Guest host Misty Winston discusses Burleson’s admission to helping craft pro-Israel messaging, connecting pastors to settler organizations, and leveraging biblical verses to frame U.S. foreign policy as divinely mandated. His account highlights how Israel weaponizes faith for geopolitical aims, while exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of both U.S. and Israeli leaders who exploit religion for power.

Whistleblower EXPOSES How Israel Brainwashes American Christians!

According to his account, Israel leans heavily on premillennial dispensationalist theology—the belief that modern Israel’s survival is tied to biblical prophecy—and channels it into political capital.

Rallies, church tours, curated trips to Israel, and partnerships with high-profile pastors like Mike Huckabee, Kenneth Copeland, and John Hagee serve to reinforce this narrative. Burleson suggests the goal is not just religious solidarity but a carefully engineered system where faith communities are mobilized into reliable political and financial allies, often without realizing how tightly their beliefs are being steered toward foreign policy ends.

Prophecy as Policy: How Israel Courts U.S. Evangelicals for Power and Profit

In a recent exposé, Brandt Burleson, former strategic outreach director for Israel’s U.S. consulate, revealed a system few Americans fully recognize: the way Israel deliberately cultivates evangelical Christians to lock in political and financial support. His account describes how theology, specifically premillennial dispensationalism—the belief that Israel’s modern statehood fulfills biblical prophecy—is not just preached from pulpits but weaponized as a foreign policy tool.

According to Burleson, Israeli officials have long understood that evangelicals represent one of the most loyal, mobilized voting blocs in the United States. To secure this base, they sponsor rallies, fund mass church events, organize propaganda-style tours of Israel, and strategically partner with influential pastors. Names like Mike Huckabee, Kenneth Copeland, and John Hagee are not just preachers in this narrative, but pipelines: their congregations are turned into political engines that reflexively support Israeli interests in Washington.

The strategy leans on more than scripture—it exploits emotion and identity. Evangelicals are presented with a story that defending Israel is defending God’s plan, making political loyalty feel like spiritual obedience. Burleson suggests this dynamic blurs the line between faith and lobbying, creating a situation where millions of Christians rally behind policies that may not serve U.S. interests, but do reinforce Israel’s leverage abroad.

Burleson’s claims also raise questions about transparency. Tours marketed as pilgrimages often double as propaganda trips, where carefully curated narratives obscure Palestinian realities and highlight only what reinforces the prophecy-driven political message. Financial contributions flow from churches into Israeli-aligned organizations, creating what he describes as a feedback loop: money strengthens political influence, which in turn reinforces the theological sales pitch back home.

This isn’t about individual belief—it’s about how a foreign state has learned to manipulate an existing religious framework to guarantee unwavering support. The result is a deeply entangled relationship where theology becomes policy, and pastors serve as unofficial lobbyists, often without their congregations fully grasping the geopolitical game at play.

Sources:

• Politico – Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy

• Haaretz – How Israel Courts Evangelical Leaders

• The Intercept – Faith, Lobbying, and Israel

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

EU delays new Russia sanctions indefinitely – Politico

The 19th package of restrictions has reportedly faced resistance from Hungary and Slovakia

Slovakia’s Robert Fico and Hungary’s leadership are being painted as obstacles to EU unity, but their resistance exposes a deeper reality: sanctions meant to cripple Russia often rebound hardest on the very nations imposing them.

Fico argues that factories, car plants, and heavy industry in his country are buckling under soaring energy prices, while Hungary has long warned that cutting Russian fuel supplies only makes Central Europe more dependent on costlier Western alternatives.

Both governments know that sanctions are not simply a matter of punishing Moscow—they reshape trade flows, raise electricity bills, and destabilize economies already on edge. To critics, this defiance looks like sympathy for Russia, but to others it looks like the only honest admission that EU elites push symbolic penalties while leaving ordinary Europeans to foot the bill.

EU delays new Russia sanctions indefinitely – Politico — RT World News

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

George Galloway - One of the most brave and truthful in the world.

George Galloway has built a reputation as one of the most outspoken and uncompromising political figures in the world. Admired by many for his blunt honesty, he has consistently challenged establishment narratives, often at great personal and professional cost.

Supporters see him as fearless—someone willing to say what others will not, whether on foreign policy, media bias, or government accountability. His willingness to confront power directly, without softening his words, is why many describe him as both brave and truthful, even when his positions spark controversy.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 internet is on fire right now after the shocking news of Charlie Kirk’s death. While some are posting tributes, the WHITE COMMUNITY is pulling out old RECEIPTS resurfacing his most controversial takes on gun violence, empathy, and Israel’s war in Gaza. From conservatives weeping, liberals dragging, centrists moralizing to memes multiplying by the second, the reactions are divided and explosive.

WHITE COMMUNITY Pulls Out RECEIPTS On CHARLIE KIRK? We Don’t Care TOO #FAFO Season

• What happened: Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10, 2025 during an event at Utah Valley University. Police say 22-year-old Tyler Robinson is in custody after a manhunt; motive is still being investigated. Utah officials have hinted at ideological factors but say it’s not fully clear yet. A public memorial is set for Sept. 21. 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, has sparked questions that go far beyond the official story. While authorities frame Tyler Robinson as a lone 22-year-old gunman with “unclear motives,” many are already noting how conveniently vague that sounds given Kirk’s high profile, his sharp opposition to government overreach, and his vocal stances on Israel and gun rights.

 Some point out the timing—coming just as campus protests and political tensions have been escalating—as too precise to dismiss as random. Others argue that labeling it as an “ideological factor” without detail keeps the door open for shaping public perception while concealing the deeper forces at play.

 With a memorial set for Sept. 21, critics say the narrative is already being managed, positioning Kirk as either martyr or cautionary tale depending on who benefits, while the real questions of orchestration, surveillance lapses, or political silencing remain largely ignored.

• Why “receipts” are flooding timelines: As tributes roll in, critics (across political lines) are resurfacing old clips and quotes—on guns, empathy, and Gaza—to frame his legacy in real time. That’s now standard in the post-obituary internet: archives and out-of-context edits recirculate within hours, shaping the narrative before any consensus forms. See op-eds cautioning against sanitizing or demonizing his record, and explainers tying the discourse to rising political violence. 

The flood of “receipts” after Charlie Kirk’s death isn’t just a spontaneous outpouring of opinions—it looks like a coordinated digital battleground where old clips and quotes are being weaponized to define his legacy before the dust settles. 

The speed at which archived footage on guns, Gaza, and empathy was resurfaced suggests networks were primed to push narratives instantly, raising the possibility that factions wanted to steer how the public remembers him rather than leave it to natural mourning. In today’s post-obituary culture, an algorithmically amplified “memory war” takes place within hours, where facts, edits, and even out-of-context soundbites can outweigh actual reporting. 

This creates a convenient environment for both state-linked and activist-driven campaigns to reframe a controversial figure’s death as either proof of their righteousness or a symbol of dangerous extremism, ensuring the chaos of divided reactions serves agendas larger than the man himself.

• Deepfakes add fuel: AI “messages from beyond” mimicking Kirk are already circulating, blurring lines between tribute, propaganda, and grift. Expect more manipulated audio/video as factions try to claim his legacy or mobilize supporters.

The sudden appearance of AI deepfakes “speaking” as Charlie Kirk from beyond the grave reveals how quickly technology is being used to hijack tragedy for power. 

These fabricated clips blur mourning with manipulation, allowing political actors, opportunists, and profiteers to exploit raw emotion while bypassing traditional fact-checking. Some of the videos already show Kirk endorsing causes he never touched or offering parting words designed to mobilize crowds, creating a manufactured ghost whose voice can be endlessly repurposed. 

The danger isn’t just in the deception—it’s in the ability to rewrite history in real time, to engineer consent by resurrecting the dead as mouthpieces for agendas. In this sense, Kirk’s digital afterlife may be more politically useful to certain factions than his living presence ever was, and that raises unsettling questions about who is really in control of the narrative now.

• Broader culture clash: Even non-U.S. music venues and creators are getting pulled into the fallout over on-stage comments about Kirk’s death—illustrating how quickly the fight spills across communities and borders. 

The ripple effects of Charlie Kirk’s death show how cultural fault lines cross borders faster than facts, with musicians and performers in completely different countries suddenly dragged into the debate over his legacy. Some entertainers have made flippant or provocative remarks on stage, sparking viral outrage that paints them as either truth-tellers or villains depending on the audience. 

This isn’t just about Kirk—it’s about how a single American political assassination becomes a global litmus test for free speech, morality, and loyalty, forcing artists, venues, and fans into polarized camps they never asked to join. 

What begins as commentary on one man’s death quickly morphs into a transnational struggle over who controls the narrative, turning concerts, comedy sets, and festivals into stages for proxy battles in America’s culture wars, showing just how interconnected and combustible the digital age has made political theater.

 Was Charlie Kirk was becoming aware of the truth behind Israel's Genocide against Gaza?

Days before his killing, Israeli officials publicly lauded Kirk as a “lion-hearted friend of Israel,” and widely shared clips show him rejecting the “genocide” label for Gaza and defending Israel’s campaign, which suggests no visible break with his long-standing stance. Until verifiable evidence surfaces (timestamps, originals, corroborating testimony), the claim that he was “waking up” functions more as a contested narrative than a documented turn—convenient for factions that either want to martyr him as a steadfast ally or recast him as a late convert silenced before he could speak. In other words: watch for receipts, not rumors—because right now the receipts we do have show consistent pro-Israel messaging up to the end. 

Then why did he refuse Israeli funding for Turning Point?

There are multiple media reports claiming that Charlie Kirk turned down an offer from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to fund Turning Point USA. Here’s what is known — and what remains unverified — so far:

Reports that Charlie Kirk turned down a major donation directly linked to Netanyahu paint a picture far different from the public image of him as a lockstep ally of Israel. 

If accurate, it suggests Kirk was beginning to recognize how financial pipelines are used not simply to “support” organizations but to control their message and direction. Rejecting such money—especially at a time when he was privately criticizing Israel’s outsized influence on U.S. politics and the Trump orbit—could indicate he saw the strings attached: the expectation of silence or obedience in return.

 To those who see his death as more than random violence, this timing looks less like coincidence and more like cause and effect, raising the unsettling possibility that his refusal to be bought placed him in direct conflict with forces far more powerful than campus protesters or lone extremists.

I will keep you all posted on further investigation. (links at bottom of article)

What is not yet established

• These reports are largely based on anonymous sources, and no publicly verifiable documents (e.g. contracts, emails, public statements) confirming the offer or the full context have been presented.

• It is unclear how formal or large the offer was—“huge donation” is cited, but no dollar amount is confirmed. 

• There’s no definitive evidence that the offer was made specifically in exchange for certain behaviors or broadcasting positions; rather, that is alleged in the reports. Possible coercion or “strings attached” is speculated.

What this might imply

If true, refusing the offer could reflect a shift (or beginning of a shift) in Kirk’s public stance: a desire to maintain ideological independence even from powerful allies, and to resist being co-opted for prestige or political influence. It might also explain some of the tension and whispering about where his views on Israel were moving.

However, without stronger confirmation, this remains in the territory of plausible but not proven.

