged target. What does exist are new investigations into the 2016 Trump–Russia probe, a fresh grand jury looking at Obama-era officials, and declassified documents that Republicans say expose a coordinated effort to frame Trump. In that environment, talk of using 18 U.S.C. 371 on Clinton is less about what has already happened and more about what Trump’s allies say they want to see next. 

To understand why 18 U.S. Code § 371 keeps coming up, you have to look at what the law actually says. Section 371 is the broad federal “conspiracy” statute: it makes it a crime for two or more people to agree either to commit an offense against the United States or to “defraud the United States,” and then take at least one concrete step toward that goal. Courts have long allowed prosecutors to use it when they believe officials or campaign figures interfered with the lawful functions of government, even if the government did not actually lose money. That means if investigators could show a coordinated effort to feed false information into the FBI, DOJ, or intelligence community to trigger an investigation under false pretenses, they could try to frame that as a 371 conspiracy to defraud.

The fuel for these new calls to indict Clinton is a wave of documents and reports revisiting how the Trump–Russia investigation began. Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report criticized the FBI for rushing into Crossfire Hurricane and treating tips about Trump more aggressively than similar information about others, but he did not charge Hillary Clinton or her campaign. More recently, a previously classified appendix to the Durham report was released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, describing intelligence that suggested a “Clinton campaign plan” to tie Trump to Russia and alleging that the FBI failed to seriously examine that possibility. Republicans say this annex, paired with declassified intelligence championed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, shows a deliberate operation to use the U.S. government as a weapon in the 2016 race. Democrats and many legal analysts counter that the material is selective, disputed, and still falls far short of a criminal conspiracy case.

On top of the paper trail, the political temperature has gone up. Attorney General Pam Bondi has launched a DOJ “strike force” to dig into alleged misconduct around the 2016 probe, and a grand jury is now hearing evidence about whether Obama-era officials broke federal law when they approved or shaped the Russia investigation. Vice President JD Vance has gone on television saying that “a lot of people” are going to be indicted over Russiagate, pointing to declassified documents Gabbard released as proof of “aggressive violation of the law.” None of these statements name Hillary Clinton as a confirmed target, but they create a public expectation that someone high-profile — possibly in her orbit — could face conspiracy charges tied to 18 U.S.C. 371 if prosecutors decide the evidence is strong enough.

Where does Hillary Clinton fit into all of this? In the eyes of Trump’s supporters, she is the political center of gravity behind the Steele dossier, the Alfa-Bank narrative, and a broader media push to brand Trump as a Kremlin asset. They argue that if campaign lawyers or operatives knowingly laundered opposition research into official intelligence channels, that could be framed as a conspiracy to defraud the United States by corrupting the FBI and intelligence community. Critics respond that multiple investigations — including the Mueller report and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report — found real Russian interference and numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russian-linked figures, even if they did not prove a criminal collusion conspiracy. From that perspective, Clinton may have fought Trump hard, but turning that into a criminal 371 case would require proof of intent and false statements that prosecutors so far have not shown in court.

The phrase “Trump plans to indict Hillary” also hides an important practical point: presidents don’t sign indictments. They can pressure the attorney general, pick loyal prosecutors, and publicly demand prosecutions, but under U.S. law, it is the DOJ and a grand jury that actually bring charges. We have already seen Trump’s DOJ push aggressively in this direction with the Comey indictment and the broader push to reopen 2016-era decisions. If Bondi’s team ever believes they have enough admissible, non-disputed evidence that Clinton or her inner circle conspired to defraud the government under 18 U.S.C. 371, they could try to take that case to a grand jury. But that would be a massive legal and political escalation, and even some conservative lawyers warn that stretching 371 too far could turn every hard-fought campaign into a potential conspiracy case.

From a broader, middle-of-the-road view, this fight is about more than one possible indictment. It is about whether the United States is sliding into a cycle where each administration tries to criminally punish the last one, especially over murky questions of intelligence, campaigns, and media narratives. Many conservatives say that accountability now is the only way to stop future weaponization of the FBI and CIA; many centrists and liberals worry that turning campaign dirty tricks into federal felonies will normalize tit-for-tat prosecutions and further shred whatever trust remains in institutions. If Trump really does push for 18 U.S.C. 371 charges against Hillary Clinton, that case would not just test one law. It would test whether the country can handle criminal trials at the very top of its political class without tearing itself apart.