Latest reporting on the Kirk shooting & reaction

https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-netanyahu/?utm

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/09/13/754928/Charlie-Kirk-feared-pro-Israeli-forces-before-his-death-Report-?utm

https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-netanyahu/?utm

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/11/israeli-leaders-heap-praise-on-charlie-kirk-as-a-staunch-ally-of-israel?utm

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/09/13/754928/Charlie-Kirk-feared-pro-Israeli-forces-before-his-death-Report-?utm

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Barnes v. Felix case, why the Court struck down the “moment of threat” rule, and how this changes self-defense cases, concealed carry laws, and police encounters forever.

• Fourth Amendment — Barnes v. Felix (May 15, 2025): The Court unanimously rejected the “moment-of-the-threat” test in police-force cases and said courts must assess the totality of circumstances (including officers’ conduct leading up to a shooting) when judging reasonableness. That refines Fourth-Amendment excessive-force doctrine; it doesn’t rewrite the Amendment’s text. 

Example: Officers chase a teen for a busted taillight into a dim alley. Without waiting for backup or announcing themselves, they rush in with guns drawn, corner him, and shout conflicting commands. The teen, panicking, reaches toward his waistband to pull out a phone; an officer fires.

Under the old “moment-of-the-threat” view: the court would look almost only at that split second—hand to waistband—and might deem the shot reasonable.

• Under Barnes v. Felix: the court weighs the totality—the minor offense, failure to identify, rushing in without lights/backup, creating the close-quarters panic—and could find the force unreasonable because the officers’ earlier choices helped manufacture the danger.

Two officers spot a driver with a broken taillight and, without lights or siren, sprint after him into a narrow apartment hallway. They don’t identify themselves or wait for backup, shout conflicting commands, and crowd him against a door. Panicking, the driver fumbles for his phone; an officer fires. Under Barnes v. Felix, a court would weigh the minor offense, the failure to announce, and the officers’ rushed tactics that created the close-quarters panic—and could deem the shooting unreasonable because the officers helped manufacture the danger.

• Second Amendment (industry-adjacent) — Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (June 5, 2025): The Court unanimously held that the PLCAA shields U.S. gun makers from Mexico’s lawsuit because the complaint didn’t plausibly allege aiding-and-abetting illegal sales. That’s a statutory immunity decision; it didn’t change core 2A rights like Heller/Bruen. 

Example: A government sues “Acme Arms,” saying cartel shootings use lots of Acme pistols. The complaint lists recovery stats but no concrete facts that Acme knowingly helped illegal sales—no ATF warnings about a specific dealer Acme ignored, no emails urging straw purchases, no shipments after clear red flags. The Court says PLCAA immunity applies and the case is dismissed. (If the complaint had alleged, for example, “Acme told Dealer X to keep selling to Straw Buyer Y despite ATF warnings,” it might fit an exception—but absent that, PLCAA blocks the suit. Core 2A doctrine doesn’t change.)

Bottom line: Fourth-Amendment use-of-force law tightened up for police (broader evidence considered), while Second-Amendment doctrine itself didn’t shift—the S&W case was about liability under PLCAA. The primary 2A framework still comes from Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. 

More on the unanimous Smith & Wesson ruling

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

This space traveler surprised everyone as nobody saw this coming!

SURPRISE object sneaks out from behind sun! Headed towards EARTH - YouTube

Science often gets portrayed as if it has everything figured out, but in reality, the best scientists know they’re always standing at the edge of the unknown. Space especially keeps humbling us.

For example, we only understand a small fraction of the universe: about 5% is ordinary matter (stars, planets, you, me). The rest—dark matter and dark energy—isn’t fully understood, only inferred from effects on galaxies and expansion. Even things we thought we understood, like black holes, keep surprising us with discoveries about their jets, spin, or the way they bend spacetime.

There’s also the problem of distance. Telescopes like James Webb can peer billions of light years away, but that means we’re looking into the past. We still don’t know how the first galaxies formed so quickly after the Big Bang, or if our theories about cosmic inflation even hold.

In truth, the more powerful our instruments become, the stranger the universe looks. Science is learning, but it often wraps that uncertainty in technical language that makes it sound more confident than it is. The real story is: every discovery opens more questions, not fewer.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Thugs in Chicago say they have switches in case Trump is trying to send the National Guard to city

What we are witnessing is not just reckless bravado but the inevitable consequence of a system that has shielded lawlessness under the guise of tolerance and reform.

When crime is minimized or excused, offenders begin to see themselves not as outlaws but as untouchable actors in a broken order, emboldened to the point of thinking they can challenge the very foundations of national power.

 The protests in favor of such behavior reveal a dangerous inversion of values, where criminals are treated as martyrs and the victims of their violence are forgotten. This distortion doesn’t happen overnight—it builds from years of eroding accountability, weakening institutions, and leaders too afraid or too compromised to enforce consequences. 

The result is a delusion so deep that gang members believe they can square off against the American military, a fantasy born out of unchecked power at the street level and silence at the top.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas sent a memo to school superintendents warning that any teacher who publicly celebrates or makes “despicable” comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk could face discipline. 

Florida teachers warned after Charlie Kirk assassination

Florida’s move to discipline teachers who openly cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk reflects more than just a question of professionalism; it highlights how the state is drawing battle lines in the culture war that bleeds into classrooms.

The memo from Commissioner Kamoutsas signals that teachers are not just educators but public representatives whose speech—especially online—can be scrutinized for political undertones. Supporters argue that celebrating a killing crosses any boundary of decency, but critics warn that this kind of enforcement risks expanding into a form of ideological policing where unpopular political expressions could be reclassified as “sanctionable behavior.”

With Governor DeSantis backing the measure, Florida is positioning itself as a state willing to blur the line between public morality and professional conduct, raising the stakes in a climate where careers and free speech increasingly collide in real time.

While the memo frames the restrictions as protecting student trust, the deeper concern lies in how elastic the standard of “seriously reducing effectiveness” can become when applied to teachers’ private speech. What begins as discipline for celebrating a controversial death could expand into punishing any online commentary that offends prevailing political authority, effectively turning professional codes into tools of ideological conformity.

Florida law gives the Commissioner broad discretion to revoke or suspend licenses, which critics argue creates a chilling effect where educators may self-censor even harmless or dissenting opinions for fear of retaliation. This tension between constitutional freedoms and professional oversight exposes how easily the legal justification of “maintaining public trust” can be weaponized in polarized times, blurring the boundary between safeguarding conduct and controlling thought.

Areas of Controversy or Concern

Teacher unions warning about due process are pointing to the slippery slope of allowing outrage and political momentum to define what counts as “vile” or punishable. If public pressure becomes the standard, then subjective morality—shaped by whichever group is loudest at the moment—could replace objective rules of conduct.

The danger is that teachers may be disciplined not because their actions genuinely harmed students or violated laws, but because their speech clashed with the dominant narrative. This ambiguity leaves educators vulnerable to selective enforcement, where one comment is ignored while another is career-ending depending on the political winds.

In such a system, fairness gives way to fear, and the classroom risks becoming another battleground for cultural control rather than a place for open thought.

Related news on Florida teachers and Kirk issue

On The View, the co-hosts responded to Charlie Kirk’s killing with shock and reflection rather than immediate political attack. 

Whoopi Goldberg began by calling the event “beyond devastating,” sharing condolences with his family and stressing that the ability to speak freely without fear is a foundational American value. Co-host Sunny Hostin went further, calling the shooting “antithetical to who we are as Americans” and reminding viewers that the First Amendment exists so people can express opinions—even those others disagree with—without this kind of violence. 

Alyssa Farah Griffin, a member of the panel from a conservative viewpoint, lamented that Kirk’s death could chill speech among young conservatives who felt politically isolated on college campuses. Joy Behar drew parallels with historical political violence, invoking moments like the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy, to underline that when public discourse is replaced with attempts on life, something fundamental is lost.

Related News

George Abaraonye, who was elected President-Elect of the Oxford Union debate society, is reported to have made celebratory comments about Charlie Kirk’s shooting shortly after it was announced.

The messages appeared in a WhatsApp group chat, where he allegedly wrote: “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f**ing go.”* On Instagram, he also reportedly posted “Charlie Kirk got shot loool.”

The Oxford Union (current leadership) condemned those remarks, clarifying that his views do not represent the institution’s official position and emphasizing a commitment to free speech and nonviolence. 

Abaraonye issued an apology, saying the comments were impulsive and not reflective of his values.

It’s not fully verified whether the messages were literally intended as celebration (versus shocking or hyperbolic expression). The context in which he posted them—such as group setting, emotional response, or sarcastic tone—is not completely clear. 

There is no evidence so far of disciplinary action being taken beyond the institutional condemnation. The Union has said the comments did not violate its free speech policies.

Reference Links

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/sep/11/oxford-union-condemns-president-elects-reported-comments-on-charlie-kirk-shooting

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-union-president-charlie-kirk-q5brs7jkl

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2025/09/11/union-president-elect-issues-statement-on-his-reaction-to-charlie-kirks-death/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/oxford-union-condemns-incoming-leader-celebrating-charlie-kirks-assassination

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charlie-kirk-shooting-death-oxford-union-president-b2824983.html

Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Authorities Announce Arrest Of Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect

BREAKING NEWS: Authorities Announce Arrest Of Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Charlie Kirk - YouTube

Law enforcement officials have taken Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident, into custody in connection with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Robinson allegedly confessed or admitted involvement to a family member, who then passed that information to a friend, who alerted the authorities.

Evidence presented includes surveillance video, digital messages (including on Discord) about retrieving and disposing of a rifle, and forensic details. A bolt-action rifle was found, and shell casings bearing inscriptions like “Hey fascist! Catch!” and “Bella Ciao” were recovered. Robinson is being held without bail, and he faces serious charges: aggravated murder (potentially capital), obstruction of justice, and illegal weapon possession. 

Officials emphasized how quickly the arrest was made: roughly 33 hours after the shooting. They thanked the public for tips and urged continued assistance. The precise motive remains under investigation. While Robinson’s political views and prior hostility toward Kirk have been reported, how those views translated into action is not fully established.  Some details of the confession are based on statements to family or friends rather than direct statements or recorded in formal legal documents, meaning some parts may be second-hand or preliminary. 

It’s not confirmed whether Robinson acted entirely alone, though the current belief among investigators is that he was the lone perpetrator.  The inscriptions on the shell casings carry political or ideological language, but their significance—whether literal, symbolic, misdirection, or exaggeration—has not been fully explained. 

Here are the direct link references from the Utah and FBI press briefing coverage and related reporting:

• AP News live updates on Charlie Kirk shooting and investigation:
  https://apnews.com/article/ecd68c3a3cc5255ad6c0e29723406473?utm

• Reuters – Utah man suspected in Charlie Kirk murder taken into custody:
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/utah-man-suspected-charlie-kirk-murder-taken-into-custody-2025-09-12/?utm

• Reuters – Trump says suspect in custody for Charlie Kirk assassination:
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-suspect-charlie-kirk-murder-custody-2025-09-12/?utm

• ABC News – Tyler Robinson identified as suspect in Charlie Kirk shooting:
  https://abcnews.go.com/US/tyler-robinson-charlie-kirk-suspect-shooter-utah/story?id=125474359&utm

• People – Charlie Kirk shooting suspect identified as Tyler Robinson:
  https://people.com/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-identified-tyler-robinson-11808756?utm

• Washington Post – Charlie Kirk shooting manhunt and suspect search:
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-shooting-person-interest-manhunt-utah/?utm

• New York Post – Trump: ‘We have him’ in custody for Charlie Kirk assassination:
  https://nypost.com/2025/09/12/us-news/we-have-him-trump-says-suspect-in-custody-for-charlie-kirk-assassination/?utm

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

“It was a post of a male teacher who is saying that the killing is justifiable,” said Molly Magnuson, a Barrington parent. “No remorse, no nothing, it was basically that he got what was coming for him.”