Key recent coverage on new Russiagate investigations

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Alexander Eichwald, a young activist competing for a leadership role in the “Generation Germany” youth movement, has ignited a political firestorm after delivering a speech that many attendees described as disturbingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler.

Did a German Politician Quote Hitler?:#Germany #AfD #Nazism #FarRight #Hitler #Eichwald #germany

A youth candidate for Germany's far-right AfD party, Alexander Eichwald, sparked outrage with a speech eerily reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's rhetoric and style. While the AfD leadership quickly distanced themselves, critics argue such incidents expose the party's true leanings. We discuss the implications for German democracy and the fight against the resurgence of historical extremism.

 While urging party members to “protect German culture from foreign influence,” Eichwald spoke with sharp, rhythmic intonation and exaggerated hand gestures that drew immediate comparisons to the Nazi dictator. What may have been intended as passion came across to the audience as historical mimicry—and the reaction inside the hall was instant. Boos erupted, conversations broke out mid-speech, and the once-supportive crowd quickly shifted into discomfort and disbelief.

Footage circulating online shows attendees exchanging stunned looks as Eichwald continued speaking, apparently unaware—or unwilling to acknowledge—how his style was being received. Within hours, clips went viral across German social media, where users criticized the performance as either “tone-deaf,” “deliberately provocative,” or “a red flag for the party’s future direction.” Broadcaster ARD reported that party officials scrambled behind the scenes to control the damage, worried that the moment could define not only Eichwald’s candidacy but also the public image of the youth movement itself.

The controversy comes at a sensitive time in Germany, where debates over immigration, cultural identity, and nationalism continue to divide young voters. Many critics say Eichwald’s speech demonstrates how quickly rhetoric meant to promote cultural preservation can drift into darker symbolic territory when framed with the wrong tone or delivery.

Others argue the incident exposes deeper tensions within right-leaning youth parties, where some members push for stronger language while leadership tries to avoid associations with Germany’s past. For Eichwald, the fallout is immediate: instead of elevating his political prospects, the speech has cast a long shadow over his candidacy—and reignited a national conversation about how easily modern politics can brush against historical trauma.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Andriy Yermak, President Zelensky’s influential chief of staff, spent years quietly consolidating power inside Ukraine’s political system. 

KYIV MELTDOWN: Zelensky Replaces Scandal-Hit Yermak With Another Embattled Aide | Times Now World

Ukraine has plunged into yet another crisis as President Zelensky swaps one disgraced power-broker for another even more damaging figure. Yermak falls under the weight of a massive corruption probe, yet Zelensky responds by elevating Rustem Umerov — himself under investigation and surrounded by scandal — to the top negotiating role. Kyiv’s leadership looks reckless, chaotic, and increasingly unfit for serious diplomacy, especially as Western partners lose patience with Ukraine’s endless corruption carousel.

His strategy was straightforward: ensure that every major decision, approval, and institutional process flowed through him—and ultimately through Zelensky. Many analysts say that by early 2024, Yermak had come closer than anyone in modern Ukraine to building a centralized power structure capable of controlling everything from military appointments to media narratives. The turning point came when he and Zelensky attempted to break the independence of the anti-corruption bodies NABU and SAP, institutions that Western backers considered the last safeguards against Ukraine sliding back into oligarch-style governance. A successful takeover would have given Yermak near-total influence. Instead, the attempt sparked resistance from diplomats, watchdog groups, and key officials who saw the maneuver as an assault on democratic oversight.

The so-called “Zermak tandem” faltered not because of lack of ambition but because Zelensky hesitated at the decisive moment. In private, he reportedly feared the international fallout and the potential collapse of Western support if Ukraine appeared to dismantle the very anti-corruption infrastructure it promised to uphold. Yermak pressed forward; Zelensky blinked. That pause ended the offensive before it became irreversible—and, in doing so, shattered the impression that Yermak could operate with complete impunity. As pressure mounted, the system Yermak built began to crack, and allies who once benefited from his centralized approach started distancing themselves to avoid being caught in the backlash.