The school committee is not releasing the name of the teacher involved in the incident.

The school committee will discuss who the independent investigator will be on Monday.

https://turnto10.com/news/local/barrington-public-schools-teacher-placed-on-leave-amid-social-media-allegations-rhode-island-students-september-11-2025 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Multiple outlets now name him as the 22-year-old suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, yet the speed with which authorities linked him to the FBI’s surveillance images suggests either remarkable efficiency or that Robinson was already known to investigators.

🚨Charlie Kirk's Killer CAUGHT: FBI Press Conference LIVE Right NOW | Trump Demands DEATH PENALTY

The claim that his own father, a longtime law enforcement veteran, turned him in adds another twist—raising speculation about how much was confession, how much was family duty, and how much was pressure from authorities eager to close the case quickly. 

Meanwhile, evidence being reported—like a high-powered bolt-action rifle found in a wooded area and prints taken from a rooftop—carries the unmistakable signs of a planned sniper operation rather than a spontaneous act.

Whether Robinson acted alone, was aided, or was guided by influences not yet disclosed, the pieces point to a killing that bears the marks of intention and precision, not coincidence.
What Is Still Unverified or Disputed -- While multiple reports name Tyler Robinson as the suspect, official law enforcement confirmation of his identity has not yet been made public. Some statements are based on anonymous sources. 

The role of the father admitting his son, as alleged, is not confirmed in all reports. Some details—such as the father contacting authorities, or involvement of a “minister connected to law enforcement”—are reported by certain outlets but not yet verified in public legal documents. 

Other specifics—such as exact location of the rifle, timing of admission, and whether Robinson confessed formally—remain under investigation and have not been fully corroborated. 
The expected press conference from law enforcement, including updates from FBI Director Kash Patel and Utah state officials, which might confirm or clarify the identity of the suspect and how custody was obtained. 

Release of official court filings or charges against Tyler Robinson—these will give clarity about what exactly law enforcement believes he did, and what evidence they have.

More public evidence: images, video, forensic reports. These will help confirm whether the suspect matches descriptions released earlier, and whether the role of the father or any intermediary is accurate.
Any statements from Robinson or his legal counsel that either confirm or contest the allegations that have been made.

President Donald Trump announced Friday morning that law enforcement has a suspect in custody in the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Speaking on Fox and Friends, Trump said with “a high degree of certainty” that the person responsible had been located and turned in by someone close to him.

Trump emphasized that his comments were based on information he had just received and could be corrected as more details emerge. He explained that a minister “involved with law enforcement” recognized the suspect from images released by the FBI and helped bring the information forward. According to Trump, this development effectively ended a two-day nationwide search for Kirk’s killer.

Law enforcement, however, has not immediately confirmed the arrest. The FBI and local authorities continue to withhold official statements while the investigation unfolds. Kash Patel, who now serves as FBI Director, is scheduled to hold a press conference at 9 a.m. to provide updates. Until then, it remains unclear whether a formal arrest has been made or whether the suspect is simply being questioned.

The case has drawn enormous national attention after Kirk, a well-known figure in conservative youth politics, was shot and killed during a campus event at Utah Valley University on September 10. The FBI had released surveillance footage and still images of a person of interest, urging the public to assist in identifying them. A high-powered rifle was also recovered in a wooded area near the scene.

If Trump’s statement proves accurate, the arrest will mark a major development in a case that has already shaken political discourse across the United States. The murder of Charlie Kirk has been condemned across party lines, with some leaders calling it a “political assassination” and warning that the climate of hostility around speech and activism has reached a dangerous level.

The FBI’s press conference is expected to provide clarification on the suspect’s identity, the circumstances of the arrest, and potential charges. Until then, questions remain about the motive behind the shooting and whether others may have been involved.

Reference Links

https://apnews.com/article/ecd68c3a3cc5255ad6c0e29723406473?utm

https://nypost.com/2025/09/12/us-news/we-have-him-trump-says-suspect-in-custody-for-charlie-kirk-assassination/?utm

https://people.com/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-identified-tyler-robinson-11808756?utm

https://apnews.com/article/ecd68c3a3cc5255ad6c0e29723406473?utm

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 FBI is seeking a ‘person of interest’ in the shooting death of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Investigators revealed they have recovered the weapon used in the crime.

It's exactly what we thought...

Violence is not the tool of those winning the debate; it is the weapon of those who feel they are losing. What is most disturbing is that some voices now seem comfortable excusing or even celebrating this tragedy.

Our nation gave Martin Luther King Jr. a holiday to honor his message of peace and justice. Many believe Charlie Kirk also gave young Americans hope and clarity in a confusing time, and his loss will be felt for years. America will not be the same after this moment.

Charlie embodied democracy. He debated anyone willing, he welcomed discussion, and he treated people with respect even when they disagreed. His assassination is not only an attack on one man—it is an attack on open dialogue itself. When false accusations and insults are not enough, and violence is used to silence a voice, that is when democracy is most at risk.

The FBI is seeking a ‘person of interest’ in the shooting death of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Investigators revealed they have recovered the weapon used in the crime.

Urgent manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer - YouTube

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 moment of silence led by Speaker Mike Johnson for Charlie Kirk was meant to be a solemn tribute, but instead it exposed the raw tensions running through Congress. 

Charlie Kirk Moment of Silence on House Floor Turns Into Shouting Match | WSJ News

Even before the official confirmation of Kirk’s death had fully circulated, lawmakers erupted into a shouting match, reflecting how deeply polarized the chamber has become. To some, the interruption suggested that even honoring a slain activist could not escape partisan divisions, while others interpreted it as a sign that certain members questioned whether Kirk’s political influence warranted such recognition. The clash underscored a troubling reality: in an era where unity is fleeting, even the death of a prominent public figure becomes a battlefield for symbolic control, with silence itself contested as a political act.

Silence Shattered: Congress Divides Over Charlie Kirk Tribute

Even before the official confirmation of Charlie Kirk’s death had fully reached the public, the House of Representatives found itself in turmoil. Speaker Mike Johnson called for a moment of silence on the chamber floor, but instead of unity, the solemn gesture broke down into shouting across party lines. The exchange revealed just how fragile congressional decorum has become, and how quickly symbolic acts can ignite political tensions.

For some lawmakers, the interruption reflected the reality that honoring Kirk—founder of Turning Point USA and a lightning rod for both support and criticism—was never going to be free of political weight. They argued that silence for Kirk carried implicit recognition of his movement, which has energized conservative youth across the country. Others saw the outburst as an indictment of the current climate, where even a symbolic pause to recognize the loss of life becomes entangled with partisan divides.

The clash highlights a troubling truth: Congress no longer possesses the ability to separate human tragedy from political calculation. Where moments of silence once offered a rare chance for unity, they now serve as another stage for disagreement. This breakdown reveals more than just hostility between parties—it underscores how contested symbols have become in American life, where even silence is interpreted as taking a side.

As the investigation into Kirk’s assassination continues, the incident inside the House chamber demonstrates how quickly public grief can transform into political theater. The shouting match was not only about Kirk but about the struggle over narrative control in Washington—who gets honored, who is remembered, and whose legacy is acknowledged. In today’s Congress, even paying respects cannot escape the weight of division.

References

• AP News – Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah event

• Reuters – Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk fatally shot at Utah Valley University event

• The Guardian – Lawmakers clash after Charlie Kirk tribute in House chamber

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger react to reports of Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, with speculation about a rooftop sniper and questions over whether this was a political hit. Utah Governor Spencer Cox called it a “political assassination,” while President Donald Trump issued condolences and MSNBC drew backlash for suggesting the shooting might be exploited politically.

Sniper Spotted On Video At Charlie Kirk Tragedy!

The footage showing a figure positioned at a distance reinforces the theory that Kirk’s killing was meant to send a message, raising questions about who had the means and motive to carry out such a strike in broad daylight on a university campus. For many, the idea of a sniper targeting a political figure on American soil forces a reckoning with the possibility that political violence may now involve tactics once thought limited to war zones.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

This case taps into a larger tension between public safety, property rights, and privacy. Some see Hamilton’s move as a pushback against intrusive surveillance; others see it as overreach that penalizes citizens trying to protect their homes. As it unfolds, it may set precedent—not just locally but for how other cities balance citizen safety with privacy norms.

City of Hamilton orders resident to take down 10 security cameras from his home

These cameras, he says, have helped document break-ins in his neighborhood and even been used by police and media in local investigations. The order comes under Hamilton’s “fortification by-law,” which limits how far a camera can see or listen beyond the boundary of the property it’s placed on. The city claims that having cameras point too far into public or neighboring spaces could violate people’s privacy rights.

Supporters of Myles argue that the cameras serve as a tool for neighborhood safety and crime deterrence. They say removing them could hamper citizens’ ability to help law enforcement by providing footage. On the other side, privacy advocates—including Ontario’s former Privacy Commissioner—argue that individuals walking or driving past someone’s home have a reasonable expectation that they won’t be recorded or listened to without their knowledge, especially if a camera or microphone captures more than the owner’s own property. 

It’s not clear yet how strictly the by-law will be enforced in every case, or what penalties a homeowner like Myles might face if he doesn’t comply. To date, Myles says he has appealed the order. The ambiguity lies in how ‘viewing or listening beyond one’s property line’ will be interpreted in different settings—front yard, driveway, sidewalk, street view, etc. That interpretation could affect many people who use doorbell cameras, Ring-type systems, or exterior security cameras facing slightly beyond their front yard.

This case taps into a larger tension between public safety, property rights, and privacy. Some see Hamilton’s move as a pushback against intrusive surveillance; others see it as overreach that penalizes citizens trying to protect their homes. As it unfolds, it may set precedent—not just locally but for how other cities balance citizen safety with privacy norms.

America needs to keep a close eye on Hamilton’s case because the same questions of surveillance, privacy, and self-defense are already simmering here. 

Millions of U.S. households use doorbell systems like Ring or Nest, along with traditional security cameras, many of which inevitably capture sidewalks, driveways, and even parts of the street.

If a city in Canada can order residents to remove cameras for “looking beyond the property line,” it raises the possibility that similar restrictions could emerge in American cities, especially as debates about privacy rights expand. 

While some argue such measures prevent communities from turning into constant surveillance zones, others see them as a direct challenge to property rights and neighborhood safety, effectively disarming citizens who rely on footage to deter crime or assist police investigations. 

If Hamilton’s decision sets a precedent, it may influence lawmakers, activists, and courts in the U.S., forcing Americans to confront whether individual security will be subordinated to broad interpretations of privacy laws.

Reference -- City of Hamilton orders resident to take down 10 security cameras from his home

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a known figure in conservative youth politics, was fatally shot on the campus of Utah Valley University during a speaking event on September 10, 2025. The incident occurred around midday as the first stop of his "American Comeback Tour," and triggered widespread alarm and grief. A person of interest has been taken into custody, though authorities say it remains unclear whether that individual is the actual shooter. Federal agencies including the FBI and ATF were reported to be actively involved in the ongoing investigation.

As a central figure in conservative youth organizing, Kirk had long been a polarizing presence, and his high-profile “American Comeback Tour” made him an even more visible target.

The fact that a shot was fired from such a distance, striking him in the neck with lethal precision, has fueled speculation about premeditation and professional planning rather than a random act. Authorities’ decision to involve federal agencies like the FBI and ATF so quickly reflects the seriousness with which they view the incident, but it also signals deeper concern that the killing could be tied to organized efforts rather than a lone individual. For many, Kirk’s death feels less like an isolated crime and more like a chilling sign of how political speech and activism in America may now carry risks once associated only with volatile regions overseas.

TYT Reacts: Charlie Kirk Fatally Shot at Utah Valley University

Eyewitness accounts describe a sudden burst of panic as the shooter, positioned approximately 200 yards away—possibly on a rooftop—fired a single shot that struck Kirk in the neck. A video clip has surfaced showing the moment of impact, followed by people scrambling to escape. First responders and law enforcement arrived swiftly, and the crowd was evacuated from the scene.

The precision of the shot that killed Charlie Kirk has become a central focus, with many noting that hitting a target from 200 yards away—possibly from an elevated rooftop—suggests more than chance, pointing instead to training, planning, or even coordination. Eyewitness reports of chaos and fear only highlight how vulnerable the event truly was, as hundreds of attendees were left exposed with little visible security in place to counter such a threat. The rapid spread of the video showing the exact moment of impact has intensified public suspicion, as it not only documents the panic but also raises questions about how easily such footage surfaced so quickly, almost as if the event was expected to be recorded in that detail. While officials have praised the swift response of first responders, the broader concern lingers: how could a major political figure, at a public university, be left open to a sniper-like attack in broad daylight without more effective protection?

I'm devastated.

Reaction to the shooting spanned the political spectrum. Utah’s governor called it a “political assassination,” while President Trump ordered flags flown at half-staff in Kirk's honor. Leaders from both major parties condemned the act of violence, with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate and House members, and others emphasizing the need to reject political violence.

The official reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death reveal not only a moment of shared mourning but also a glimpse into how the political class frames such events for broader meaning. Utah’s governor calling it a “political assassination” pushes the conversation into territory that implies motive and design rather than random violence, while President Trump’s order to lower flags at half-staff elevates Kirk’s killing to the level of national tragedy. Bipartisan condemnations from leaders like Hakeem Jeffries and others strike a rare note of unity, yet underneath those words lies the recognition that political violence is no longer an abstract fear but a reality intruding into American public life. For some, this unified front feels necessary to calm the nation; for others, it raises questions about whether leaders are being fully transparent about what they already suspect regarding who orchestrated or enabled the attack.

Something is OFF......

Kirk, 31, was known for rallying conservative youth. Turning Point USA was a major force in mobilizing young voters during the 2020 and 2024 elections. He also hosted a widely listened-to podcast and had expanded his media presence through broadcasts and social media. He is survived by his wife, Erika Frantzve, and their two young children.

Charlie Kirk’s role as a mobilizer of conservative youth makes his assassination carry a weight beyond personal tragedy, striking at the heart of a movement that had been steadily growing in influence. Through Turning Point USA, his podcast, and a powerful online presence, Kirk had become a symbolic figurehead for a generation of young conservatives who felt alienated from mainstream institutions. His ability to turn campus activism into national momentum made him both a rallying point and a target, as his reach extended beyond politics into shaping culture. The fact that he leaves behind a wife and two young children underscores the human cost of this act, but for many, it also magnifies the sense that silencing him was intended not only to take a life but to fracture a network of influence that challenged entrenched political narratives.

There's something odd about Charlie Kirk's shooter



References

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dead after being shot at Utah university event | AP News

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk shot dead in 'political assassination' | Reuters

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dead after being shot at Utah university event | AP News

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

By demanding nearly $800 million in damages, Newsom is not only challenging the accuracy of Fox’s reporting but also signaling to voters that he is willing to confront one of the most influential conservative platforms head-on. Fox’s counter-response, leaning on First Amendment protections and anti-SLAPP statutes, frames the case as an attack on free expression, raising the stakes for how far public officials can go in policing what they consider misinformation. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News carries weight far beyond a personal clash—it touches on the deeper struggle over who controls narratives in American politics and media. By demanding nearly $800 million in damages, Newsom is not only challenging the accuracy of Fox’s reporting but also signaling to voters that he is willing to confront one of the most influential conservative platforms head-on.

Fox’s counter-response, leaning on First Amendment protections and anti-SLAPP statutes, frames the case as an attack on free expression, raising the stakes for how far public officials can go in policing what they consider misinformation. The battle reflects a broader question: are politicians using lawsuits as tools to shape public perception and silence critics, or are media outlets hiding behind free speech to avoid accountability? In this sense, the courtroom becomes more than a legal arena—it becomes a stage where the boundaries between truth, politics, and power are being redrawn.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom launched his $787 million defamation suit against Fox News, the number itself sent a message as much as the lawsuit—it was no coincidence that it matched the massive settlement Fox paid to Dominion Voting Systems just two years earlier. By tying his claim to that precedent, Newsom aimed to highlight what he sees as a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation by the network, framing himself as the latest target in a broader culture of distortion. His accusation that “Jesse Watters Tonight” selectively edited his comments to make him appear dishonest goes beyond a dispute over words; it reflects the growing belief that media outlets can craft narratives powerful enough to damage reputations and sway political momentum. At the same time, critics argue that Newsom’s move is less about justice and more about political theater, using litigation as a way to elevate his profile for a possible 2028 run. This tension leaves the case hanging in the balance between accountability and ambition, forcing observers to question whether the courtroom is being used to protect truth—or to score political points.

Fox News’ swift attempt to dismiss Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit reveals just how high the stakes are—not only for the governor’s political ambitions but also for the broader battle over the limits of free speech. By labeling the case a “political stunt,” Fox signaled its belief that Newsom is leveraging the courts to amplify his national profile ahead of a potential 2028 presidential campaign, rather than genuinely seeking redress. Their reliance on California’s anti-SLAPP statute underscores a deeper concern: that powerful figures could use litigation to intimidate media outlets into silence, effectively chilling political commentary. At the same time, their insistence that Jesse Watters’ statements were opinion highlights the thin line between commentary and defamation in modern media. If Fox succeeds, it reinforces the idea that public officials must weather harsh, even misleading critiques as the price of political life; if it fails, it could open new pathways for politicians to challenge news coverage in ways that reshape how Americans consume information.

Newsom’s refusal to withdraw the lawsuit, even after Jesse Watters issued a limited apology, highlights the deeper stakes behind the courtroom battle—this isn’t just about clarifying a single televised comment, but about defining the boundaries of political power and media influence. By rejecting Watters’ phrasing that he was “confusing and unclear,” Newsom signaled that he is not satisfied with half-measures; he wants Fox to publicly acknowledge wrongdoing in a way that reshapes the narrative around him. Legal analysts see the standoff as more than a personal grievance—it raises the larger question of whether politicians can force networks to accept responsibility for shaping public perception, or whether doing so risks eroding the long-held principle that political commentary, even if harsh or inaccurate, is part of democratic discourse. In this light, the lawsuit becomes less about winning damages and more about testing how much leverage a powerful governor can exert against one of the most influential media platforms in the country.

This case enters a growing list of high-profile clashes where politicians challenge the power of major media outlets, exposing the fragile balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding free expression. Each dispute underscores how truth in political discourse has become less about objective fact and more about who controls the narrative, with lawsuits now serving as weapons in the battle for public opinion. For Newsom, pressing forward against Fox risks being seen as an attempt to curb criticism, while for Fox, framing the case as a free speech issue allows them to cast themselves as defenders of the First Amendment. The outcome will not only determine whether a governor can hold a news network accountable for alleged distortion but will also set a precedent for how aggressively public officials may wield the courts in shaping media coverage of their political careers.

References

1. AP News – Newsom files defamation suit

2. Reuters – Newsom seeks $787 million

3. ABC News – Fox moves to dismiss lawsuit

4. TheDesk.net – Fox cites anti-SLAPP protections

5. The Guardian – Watters’ apology and Newsom’s response

Related news

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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

Witnesses and surveillance video reveal that the suspect, 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr., launched a sudden knife assault on Zarutska while on the train. Authorities described the attack as unprovoked and brutal. Brown had a long criminal history, including more than a dozen arrests, and a documented struggle with mental illness. Despite his background, he was free at the time of the killing.

  The attack took place on August 22, 2025, and has shaken both the local community and the international audience watching from abroad. Zarutska had fled Ukraine to escape war, only to face a violent death in what was supposed to be a place of safety.

VIDEO: “I Got That White Girl!” CNN’s Desperate Attempt To Cover Up The Brutal Racially-Motivated Murder Of Iryna Zarutska By Claiming It’s Racist To Talk About It Has Totally Imploded

Iryna Zarutska’s killing has come to represent far more than a single act of violence. The 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee fled the destruction of war in her homeland, seeking safety in a country long viewed as a refuge for the oppressed. Instead, she lost her life in a daylight attack aboard a Charlotte light rail train. The suspect, a repeat offender with a lengthy arrest record and untreated mental illness, was free despite a history that signaled potential danger. His ability to remain at large highlights recurring failures in the nation’s systems of law enforcement, mental health treatment, and public security. The case has left many questioning whether America can still claim the role of protector when it struggles to safeguard both its own citizens and those who arrive in search of shelter. Zarutska’s death now stands as a stark reminder of the gap between America’s global image as a defender of human dignity and the unresolved crises eroding safety within its own borders.

Witnesses and surveillance video reveal that the suspect, 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr., launched a sudden knife assault on Zarutska while on the train. Authorities described the attack as unprovoked and brutal. Brown had a long criminal history, including more than a dozen arrests, and a documented struggle with mental illness. Despite his background, he was free at the time of the killing.

The brutal attack on Iryna Zarutska has raised urgent questions about how someone like Decarlos Brown Jr.—a man with more than a dozen arrests and a documented history of mental instability—was still free to carry out such violence in plain sight. Witnesses and surveillance footage captured a sudden, savage assault, yet the deeper concern lies in the system that allowed him to walk among the public despite clear warning signs. His long trail of arrests suggests repeated encounters with law enforcement that failed to result in lasting accountability, while his untreated mental health issues reveal a collapsing safety net meant to prevent exactly this kind of tragedy. To many, the incident feels less like an isolated act of brutality and more like the predictable outcome of a society that turns a blind eye to repeat offenders, excuses institutional breakdowns, and leaves ordinary people vulnerable on the very streets and trains they are told are safe.

Legal Consequences -- The legal proceedings against Decarlos Brown Jr. reveal more than the pursuit of justice for a single act of violence—they expose how the state and federal systems often move decisively only after tragedy strikes. North Carolina has charged him with first-degree murder, while the federal government has added charges tied to violence on a public transit system, opening the door to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Officials frame these actions as a demonstration of the gravity of the crime, yet critics see a troubling pattern: an individual with a long criminal record and untreated mental illness was allowed to circulate unchecked until a young woman’s life was taken. The weight of federal prosecution now underscores the seriousness of the offense, but it also highlights a contradiction—why does the system wait until blood is spilled on camera before treating a known danger with the full measure of the law? This reactive approach, rather than preventative action, suggests a justice system more concerned with spectacle and damage control than with protecting the public in the first place.

 Zarutska’s family has turned their grief into a stark indictment of the institutions that promised safety but delivered failure. They emphasize that she fled Ukraine’s war believing America offered order, stability, and opportunity, only to fall victim to a man whose long record of arrests and untreated mental illness should have raised every alarm. Their plea to U.S. and international leaders is not just about one case—it is a demand to confront the deeper flaws in how dangerous offenders are managed, how mental health crises are ignored, and how public spaces meant for daily life can become scenes of terror. In their eyes, this is not simply a personal tragedy but a symptom of a broader system unwilling to act until disaster strikes, leaving families to pick up the pieces while promises of security ring hollow.