The consequences for Zelensky are now severe.

By allowing Yermak to centralize so much authority in his name and then failing to complete the consolidation, Zelensky is exposed from all sides. Critics accuse him of enabling the attempted power grab; reformers blame him for hesitating too late; Western partners question whether he can still guarantee institutional independence; and political opponents see the entire episode as proof that the president is struggling to control his own inner circle. Instead of emerging as a stronger leader, Zelensky is now facing the political costs of a failed quasi-autocratic pivot—one he didn’t fully reject, but also didn’t fully commit to. In the end, Yermak may fall, but it is Zelensky who will be forced to answer for the shadow system that almost took root under his watch.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Headlines and social media posts claiming that “Somalis just took over Minneapolis” are tapping into a real shift people are feeling in the city, but the phrase itself is more emotional than accurate. 

@user-wy1dl2me2p -- This isn't racism. This is justified house cleaning.

Somalis Just TOOK OVER Minneapolis

What has actually happened is that a once-marginalized refugee community has become large, visible, and politically organized in a few key neighborhoods, especially places like Cedar–Riverside and parts of South Minneapolis.

There are now Somali-owned malls, restaurants, mosques, and service businesses; Somali American leaders hold offices on the city council, in the state legislature, and in Congress. In nearby St. Louis Park, a Somali American serves as mayor. For people who remember Minneapolis before any of this existed, it can feel like a sudden change in who is “in the room” when decisions are made, which is where the “takeover” language comes from.

But if you look at the numbers, Minneapolis is not a Somali-majority city and not close to it. Somalis are a relatively small share of the overall metro population, even if they are highly concentrated in certain wards and apartment complexes. Their influence comes less from raw numbers and more from focused turnout, tight community networks, and the fact that many older, long-time residents don’t vote as consistently.

That concentration shows up in politics: a Somali American represents a core Minneapolis congressional district, another sits in the state senate, and a Somali council member represents a central ward that includes East African hubs. These wins give the impression of a sweeping takeover, even though the rest of the city government is still a mix of non-Somali progressives, moderates, and establishment figures.

At the same time, national politics have put a spotlight on Minneapolis’s Somali community. They’ve been pulled into debates over immigration, welfare fraud, terrorism, Gaza, and public safety, often in a way that treats them as a single block instead of a diverse group with internal disagreements.

Some residents worry that growing Somali political power could tilt local policies on policing, schools, and foreign policy resolutions that city councils like to pass. Others argue that what’s happening is exactly what “the American story” has always been: immigrants arrive, build roots, and eventually sit at the table instead of just watching from the side. Underneath the loud headlines, the real picture is more complicated: no one “took over” Minneapolis overnight—but a once-invisible community has become organized enough that everyone else, for better or worse, can no longer ignore it.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Mass unrest has exploded across Mexico as tens of thousands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens take to the streets demanding something their government has failed to provide for decades: peace, freedom, and the right to live without cartel terror hanging over their every move. 

Mass unrest has taken over Mexico as the law abiding protest alleged cartel connections to their government, and demand peace, freedom and prosperity.

MEXICAN MOBS Loot THEIR OWN Capital... as "Traitor" President FLOODS AMERICA with GANGS

What began as scattered demonstrations has now surged into a nationwide uprising, fueled by allegations that cartel influence doesn’t just operate in the shadows — it reaches straight into the halls of political power. Protesters say the line between criminal syndicates and the government has blurred so deeply that no one can tell where one ends and the other begins. From rural towns to major cities, people are rising up not out of ideology, but out of survival.

For years, Mexican citizens have watched cartel empires grow stronger, better armed, and more coordinated, while the government insists progress is being made. But as violence surges, disappearances skyrocket, and corruption scandals leak from every level of government, millions have lost faith that the state is even trying to win the fight.

Videos now show crowds chanting that the government “answers to cartels, not to the people,” a damning accusation that reflects a widespread belief: that cartel money has bought elections, police forces, and politicians, turning the government into a public-facing shell for private criminal power.

The unrest is fueled by a simple but powerful realization: the people have had enough. Everyday families, business owners, farmers, and workers — not radicals, not militants — are demanding accountability and an end to the violence that has defined life for an entire generation.

Many are openly calling for independent investigations, foreign observers, and sweeping reforms to break the alleged cartel-political pipeline that runs through security forces, local governments, and even federal ministries. Others say Mexico needs an entirely new approach to sovereignty and security, warning that the nation’s future cannot be built on institutions compromised from within.

International leaders are watching closely, but quietly. No government wants to openly acknowledge that a major nation bordering the United States is experiencing a legitimacy crisis. And yet, the people in the streets are making that crisis impossible to ignore. They are demanding not just safer streets, but a government that belongs to them — not to the criminal networks that have thrived while citizens bury their dead.

The unrest sweeping Mexico is not just a protest; it is a reckoning. Whether the political class can withstand it, or whether the people push the country into a new era, will determine Mexico’s place in the world for decades to come.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Sparks flew on the House floor as lawmakers clashed over a bill that would require only U.S. citizens to be counted for drawing congressional districts and dividing up political power. At today's House Oversight Committee hearing, lawmakers battled over the Equal Representation Act that would require a citizenship question on the U.S. Census and for apportionment to only be determined by the citizen population.

BREAKING: Sparks Fly As Reps Battle Over Bill To Require Only Citizens To Count For Apportionment

 Supporters say the idea is simple: representation should reflect citizens, not everyone who happens to be living in an area, especially if they are here illegally or on temporary status. In their view, allowing non-citizens to bulk up certain districts gives more political weight to states and cities that ignore immigration laws, while states with fewer non-citizens lose seats and influence. They argue this isn’t about hate or exclusion, but about making sure that the people choosing the leaders are the ones being represented in the math.

Opponents call the bill something very different: a quiet attempt to rewrite the rules of democracy by changing who “counts” as a person under the Constitution. They argue that the country has always apportioned representation based on total population, not just citizens, and warn that shifting to citizens-only counts would hit immigrant-heavy states hard, reducing their seats in Congress and their share of federal money. To them, this is less about fairness and more about power—tilting the map toward states that are older, whiter, and more rural, and away from states with large immigrant and mixed-status families. They also worry that it opens the door to cherry-picking who counts next: if non-citizens can be dropped from the count, why not prisoners, students, or other groups someone decides are “less legitimate”?

Beneath the shouting, there is a deeper fight over what America is supposed to be. One side wants a system where citizenship is clearly separated from everything else, with voting power tied only to those who hold legal status and allegiance on paper. The other side leans on the idea that representation is about everyone living under the laws and policies, even if they can’t yet vote. In the background, strategists and data experts quietly admit what many already suspect: whichever way this question gets answered could shift which party holds power for a decade or more. That’s why the debate is so bitter. It’s not just about a counting method. It’s about whether political maps will be drawn around citizens alone, or around the full human reality of who actually lives in each community.

For people watching from the outside, the whole battle raises uncomfortable questions. If only citizens count, does that mean millions of people who live, work, and pay taxes in the United States will be treated as invisible when it comes to dividing up power? If everyone counts, does that mean areas that attract more non-citizens can permanently gain influence over national policy, even if fewer of their residents are actually allowed to vote? There is no easy answer, and that’s exactly why the arguments are so fierce. But one thing is clear: this is not a minor procedural tweak. It is a struggle over how America defines “We the People” in the 21st century—and whose presence, on paper and in power, really matters.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

President Donald Trump issued a full pardon to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) on Wednesday, wiping away the corruption charges brought against the congressman during the Biden administration. Trump cited the Biden administration weaponizing “the Justice System against their Political Opponents,” as the reason for his pardon, going on to say that the Texas Democrat was just “speaking the TRUTH” against open borders.