The murder of Iryna Zarutska has intensified debate over how America handles repeat offenders and those with serious mental health issues, raising doubts about whether public safety is truly being prioritized. Many ask why Decarlos Brown Jr., with more than a dozen arrests and documented instability, was not under stricter supervision, pointing to a system that often cycles offenders through without meaningful intervention. At the same time, the tragedy underscores the vulnerability of refugees like Zarutska, who arrive with faith in America’s stability only to encounter dangers they thought they had left behind. To some, her death symbolizes a breakdown of public trust: if the state cannot contain known threats or secure something as ordinary as a city train ride, what message does that send to citizens and newcomers alike about the promises of safety and protection?

Sources and Links

• AP News – Man faces federal charge in killing of Ukrainian woman on Charlotte train

• New York Post – Iryna Zarutska’s family speaks out after Ukrainian refugee was slaughtered on train

• Wall Street Journal – Suspect in North Carolina stabbing charged with federal crime

• People – Charlotte train stabbing suspect faces federal charges

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 widely reported deal that will hand control of Paramount and its myriad properties — including CBS News — is less about business and more about cementing pro-Israel control over news content in the United States. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss how with staunch Zionist Bari Weiss positioned to influence editorial direction, CBS’s independence is finished — any critical coverage of Israel will be killed before it airs.

 Israel TOADY Bari Weiss Paid $200 Million To Run CBS News!

Weiss, long criticized for her unwavering defense of Israel and her ability to frame narratives favorable to its agenda, represents the type of figure who could rebrand a major outlet under the guise of “independent journalism” while ensuring coverage remains aligned with establishment talking points. 

The staggering figure itself suggests not mere employment but a strategic investment—buying influence over one of America’s most trusted networks. If true, it would mean CBS is less a news organization and more an asset in the global information war, where billions are spent not on bombs or troops, but on controlling how people perceive allies, enemies, and world events.

 In this sense, the story is less about one journalist and more about the way media becomes a battlefield for shaping public loyalty without the audience realizing the strings being pulled.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Tucker Carlson’s defiance in saying “Calling me names is not gonna stop me” underscores his position as one of the few media figures openly challenging political taboos around Trump, Israel, and even 9/11. That dividing line explains a lot about MAGA’s division on everything from the Epstein Files to US support for Israel’s war - and the decision to bomb Iran. And this week marks 24 years since 9/11 - the deadliest terrorist attack in US history.

"Calling Me Names Is NOT Gonna Stop Me!" Tucker Carlson on Ted Cruz, Trump, Israel & 9/11

By targeting Ted Cruz and others who toe the establishment line, Carlson signals that questioning official alliances and narratives is not only fair game but necessary for uncovering hidden interests that shape U.S. policy. 

His willingness to connect Trump’s politics with larger geopolitical dynamics, and to raise questions about Israel’s role in global strategy or the unanswered anomalies of 9/11, positions him as someone willing to break from the scripted consensus. The pushback he receives—from accusations of conspiracy theorizing to outright character attacks—illustrates how sensitive these subjects remain, suggesting that the strength of the establishment’s response is itself evidence of how tightly guarded these narratives are. 

In this light, Carlson frames his persistence not just as journalism but as resistance against a system that survives on silence and compliance.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 unanswered questions around 9/11 often revolve less around the attacks themselves and more around the financial and structural irregularities tied to the event. Building 7 housed key offices connected to government finance and collapsed without being struck by a plane, leading some to suspect it was eliminated to conceal records. 

Tucker Carlson's 9/11 Documentary Is Making People NERVOUS

Tucker Carlson has launched a controversial new documentary series titled The 9/11 Files, aiming to explore still-unanswered questions surrounding the September 11 attacks. The official trailer claims that “For nearly 25 years, the true story on 9/11 has been withheld from the American people” and promises a deeper look into the events that remain clouded in mystery. 

Building on prior segments from his platform, Carlson features interviews with figures like former Representative Curt Weldon—who alleges he faced political retaliation after questioning the official narrative—and supports interrogations into possible intelligence failures or cover-ups.  

The unanswered questions around 9/11 often revolve less around the attacks themselves and more around the financial and structural irregularities tied to the event. Building 7 housed key offices connected to government finance and collapsed without being struck by a plane, leading some to suspect it was eliminated to conceal records. 

The Pentagon, hit directly in its accounting wing, was investigating trillions in missing funds just days before. The World Trade Center had recently been heavily insured, raising suspicions about payouts. George W. Bush’s administration was accused of drawing from Social Security to help finance the wars that followed, while his cousin Marvin Bush was tied to a security firm overseeing the complex. 

Adding to this are claims about an “Israeli art student” group occupying floors 94–95, with photographs circulating of unusual projects involving stripped windows that eerily foreshadowed the points of plane impact. Together, these details form a picture suggesting that beyond terrorism, there may have been layers of financial and institutional maneuvering designed to profit from, or conceal, deeper operations under the cover of national tragedy.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 “People’s Conference for Palestine,” held August 29 in Detroit, drew thousands of anti-Israel groups and left-wing activists, with critics noting the event included individuals sympathetic to Hamas. What was promoted as a peace gathering instead turned into a stage for rhetoric that included sabotage, economic disruption, and direct threats toward U.S. military logistics.

Reports show that organizers were angered by ongoing shipments of U.S.-made F-35 components routed through Oakland International Airport on their way to Israel. Shipping documents revealed more than 250 such shipments this year, including bomb-release units (BRU-68s) designed for 2,000-pound munitions.

Nizar, a leader within the Palestinian Youth Movement, told attendees that activists should focus on the supply chain, describing how the F-35 program depends on “just-in-time” logistics. She emphasized that disrupting even one part of the system could have significant consequences for U.S. operations.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 the United Kingdom, major banks like Santander, NatWest, Halifax, Lloyds, and the Bank of Scotland are significantly cutting back their physical presence. Santander, for instance, has closed dozens of branches and converted several others to "counter-free" locations, meaning no more in-person cash services at those sites. These changes are often offset by expanding access through post offices and high-capacity "super ATMs," but for individuals relying on traditional teller services, it may feel like a step backward.

In Australia, the decline in bank branches and ATMs has been more dramatic. Over seven years, the number of bank-owned ATMs and branches has roughly halved, particularly affecting rural and regional areas. While this is attributed to digital payment preferences, many Australians still value cash as a means of financial security and inclusivity. The government is even considering legislation—like mandating retailers to accept cash—to preserve access in underserved areas. 

A few banks elsewhere made similar moves in previous years. For example, Allied Irish Banks (AIB) proposed converting 70 of its branches to cashless locations in 2022 but reversed course after a public backlash. 

U.S. Banks Scaling Back Physical Cash Access: What’s Going On

Across the United States, bank branch closures are accelerating, reshaping how Americans access cash and in-person services.

• The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reports that from 2019 to 2023, U.S. bank branches dropped by 5.6%, while the number of banking deserts grew by 217, affecting about 760,000 more Americans. The impact has been especially pronounced in majority-Black communities, where branch losses rose 10.1%, more than the national average of 6.4% 

• A 2025 update revealed that over 320 bank branches closed in just the first 13 weeks alone. Major closures came from institutions such as Wells Fargo, TD Bank, Bank of America, and Flagstar.

• Overall, the U.S. is projected to lose nearly 3,200 branches in 2025, the highest number worldwide this year. Bank of America has led this trend, reducing its physical footprint by 18%. Digital banking usage now touches 89% of U.S. adults, highlighting shifting customer behavior.

• These closures mean more Americans live without easy access to in-person banking. Even in urban areas, populations in banking deserts rose—7% in urban zones, 6.3% in suburbs, and 6% in rural regions—between 2019 and 2023.

• One newspaper report noted that in the last year alone, 1,376 branches closed, reaching a 40-year low for branch numbers—driven by cost-cutting and preference for online banking. This decline has notably affected low- and moderate-income areas.

• Some banks are rethinking the branch model rather than just closing locations. Major institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Capital One are redesigning branches to resemble community spaces—adding local art, comfortable seating, and event areas—to better serve customers seeking in-person support.

What This Means for Customers

• Access Challenges Grow: Many Americans—particularly in underserved and minority-majority areas—face longer travel times or difficulty accessing cash and in-person services.

• Digital Gains, But Not for Everyone: While most now bank online, people without reliable internet or comfort with technology still rely on physical branches.

• New Approaches Emerge: Some banks are evolving their branches into community hubs, offering personalized guidance and financial education.

• Local Disparities Widen: Branch closures are not distributed equally—low-income and majority-Black neighborhoods are disproportionately affected.

References

• UK branch closures and counter-free transitions: NatWest, Santander, Halifax, Lloyds, Bank of Scotland 

• Australia’s decline in cash infrastructure and legislative responses

• Allied Irish Banks cashless branch plan and reversal

• Oh No! Banks REMOVING CASH and nearing major DISASTER | Redacted w Natali & Clayton Morris - YouTube

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

During a recent CNN panel, Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and longtime political commentator, raised a controversial hypothetical about gun rights and federal authority. The discussion centered on the growing use of the National Guard in domestic matters, particularly in response to violent crime in major U.S. cities. Goldberg questioned what limits, if any, exist once governors or presidents begin normalizing military involvement in civilian issues. 

He warned that leaders such as California Governor Gavin Newsom or Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker could declare a “gun crisis” and justify sending in the National Guard to seize firearms from private citizens. His point was framed as a cautionary scenario, not a proposal, but it nonetheless stirred reactions across the political spectrum.

The remark highlights broader questions about constitutional limits. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, while the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. However, the National Guard, when operating under state authority, occupies a gray area. Goldberg’s comments suggest that once military involvement in civilian life becomes normalized, future leaders could exploit that precedent for issues far beyond public safety emergencies. 

Public response to Goldberg’s scenario has been mixed. Some see it as an exaggerated warning, meant to underline the slippery slope of executive power. Others argue it is a real concern given the sharp divides over gun rights and public safety in America. This debate ties into ongoing discussions about how far government should go in addressing violence and whether new powers, once granted, can ever truly be limited. 

The issue also connects to the broader conversation about trust in institutions. In a time of polarization, both political parties fear how the other might use expanded powers if given the chance. Goldberg’s remarks captured that tension, using the example of firearms to show how a policy designed for one crisis could later be redirected toward another, potentially reshaping the balance between individual rights and state authority. 

Sources and References

• https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/cnn-panelist-jonah-goldberg-floats-chilling-idea-next

• https://www.lifezette.com/2025/09/cnn-panelist-suggests-democrats-could-use-national-guard-to-confiscate-your-guns-watch

• https://moonbattery.com/jonah-goldberg-floats-gun-confiscation-by-military

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is shifting blame for the city’s gun violence to Republican-led states, saying most of the more than 24,000 firearms seized since he took office came from outside Chicago. Critics argue that instead of pointing fingers, Johnson should focus on the city’s own crime policies, police funding, and prosecutorial decisions, which they believe play a bigger role in the violence than guns crossing state lines.

Chicago will have crime issues as long as red states have gun issues: Chicago Mayor

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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

European leaders are actively crafting detailed plans for a multinational security force in Ukraine. These plans involve deploying tens of thousands of European-led troops as part of post-conflict security guarantees—meant to support any peace agreement.  This initiative includes backing from the U.S., primarily through command, intelligence, and surveillance support. 