Trump pardons Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar

Cuellar, a rare border-security Democrat who frequently clashed with Biden’s immigration agenda, had long claimed the investigation was politically motivated. Trump echoed that sentiment directly, arguing that the federal case was “another example of the Biden administration weaponizing the Justice System against their political opponents.”

For Trump, the pardon was more than an act of clemency — it was a public rebuke of what he describes as a two-tiered justice system. In his statement, Trump praised Cuellar for “speaking the TRUTH about the crisis at our Southern Border,” suggesting that Cuellar was targeted not for wrongdoing, but for breaking ranks with the administration on one of its most sensitive political issues. Cuellar has long been a thorn in the side of Democratic leadership, openly criticizing lax border enforcement, migrant surges, and federal inaction that impacted his Texas district.

Critics of the Biden DOJ argued from the beginning that it was suspicious to see corruption charges surface precisely as Cuellar amplified his criticism of open-border policies. Supporters of the prosecution insisted the case had merit, but the timing fueled accusations of selective targeting — especially as other high-profile investigations involving Democratic allies stalled or quietly disappeared. Trump’s pardon now forces the issue into the national spotlight, raising broader questions about who gets prosecuted, who doesn’t, and whether political dissent has become a liability within the federal system.

By pardoning a Democrat, Trump is sending a message that transcends party lines: in his view, the real divide is no longer Republican vs. Democrat, but citizen vs. government power. Cuellar’s exoneration will likely deepen scrutiny of the DOJ’s handling of politically sensitive cases and may embolden other moderates within Trump-leaning districts who have felt pressure to remain silent. For now, Cuellar walks free — and the debate over partisan justice grows louder.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Democratic Socialist Janeese Lewis George Launches DC Mayoral Run — With Mamdani-Style Ambitions Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George will run for mayor, she announced. She answered News4’s Mark Segraves’ questions on Zohran Mamdani, MPD, ICE and threats to Home Rule.

Janeese Lewis George tells how she'd handle MPD, ICE, threats to DC autonomy as mayor | NBC4 DC

Washington, DC is now the latest city to see a self-identified socialist step into the mayoral race, signaling a growing push by far-left organizers to capture major urban power centers one by one. The candidate’s platform mirrors a trend seen in New York, Chicago, and Seattle: sweeping promises of free housing, police defunding, migrant expansion programs, and city-funded social services that critics say are financially impossible and strategically designed to expand government dependency.

Supporters cast the campaign as a “new direction,” but longtime residents see something else — a familiar playbook that has already deepened crime, homelessness, and fiscal strain in other cities where similar movements took hold.

Janeese Lewis George, a proudly declared Democratic Socialist, has officially launched her campaign to become the next mayor of Washington, DC — and insiders say she’s modeling her bid after Zohran Mamdani’s aggressive, ideology-driven campaign in New York City.

Her entrance immediately signals that the socialist movement is no longer content with city council seats or advisory positions; it is now targeting executive power over major cities, including the nation’s capital. George is already campaigning on themes familiar to voters in left-leaning metros: massive public spending, expanded migrant programs, expanded tenant protections, and sweeping city-funded social initiatives that would push DC further into the political territory currently reshaping New York and Chicago.

This new DC candidate is part of a broader pattern: activist-backed politicians entering city races with national networks behind them. These candidates often frame themselves as champions of the working class while promoting policies that shift power away from local communities and toward centralized bureaucratic systems.

In cities where far-left mayors have already taken office, the results have included surging budgets, weakened law enforcement, rising taxes, and the prioritization of non-citizens in programs originally built for residents. For DC, where federal agencies, embassies, and national landmarks share the same streets as vulnerable neighborhoods, the stakes are different — the city’s stability has national implications.

Opponents argue that the movement isn’t about helping the poor but about reshaping city power structures to align with national ideological goals. They warn that DC could see expanded sanctuary programs, more confrontations with federal law enforcement, taxpayer-funded benefits for non-residents, and aggressive attacks on private property rights — all under the banner of “equity” or “social justice.”

Supporters say these fears are exaggerated and that a socialist mayor would bring fairness and reform. But the criticism reflects a growing concern among residents: that DC is becoming the next testing ground for policies that prioritize ideological symbolism over practical governance.