However, some pushback has emerged—Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius cautioned that such decisions require broader consultation and cannot be solely dictated by the EU. 

This effort is part of a broader initiative known as the "coalition of the willing," formed in early 2025 under the leadership of the U.K. and France. It includes more than 30 countries prepared to offer a security force once a ceasefire or peace deal is in place. 

As for U.S. involvement, President Trump has publicly affirmed continued American engagement and support, particularly in areas like intelligence coordination. The University of Tokyo+12Reuters+12The Guardian+12 Yet, the exact nature and scale of U.S. participation remain undecided.

What's New?

• Concrete Plans Emerge: Ursula von der Leyen confirmed that Europe is developing “precise plans” for a sizable troop deployment in Ukraine post-war.

Ursula von der Leyen’s admission that Europe is crafting “precise plans” for sending troops into Ukraine after the war signals more than just peacekeeping—it suggests preparations for a long-term military footprint that could reshape the balance of power on the continent. By calling these plans detailed and ready, leaders hint at a strategy already in motion, one that may not rely solely on NATO but on a new European-led force backed by U.S. political support. Critics argue this isn’t about stabilization alone, but about cementing influence in Ukraine while locking Russia out of any future role, raising the possibility that what is presented as security could double as occupation under another name.

• U.S. Support: Trump has indicated backing for European-led security efforts, though details are pending. 

Trump signaling support for European-led troops in Ukraine, even without giving specifics, raises questions about what kind of role the U.S. really intends to play. On the surface, it looks like Washington is letting Europe take the lead, but history shows that American intelligence, surveillance, and funding often carry hidden strings. By endorsing Europe’s push without committing boots on the ground, Trump positions the U.S. as the power behind the curtain—able to influence outcomes without the burden of full responsibility. Some see this as a way to reassert American dominance indirectly, using European forces as the visible shield while U.S. interests remain deeply tied to whatever happens next.

• Internal Debate Surfaces: German officials express concern over the EU advancing troop deployment plans without broader intergovernmental input. 

Germany’s hesitation over the EU moving forward with troop deployment plans without wider consultation reveals the cracks inside Europe’s own alliance. Officials in Berlin warn that bypassing full intergovernmental approval could turn what’s framed as a united European mission into a project driven by only a few powerful states like France and the U.K. This fuels suspicion that the deployment is less about collective defense and more about advancing specific national agendas under the EU banner. The concern isn’t just about process—it’s about legitimacy, since a force sent without full backing could deepen divisions in Europe and weaken the very unity leaders claim to be defending.

Background & Broader Context

European leaders have increasingly emphasized the need for their continent to bear more responsibility in Ukraine’s long-term security. This has led to significant defense initiatives like Readiness 2030, a plan to invest nearly €800 billion to reinforce Europe’s armed forces. 

The push for “Readiness 2030,” with nearly €800 billion earmarked to expand its armed forces, is being sold as self-reliance, but critics suggest it’s really about building a standing war machine that ensures Europe can act independently of NATO while still aligning with U.S. strategic goals. The massive investment signals not just defense, but preparation for a new era where Europe projects military power far beyond its borders—Ukraine being the first testing ground. By framing this as responsibility for long-term security, leaders may be laying the groundwork for a permanent military presence in Eastern Europe, one that could blur the line between protection and expansion.

The "coalition of the willing" concept emerged during the 2025 London Summit. Countries agreed to provide security guarantees, including military presence, to uphold future peace arrangements in Ukraine. 

Diplomatic efforts have included back-and-forth between President Trump and European leaders like Macron and Starmer. Notably, Trump expressed openness to European troops in Ukraine, though he fell short of pledging a U.S. military backstop. 

Summary in Plain Terms

Europe is preparing a detailed plan to send troops into Ukraine after a peace deal, with U.S. support planned in areas like intelligence and coordination. While some leaders back the initiative, others worry it’s being discussed without full consultation.

Related news

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

More than seventy years after the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional, many American classrooms still reflect deep divisions along racial lines. While this separation is not mandated by law, it continues through housing patterns, district policies, and economic inequality that affect where children go to school. Research shows that many districts are now more racially divided than they were in the 1980s, despite decades of effort to close the gap.

Families tend to live in neighborhoods with others of similar income, and because of historic redlining and wealth gaps, these neighborhoods often align with race. School district lines are usually drawn around these areas, which means that students from different backgrounds rarely mix. As a result, classrooms mirror the divisions of the neighborhoods around them. 

Another driver is school choice and the growth of charter schools. While these policies were intended to give parents more options, studies show they often intensify segregation because families with more resources are better able to take advantage of them. This can leave traditional public schools with higher concentrations of minority and low-income students, while other schools become more selective. 

District policies also play a role. Strict boundaries, magnet programs, or specialized schools sometimes separate students instead of integrating them. Attempts to redraw district lines or merge schools to promote diversity have faced political pushback, often from parents who prefer local control or worry about declining resources in their own communities. These debates reveal how difficult it is to balance fairness, parental choice, and educational opportunity. 

Researchers argue that segregation in schools has long-term effects on achievement and opportunity. Students in racially isolated schools often face fewer resources, less experienced teachers, and lower access to advanced courses. At the same time, integrated schools have been shown to benefit all students by exposing them to different cultures and perspectives. Despite this, integration efforts have slowed in recent decades, leaving many children in systems that look very similar to those before desegregation began.

Some communities are experimenting with new approaches. Studies have suggested that merging districts or adjusting zoning policies could help reduce separation, and some parents have even created informal “underground” networks to transfer their children out of heavily segregated schools. While these efforts show creativity, they also highlight the lack of a consistent national strategy to address the issue.

The ongoing separation of students by race is not the result of explicit laws but the outcome of layered social, economic, and political choices. Whether or not the country moves closer to true integration depends on how communities balance local preferences with the broader promise of equal education for all.

Sources and References

• https://apnews.com/article/9d84858db3717620a77bfae0b478cab8

• https://readingpartners.org/blog/why-american-school-segregation-didnt-end-with-brown-v-board-of-education

• https://ed.stanford.edu/news/70-years-after-brown-v-board-education-new-research-shows-rise-school-segregation

• https://www.axios.com/2024/05/28/underground-railroad-education-segregation

• https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/70-years-later-school-integration/507-bd30f7c2-6062-4d3b-941e-be6cfa880d23

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10193

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein who are fed up with the government run-around said they will compile their own "client list" on Wednesday during a rally on Capitol Hill after the House Oversight Committee released 33,000 pages of documents already seen by the public. The documents released Tuesday night underwhelmed lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. “After careful review, Oversight Democrats have found that 97% of the documents received from the Department of Justice were already public. There is no mention of any client list or anything that improves transparency or justice for victims," Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., said in a statement to CNN.

1. The Epstein Files Transparency Act

Led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R‑KY) and Ro Khanna (D‑CA), this bipartisan bill aims to compel the Trump administration to release all unredacted investigation files regarding Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell—including DOJ, FBI, internal communications, flight logs, immunity deals, and custodial records—within 30 days.

This bill isn’t just about Epstein, but about pulling back the curtain on a much larger system of power and protection that shields the wealthy and connected. By forcing the release of unredacted files—everything from FBI notes to immunity deals and flight logs—the measure could expose who knew what and who was protected, possibly reaching into politics, finance, and even intelligence agencies. The urgency of the 30-day deadline signals that lawmakers backing it believe there’s an active effort to keep this buried, and if sunlight finally breaks through, it could reveal a network far bigger than one man and his associate.

To trigger a House floor vote via a discharge petition, they need 218 signatures. So far, four Republicans—Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert—have signed, in addition to all Democrats. They need just two more GOP members. 

The fact that nearly all Democrats have signed while only a handful of Republicans have joined reveals how sensitive this fight is inside Washington. A discharge petition bypasses leadership, which is why it’s rarely used—it strips power from party bosses and puts the decision directly in the hands of rank-and-file members. Only two more GOP signatures would break the stalemate, which is why survivors and activists are turning up the pressure. The hesitation from many Republicans has fueled speculation that protecting influential names tied to Epstein’s network is more important than transparency, and the very slim margin highlights how fragile the balance of power is when it comes to exposing files that could shake the foundations of political and financial elites.

2. Survivors’ Public Testimonies

At a Capitol Hill press event, dozens of survivors, some speaking publicly for the first time, delivered emotional accounts of being lured as teenagers into Epstein’s sex-trafficking network. 

When survivors stood before the cameras and described how they were recruited as teenagers, it wasn’t just personal pain on display—it was a direct challenge to the institutions that looked the other way. Many of these stories have been whispered about for years, but hearing them in public, under the glare of Capitol Hill, makes it harder for powerful figures to keep them buried. The timing of these testimonies, as pressure builds for the release of hidden files, suggests survivors know the stakes: their voices could be the key to forcing accountability not only for Epstein and Maxwell but also for the high-profile figures who flew on those jets, walked through those mansions, and benefited from a system designed to keep the vulnerable silent.

Chauntae Davies’ reminder that Epstein constantly bragged about his ties to powerful men, even Donald Trump, exposes why so many fear the full release of files—because those names could prove how deep the rot goes. Her worry about not being believed reflects a system built to protect the influential while discrediting victims, a pattern seen in other abuse scandals. Survivors rejecting the idea that disclosure would harm them flips the narrative: they argue the real danger is secrecy, which only protects predators and their allies. By demanding transparency, they are saying justice cannot come from shielding elites but from finally pulling their protection away and letting the truth be seen.

3. House Oversight Committee’s Action

Under Chair Rep. James Comer (R‑KY), the House Oversight Committee has released approximately 33,000 pages of documents received from the DOJ. Critics argue most of these were already public and heavily redacted. 

The Oversight Committee’s release of 33,000 pages sounds massive, but critics point out that much of it is recycled material, already public and blacked out so heavily that key names and details are unreadable. This raises suspicion that the “document dump” was less about truth and more about creating the illusion of action while still protecting the powerful. Redactions often hide the very connections that matter most—who Epstein met, who funded him, and who benefited from his network. The sheer volume without substance feels like a smokescreen, a way to claim transparency while keeping the real secrets buried behind black ink.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s push to frame the Oversight route as “true transparency” while warning that the discharge petition is a political stunt looks less like concern for process and more like damage control. By steering everything through committees, leadership can control what gets released and when, effectively keeping the most explosive details under wraps. Labeling the discharge petition a partisan attack serves as a shield, discouraging members from crossing the line even if they believe the survivors. To many, this suggests leadership isn’t protecting the public’s right to know—it’s protecting powerful interests that could be exposed if the raw, unfiltered files ever see daylight.

4. Trump’s Reaction

President Trump has dismissed the push as a “Democrat hoax”, framing it as a partisan distraction from his accomplishments. 

Trump’s decision to brush off the push for full disclosure as a “Democrat hoax” signals how dangerous these files could be if fully opened. By framing it as nothing more than political theater, he shifts attention away from the substance—the names, deals, and connections hidden in those records—and instead makes it about protecting his image. Survivors argue this is exactly the problem: when leaders call their pain a hoax, it shows how the system protects itself by discrediting victims. To critics, this response feels less like denial of the problem and more like fear of what transparency might uncover about the circles of power Epstein moved in.

The White House warning Republicans that backing the discharge petition would be treated as “hostile” shows how much muscle is being used to keep these files from surfacing. That kind of pressure suggests fear of exposure, not just political gamesmanship. The expectation of a Trump veto, even against a bill pushed by survivors and backed by both parties, underlines how tightly guarded these secrets must be. Requiring a two-thirds override in both chambers makes the bar almost impossible to reach, meaning the truth lives or dies based on whether a handful of lawmakers are willing to defy leadership and risk their careers to break open a vault that could implicate people at the very top of politics, business, and beyond.

Why This Matters & What Happens If Trump Doesn’t Sign

Transparency & Accountability: Survivors argue that without full access to all government-held records—including potentially omitted names of individuals tied to Epstein—truth and justice remain blocked.

Survivors know that without every record—flight logs, immunity deals, FBI memos, and the names still hidden—there can be no real justice, only managed narratives. They argue the selective release of files isn’t transparency but protection for the same circles of wealth and influence that enabled Epstein to operate unchecked. True accountability means exposing not just Epstein and Maxwell but also the politicians, bankers, royals, and intelligence figures who looked away or participated. Without that, the system continues to shield predators while victims are left carrying the weight of secrets that the government already knows but refuses to acknowledge.

Legal and Historical Reckoning: These documents could reshape public understanding of Epstein’s network, clarify institutional failures, and inform future reforms.

The release of these files could spark a reckoning far bigger than one man’s crimes, rewriting the history of how America’s most powerful institutions handled—or covered up—systemic abuse. If names of politicians, CEOs, foreign leaders, or intelligence ties surface, it could show not just personal corruption but coordinated protection that allowed trafficking to flourish in plain sight. This would force a hard look at whether law enforcement, courts, and even the media were complicit, either through silence or selective reporting. Such revelations wouldn’t just be about justice for survivors—they could permanently alter how the public views its leaders and the trust placed in government itself.

Victims’ Healing: Many survivors tied legislative action directly to their healing. As one survivor said: "We cannot heal without justice. We cannot protect the future if we refuse to confront the past." 

For the survivors, this fight isn’t only about exposing Epstein’s network—it’s about reclaiming control over their own stories. Many say that true healing can’t happen while powerful names remain hidden, because secrecy keeps them trapped in the same silence their abusers forced on them years ago. By tying their healing to legislative action, they are showing that justice is not just a legal outcome but a necessary step toward breaking generational cycles of exploitation. Their call to confront the past is really a demand that society stop protecting predators, because without that reckoning, the same systems that allowed Epstein to thrive could continue unchecked, leaving future victims just as vulnerable.

Consequences of a Veto: If Trump vetoes, Congress would need substantial bipartisan support to override. That’s a steep climb—even in the House, achieving two-thirds is no small feat.

If Trump vetoes the bill, it won’t just be a political clash—it will expose how far lawmakers are willing to go to protect the system over the truth. Overriding a veto requires an overwhelming bipartisan stand, and history shows that when secrets this big are on the line, party loyalty and fear of exposure often outweigh justice. Survivors and advocates warn that a failed override would signal to the public that Congress is complicit in burying the truth, proving the influence of those whose names may lie in the hidden files. In that sense, the veto fight isn’t only about votes—it’s a test of whether America’s leaders are willing to risk their own power to confront a scandal that could shake the foundations of the establishment itself.

Final Thought

This is a crucial moment—not just for legislation, but for survivors seeking a public reckoning. Whether this becomes law ultimately depends on whether enough lawmakers—across the aisle and bold enough to stand up—can muster the courage to override both party pressure and a potential presidential veto.

Romans 12:19, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” This means that even if lawmakers lack the courage to act, the guilty will not escape divine judgment. 

Ecclesiastes 12:14 also says, “For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” 

The Bible teaches that no earthly power can permanently cover up sin, and survivors can find hope knowing that while men may protect their own, God exposes all darkness in His time. This perspective warns against placing ultimate trust in legislation and instead reminds believers that true reckoning comes from God’s justice, which cannot be vetoed or silenced.

Reference inks 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/03/epstein-victims-massie-khanna-discharge-petition/?utm

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/survivors-jeffrey-epstein-press-conference-files-rtbd7vgmd?utm

https://www.thedailybeast.com/victim-says-epsteins-biggest-brag-was-about-his-friendship-with-trump/?utm

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-moves-expose-epstein-files-authorizes-oversight-probe?utm

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massie-fires-back-after-johnson-calls-his-epstein-records-push-meaningless?utm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/03/donald-trump-immigration-tariffs-epstein-us-politics-live-news-updates?utm

https://apnews.com/article/5d980740245f935c994a90b8ce824642?utm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/03/jeffrey-epstein-files-release-survivors?utm

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Nadler’s retirement is being sold as a graceful “pass the torch,” but it also marks the end of an impeachment-era guard and opens a power scramble in a deep-blue Manhattan seat where donors, unions, and activists will test which way Democrats want to go next. 

Do voters want a younger prosecutor-style watchdog, a progressive focused on housing and antitrust, or a deal-maker who can deliver federal money? It also underscores an awkward truth both parties face after 2024:

Aging leadership, redrawn districts, and restless bases are forcing turnover that speeches alone can’t paper over. Nadler leaves a long record and room for fresh energy; for skeptics, the timing hints at a party trying to refresh its image before the next Congress decides who sets the agenda on courts, tech, and foreign policy.

Nadler became a national figure when he ran the House Judiciary Committee through Trump’s first impeachment and helped steer the second, turning long-running fights over subpoenas, witnesses, and executive power into prime-time politics. Supporters say he was defending the rule of law; critics call it partisan theater that crowded out kitchen-table issues. His record reaches beyond impeachment: he pushed civil-liberties measures after years of surveillance creep, backed voting-rights protections, and fought for tighter gun laws—even as opponents argue these bills expanded Washington’s reach and left due-process questions unresolved.

Under his gavel the committee wielded heavy tools—subpoenas, contempt threats, and public hearings—that shaped headlines as much as policy. The result is a mixed legacy: a seasoned lawyer-legislator who became a symbol of Trump-era resistance, praised for drawing red lines around presidential power, faulted for selective outrage and deals that sometimes traded privacy or speech concerns for political wins.

In interviews and statements, Nadler linked his decision to a desire for generational change inside the Democratic Party. 

He cited lessons from President Biden’s 2024 withdrawal and said younger lawmakers could “maybe do better.” Coverage from national and New York outlets captured those remarks. The move sets up a competitive race for his Manhattan-based seat. Early reporting mentions potential and declared hopefuls and notes that the district remains strongly Democratic. Roundups also point to a broader push for younger leadership.

With Nadler stepping down, the real fight won’t be November—it’ll be the Democratic primary, where an open Manhattan seat invites a scramble between well-connected insiders and younger contenders promising a reset. 

Expect a split screen: union and donor coalitions lining up early endorsements and outside money, while challengers court tenants, small businesses, and first-time voters on housing costs, public safety, transit, and tech regulation. Age and generational change will be a quiet litmus test, but so will style—committee-room dealmaker versus street-level organizer—and positions on hot issues like civil liberties, campus speech, and U.S. policy abroad.

In a safe blue district, the question isn’t red vs. blue; it’s whether voters stick with the familiar network that delivers grants and projects, or roll the dice on new blood that says the machine has gotten comfortable and the city needs sharper oversight and faster results.

Nadler’s exit doesn’t just open a New York seat; it shifts the balance inside Congress. Seniority is the currency of committee power, and when a long-timer leaves, gavels and subcommittee slots start moving. That matters for what the House actually does: which judges get hearings, what antitrust or tech-speech bills advance, how hard Judiciary pushes on Section 702 surveillance, whether Supreme Court ethics or gun measures get real markup, and how aggressive subpoenas and investigations become.

As more older members step down after the 2024 cycle, both parties are re-setting their playbooks—Republicans aligning oversight with a tougher border and social-media agenda, Democrats weighing younger voices on voting rights, privacy, and housing costs. The practical effect could be fewer backroom deals and more high-visibility hearings, with committee chairs using investigations and must-pass bills to set the narrative—and the next round of leadership tests happening in the committee rooms, not just the cable hits.

What’s next is part policy, part politics: Nadler says he’ll finish his term and keep working his core issues—courts, civil liberties, tech oversight—while quietly shaping the race by endorsing a successor and steering donors. The 2026 filing deadlines and primary calendar will lock in the field, and early money plus union and community endorsements will matter more than slogans. Expect national groups to test-message the district on housing costs, public safety, speech on campus, surveillance and privacy, antitrust, and foreign policy—turning a safe blue seat into a referendum on the party’s next chapter. Voters will have a clear choice between experience and a fresh start, and the outcome will signal whether Democrats want a committee-room dealmaker or a street-level organizer setting the tone for the next Congress.

Complete reference list

https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397402

https://apnews.com/article/jerry-nadler-congress-new-york-779e361dc5d13a007cd96ab6a3bb1f27

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-rep-jerry-nadler-seek-reelection-2026/story?id=125186644

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-rep-jerry-nadler-retire-congress/

https://rollcall.com/2025/09/02/nadler-wont-seek-reelection-to-manhattan-house-seat/

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/02/nadler-retire-2026-democrats-ny

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/02/democratic-congressman-jerry-nadler-retires

https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/09/02/manhattan-democrat-jerry-nadler-reelection-congress/

https://www.c-span.org/person/jerry-nadler/26159/

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2025/09/03/rep--nadler--a-liberal-stalwart--announces-retirement-after-30--years-in-congress

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Nadler

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

 Trump’s vow to “clean out” homeless encampments in Washington and “lock up criminals” lands like a law-and-order thunderclap, but it also hints at a federal show of force that dodges the hard parts:

 Housing, treatment, and due process. He’s reportedly readying National Guard deployments—something he’s leaned on elsewhere—framed as restoring safety even as D.C.’s mayor says there isn’t a crime spike. Supporters hear strength and finally-someone-in-charge; critics hear mass sweeps, pretext arrests, and a federal end-run around local control that will balloon costs and court fights. Evictions without beds push people block to block; Guard troops on city streets blur lines between policing and the military; and “jail the criminals” risks treating poverty as a crime while the root problems—addiction, mental health, and unaffordable housing—go untouched. If this becomes policy, expect legal challenges over civil liberties and command authority, plus a political test: is the goal safer neighborhoods—or a televised crackdown that looks tough while the underlying crisis grows back the morning after?

People don’t just disappear because a press conference says “clean up.” In practice there are only a few places folks can go, and each path has very different outcomes:

1. Sweep-and-jail
   If police clear encampments without adding beds, most people get pushed block-to-block. Some are cited or jailed for low-level offenses (trespass, camping bans, warrants from unpaid tickets). Short jail stays usually mean lost ID/meds/contacts and higher overdose risk after release. It “looks cleaner” for a week or two, then the camp reappears somewhere else.

2. Shelter surge (short-term)
   Cities can open 24/7, low-barrier shelters (pets/couples allowed, storage, no curfew) and motel voucher programs. This works only if there are enough beds, transportation to them, and on-site caseworkers who can immediately replace IDs, schedule medical/behavioral evaluations, and start housing paperwork. Done right, it stabilizes people; done poorly, it’s churn.

3. Housing-first with services (durable)
   Permanent supportive housing (a lease + onsite care), rapid rehousing (12–24 months rent help), and master-leased hotels or single-room occupancies actually end street homelessness for many. Pair that with treatment on demand (detox, MAT for opioid use, mental-health beds), mobile crisis teams, medical respite beds after hospital stays, and “safe parking/safe outdoor sites” as an interim option with security, hygiene, and a guaranteed path into housing.