With another socialist now running for mayor, Washington faces a crossroads. The city can either follow the pattern unfolding across other major metros — embracing high-cost, high-control political experiments — or it can push back against an ideology critics say has repeatedly failed in practice.

The campaign has only begun, but one thing is certain: DC’s next election won’t just decide a mayor. It will decide whether the capital of the United States becomes the next staging ground for an agenda reshaping American cities from within.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 In a stunning emergency ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively struck down all state-level gun-permit requirements, declaring that the SecondAmendment cannot be conditioned on bureaucratic approval, subjective evaluations, or discretionary licensing systems. The permit system as we know it is finished. If you want to understand exactly what this means for gun owners in your state and how your rights just changed overnight.

🔥Supreme Court Emergency Ruling To End All Gun Permits—But States Already Have a Plan!

The decision, issued late in the evening and immediately sending shockwaves through state governments, ruled that any permitting structure giving officials the power to deny ordinary citizens the right to carry a firearm violates the constitutional guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” While the ruling does not eliminate background checks or prohibit states from enforcing criminal disqualifications, it dismantles the systems many blue states relied on to delay or block carry permits — and it does so overnight.

Almost immediately, state officials—especially in New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey—began signaling their intent to circumvent the ruling through administrative pressure, emergency legislative sessions, and new “qualification standards” aimed at slowing the system down without openly defying the Court.

Several states are considering new policies that would turn public buildings, streets, festivals, parks, and transit hubs into “sensitive places,” effectively banning carry in most populated areas. Others are preparing psychological-evaluation requirements, mandatory “safety courses” designed to take months to complete, or even insurance mandates intended to price ordinary citizens out of exercising their rights.

The message from these states is clear: they may not be able to keep permits, but they can still construct enough red tape to make carrying legally nearly impossible.

Supporters of the Court’s ruling argue that this decision simply restores what the Constitution intended from the beginning — that the right to self-defense belongs to the people, not to the approval of a state office. They see the ruling as a direct strike at political leaders who used discretionary systems to control who could legally arm themselves.

Critics, however, warn that the decision will destabilize public safety, and they are already coordinating strategies to push new restrictions that appear compliant on paper while effectively neutralizing the Court’s intent.

For now, the stage is set for a nationwide constitutional standoff: the Supreme Court has declared the right absolute, but the states most opposed to gun ownership are preparing their next moves, signaling a battle far from over.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The Department of Transportation has delivered a sharp ultimatum to Minnesota, demanding that Governor Tim Walz revoke hundreds of commercial driver’s licenses that federal officials say were issued illegally to non-domiciled applicants.

No more free tampons for Tim...

'Shameful': Duffy Slams Walz, Newsom's States For 'Unlawfully' Issuing Driver Licenses To Foreigners - YouTube

 According to internal communications reviewed by The Daily Wire, the DOT is now formally warning that the state could lose more than $30 million in federal highway funding if it fails to bring its licensing system back into compliance.

 Former Congressman Sean Duffy, who has been tracking the escalating dispute, says the message is clear: the federal government believes Minnesota bypassed federal safety and residency requirements, and they are prepared to use funding pressure to force a correction.

At the center of the controversy are commercial driver’s licenses granted to individuals who, according to federal definitions, are neither residents nor compliant with federal domicile rules. The DOT argues that Minnesota improperly expanded who qualifies for CDL credentials, creating a potential national safety risk if drivers operating across state lines were licensed under criteria that do not match federal standards.

Sources familiar with the review say the issue first surfaced during routine audits, but the scope of the discrepancies prompted far more aggressive oversight than usual.

Governor Walz’s office has not backed away from the state’s licensing policies, insisting they comply with federal rules and broaden economic opportunity. But Duffy says the matter goes beyond policy preferences. For federal regulators, the licensing system has to meet nationwide uniformity, especially for commercial drivers crossing interstate highways. If Minnesota’s system is out of alignment, other states could claim the same leeway—something Washington wants to prevent before it spreads.

Highway funding has historically been one of the federal government’s strongest enforcement tools, and the DOT’s warning signals that Minneapolis–St. Paul is now facing the same pressure other states once felt over seat belt laws, speed limits, or REAL ID compliance.

The governor is now in a tight spot: backing down would anger progressive lawmakers who support licensing access for non-domiciled residents, while resisting could jeopardize a major portion of the state’s transportation budget. With the ultimatum now public, Minnesota has only a short window to decide whether it will revise its licensing program, fight the federal determination, or attempt a negotiated compromise.

For now, the federal message is unmistakable—fix the system, or forfeit the money that keeps Minnesota’s highways running.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A chaotic scene erupted outside New York City’s ICE headquarters as a mob of activists clashed with federal officers, blocking entrances, vandalizing property, and attempting to disrupt ongoing immigration operations. Rioters stormed an ice deportation facility in lower Manhattan and did everything they could to disrupt immigration enforcement in the big apple.

NYC Mob ‘ATTACKS’ ICE HQ... as "Socialist" Mayor VOWS to FLOOD AMERICA with ILLEGALS - YouTube

Witnesses described the crowd as emboldened by the city’s political climate, where the newly elected mayor has openly aligned himself with hard-left groups calling for the dismantling of immigration enforcement. In several public appearances, the mayor has vowed to make New York a “gateway” for anyone who wants to come, promising city resources to accelerate intake and relocation efforts nationwide. For critics, the violence at ICE headquarters wasn’t spontaneous—it was the predictable outcome of leadership that signals to activists that federal law is optional and border control is a relic of the past.

As ICE officers attempted to secure the building, protesters pushed barricades, hurled objects, and shouted threats, creating a volatile environment that forced federal employees into lockdown. Video circulating online shows activists chanting slogans that mirror recent rhetoric from city hall—calls to “shut down ICE,” “abolish borders,” and “open the gates” to migrants waiting outside the U.S. system. For many Americans watching, the moment captured something far larger than a street protest: a local government increasingly in open defiance of national immigration law, with a mayor whose political identity is built on opposing federal enforcement at every turn. Supporters justify the unrest as humanitarian frustration; opponents see it as deliberate pressure meant to overwhelm the system and force Washington into accepting mass entry as a fait accompli.

The escalation comes as the mayor doubles down on promises to expand sanctuary policies, fund migrant resettlement programs, and coordinate with outside organizations to move incoming migrants deeper into the U.S. interior. Critics argue this amounts to creating a parallel immigration system that bypasses federal authority entirely, using taxpayer dollars to facilitate entry and transportation on a scale the federal government never intended. The tension is now visible: a city leadership promising to “open the doors wider,” activists acting as enforcers of that vision, and federal officers caught in the middle as they attempt to uphold laws that political actors treat as obstacles rather than obligations.

The incident at ICE headquarters is a warning about where this clash is headed. When local political leaders telegraph that immigration laws do not matter, and activist groups treat federal facilities as targets, the boundary between civil demonstration and open confrontation erodes quickly. Whether Washington responds with restraint, reinforcement, or an overhaul of current policy will determine whether this is an isolated flashpoint—or the beginning of a national pattern as cities and federal authorities drift toward an open conflict over who truly controls America’s borders.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 Instead of reverence or hospitality, many are met with open hostility—spitting, shoving, threats, and police indifference that forces some to hide their crosses just to walk safely. 

Israel Tried to Hide This — And Christian Visitors Blew It Open.

And when even Israel’s most loyal media outlets quietly acknowledge it, you know this is not a random outburst but a symptom of something deeper: a society increasingly conditioned to treat outsiders as intruders and its own supremacy over holy spaces as unquestionable. 

What shocks visiting Christians is not simply the disrespect, but the way it is normalized—how harassment happens in plain sight, how authorities rarely intervene, and how the government shrugs off the very behavior that undermines its carefully curated narrative of pluralism. 

It’s the moment when a nation long shielded from criticism reveals what power without restraint looks like: a landlord policing a sacred city as if only one faith truly belongs there, and everyone else—pilgrims included—is merely tolerated until they become inconvenient.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.