If leaders really want cleaner, safer streets that stay clean, the “cleanup” has to include:
• A bed for every person displaced that night (and it must be low-barrier).
• Intake tents at the cleanup site: medical triage, ID replacement, benefits, and housing navigation on the spot.
• Storage and retrieval for belongings (so people don’t lose meds, documents, or work tools).
• Daily treatment slots reserved (detox/MAT/psych) and transport to them.
• Fast-track housing: master-lease entire hotels/floors, convert vacant offices, use landlord incentives, and set move-in targets by week, not month.
• Clear metrics the public can see: people housed, shelter utilization, OD reversals, police/fire calls, and encampments closed with placements—not just cleared.

So “where do they go?”—either into a revolving door of displacement and jail, or into beds and leases with support. The results depend on whether the plan funds the second path. If you want, tell me your city and I’ll sketch a concrete, 90-day action plan (beds needed, likely sites, cost ballpark, and who does what) you can send your councilmember.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Senators Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Merkley said Israel refused permission for them to enter Gaza and also denied authorization to join a Jordanian humanitarian airdrop that would have flown over the Strip. They posted video from a Jordanian air base describing “man-made starvation” and said the overflight was blocked; multiple outlets reported the same on Aug. 30–31, 2025.

Israel can argue “security” and airspace deconfliction, but the effect is the same: keep independent American eyes off a place the senators called “man-made starvation.”

When lawmakers with oversight on aid and arms can’t witness conditions firsthand, it shields policy from tough questions back in Washington—about how food is moving, who is blocking routes, and whether U.S. support is enabling a siege rather than relief. It also turns access into leverage: if flights, crossings, and timing all require Israeli approval, then images, data, and testimony get filtered at the source. Supporters will say this prevents weapons smuggling and protects pilots; critics see a pattern—control the sky, control the story, and limit the pressure for a ceasefire or accountability. Either way, denying elected officials a seat on a humanitarian overflight raises a simple, uncomfortable question: if everything is above board, why bar the people who write the checks from looking down?

Overflight permission isn’t a paperwork detail—it’s the master switch. Because Israel controls Gaza’s sky, every airdrop route, altitude, and time window needs its green light, and a single “no” can ground the whole mission. Supporters say that’s basic sovereignty and wartime safety: crowded airspace, active drones and jets, and the risk of smugglers hiding weapons among aid mean tight control is non-negotiable. But critics see a choke point that does more than manage traffic—it decides what help gets in, when cameras are overhead, and who can verify conditions on the ground. Narrow corridors and shifting “safety windows” can slow flights for days; pre-clearance can be used to favor some drops and block others; and by owning the skies, Israel can shape both the flow of food and the flow of information. In short, whoever controls the airspace controls the pace of relief and the public record of what’s happening below.

By asking to see the airdrops up close, the senators weren’t chasing a photo op—they were trying to verify how aid actually moves, where it gets stuck, and whether U.S. support is speeding deliveries or enabling a bottleneck. Their updates about hunger in Gaza, plus same-week calls on Capitol Hill to surge baby formula and reopen crossings, show a basic oversight goal: ground truth over talking points. Seeing operations firsthand lets them compare manifests to what lands, check flight paths and drop zones, and track “last-mile” delivery into warehouses and neighborhoods. If access is blocked, the debate in Washington leans on filtered briefings instead of hard data, and real fixes—like more crossings open longer hours, simpler inspections, fuel guarantees for bakeries and hospitals, and GPS-logged convoys—are easier to delay. That’s why they pushed to get eyes on the process: to tie U.S. dollars and arms to measurable results—food in stomachs, medicine on shelves—rather than promises that can’t be tested.

Israel did not issue a detailed public statement on the overflight denial in these reports. In general, Israeli officials say strict air and ground controls are needed to prevent weapons smuggling and to deconflict crowded skies during military operations. Those controls can include limits on flight paths, drop zones, and schedules for foreign airdrops. 

When Israel offers only a broad “security” explanation and no detailed reason for denying an overflight, the rulebook becomes whatever officials say it is that day. Deconfliction and anti-smuggling are real concerns in a war zone, but without public criteria, timelines, or an appeal process, those same controls—flight paths, drop zones, and narrow time windows—can double as levers to slow aid and keep outside observers from seeing conditions. Tight skies can be about safety, or they can be about shaping what gets delivered and what gets documented. When denials line up with high-profile visits, it looks less like air traffic management and more like information management. The fix isn’t complicated: clear standards, neutral monitors on flights, shared tracking logs, and published reasons for any rejection. Until then, “security” will read like a catch-all that blocks food, facts, and oversight at the same time.

The reaction split fast and predictably: advocacy groups urged more members of Congress to demand access, ride along on aid flights, and publish what they see, arguing that sunlight is the only way to fix chokepoints and stop starvation. Media friendly to Israel said the senators’ framing ignored real threats, defending strict inspections and tight airspace rules as basic wartime safety and a check against weapons smuggling. In the middle, the story bled into policy: committees floated audits of aid delivery, proposals to tie U.S. assistance to measurable benchmarks like open crossings and fuel flows, and calls for independent monitors on flights. Supporters of the senators say that’s exactly the point—oversight with teeth—while critics warn that grandstanding from Washington can snarl deconfliction and put crews at risk. Either way, the push for a ceasefire and faster deliveries kept growing, and the fight over who gets to verify facts on the ground became a proxy for a larger question: do security rules protect civilians, or do they also control the narrative and delay relief?

Reference Links

https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1961865773632159852

 https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1962488496741847483

 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/jordan-uae-drop-aid-into-gaza-first-airdrop-months-jordanian-source-says-2025-07-27/

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-applauds-u-s-senators-van-hollen-merkley-for-attempting-to-enter-gaza-during-middle-east-humanitarian-trip-calls-on-more-u-s-lawmakers-to-follow-suit/

 https://www.jns.org/democratic-senators-say-israel-barred-their-entry-to-gaza/

 https://katu.com/news/local/senators-merkley-and-van-hollen-call-for-ceasefire-during-middle-east-visit-jeff-chris-maryland-oregon-portland-dc-washington-israel-west-bank-palestine-egypt-jordan-humanitarian-aid-organization-ceasefire-hostages-netanyahu-donald-trump-foreign-affairs

https://www.gov.il/en/departments/coordination-of-government-activities-in-the-territories/govil-landing-page

 https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airlines-keep-avoiding-middle-east-airspace-after-us-attack-iran-2025-06-22/

https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1961144004789088318

 https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1961865773632159852

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/30/senators-demand-baby-formula-aid-gaza

https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/04/02/unwilling-or-unable/israeli-restrictions-access-and-gaza-human-rights-workers

 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-gazas-rafah-border-crossing-matters-why-egypt-is-keeping-it-shut-2023-10-17/

 https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3620106/view

  https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1961865773632159852

 https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1962488496741847483

 https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/58/1262/552212/War-on-Gaza/War-on-Gaza/Israel-blocks--US-senators-from-joining-Gaza-aid-a.aspx

 https://www.dawn.com/news/1938673/us-senators-say-israel-denied-their-entry-to-gaza-participation-in-airdrop-flight

 https://katu.com/news/local/senators-merkley-and-van-hollen-call-for-ceasefire-during-middle-east-visit-jeff-chris-maryland-oregon-portland-dc-washington-israel-west-bank-palestine-egypt-jordan-humanitarian-aid-organization-ceasefire-hostages-netanyahu-donald-trump-foreign-affairs

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

When you watch this unfold, it’s hard not to feel like the mask slipped and the word “civilized” lost its meaning; a lot of people are traumatized, and the old team jerseys don’t matter when civilians are being crushed. Left and right can meet at first principles: no genocide, no collective punishment, no silencing of dissent, no erasing people from their homes, and no special rules for the powerful.

 If land can be taken by force and paperwork, it becomes a blueprint others will copy, and the frontier of abuse keeps moving. The antidote is simple, old-fashioned, and American: due process, equal protection, freedom of speech and press, the sanctity of the person, and real accountability for officials—applied consistently, even when it’s inconvenient for “our side.” 

That means demanding an end to attacks on civilians, full access for aid, independent investigations with consequences, the safe return of the displaced, and negotiated guarantees that stop the cycle instead of just pausing it. You don’t have to change your politics to stand there; you only have to decide that human life and the rule of law are non-negotiable.

 From that ground, people who never agreed on much can still lock arms and say: not in our name, not with our money, and not to anyone, anywhere.

Israel Moves First: War with Iran About to Erupt | COL. Douglas Macgregor

Over the last year, the main ceasefire plan for Gaza has followed a simple path: the United States announced an Israeli-backed, three-phase proposal in mid-2024; the U.N. Security Council endorsed it; and by January 2025 the White House said a ceasefire-and-hostage deal had been reached. Yet in practice, Israel’s government later disputed or delayed key terms, which is why some observers now say Israel “rejected its own deal.” At the same time, the International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a formal resolution saying Israel’s campaign in Gaza “legally constitutes genocide,” while the world’s top court has not made a final ruling but ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. 

Israel doing the slaughter bombing starving and they are the one crying victim. Are they insane?

Israel Rejects Its Own Peace Deal, Genocide Declared Officially

What was in the plan? The Security Council’s Resolution 2735 (June 10, 2024) welcomed a three-phase process: an immediate six-week ceasefire with hostage–prisoner exchanges, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, scaled humanitarian aid, and steps toward reconstruction. President Biden described the same framework and later announced a ceasefire-and-hostage deal in January 2025, noting staged exchanges and negotiations for a second phase.

On paper, Resolution 2735 sounded clean and simple—pause the fighting for six weeks, trade hostages and prisoners, pull Israeli forces out of crowded areas, ramp up aid, then move toward rebuilding—but the fine print left room for delay and leverage. “Withdrawal from populated areas” didn’t spell out who controls border corridors or tunnels, so either side could slow the clock while saying they’re complying.

Phased exchanges turned people into bargaining chips, making every list, route, and verification a new standoff. “Scaled humanitarian aid” depended on checkpoints and security reviews that could be tightened or loosened at will, and “steps toward reconstruction” were tied to promises about demilitarization and oversight that no one fully trusted. When President Biden later announced a deal built on this same framework in January 2025, backers called it a pathway to calm; skeptics saw a face-saving script that let leaders claim progress while keeping options open for more strikes, more conditions, and more negotiations that go in circles.

Where did the “rejects its own deal” line come from? In September 2024, amid protests, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would not join ceasefire talks unless Israel kept control of Gaza’s Egypt border corridor, a condition outside the spirit of the plan’s withdrawal language. Through August 2025, Israel told mediators it would respond to a new Hamas-accepted truce proposal but pressed demands and timelines that slowed movement, including immediate release of all remaining hostages. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/aug/19/aid-ship-food-gaza-cyprus-israel-middle-east-crisis-latest-updates-news

Israel specializes in targeting civilians, says Prof Seyed Marandi, in the wake of the martyring of almost the entire Yemeni cabinet. It can celebrate it all it wants but Israel is despised across the world.

INTERVIEW: This Israeli regime has no future in the Middle East

Israel’s position has been that any ceasefire must ensure Hamas cannot rearm, that border control and tunnel destruction are addressed, and that hostages are released on firm terms. Reports show these conditions—especially control over the Philadelphi Corridor and sequencing of releases—became the main sticking points after the broader framework won diplomatic support.

Israel frames its conditions as basic security needs—no rearmament for Hamas, control of the border, destroyed tunnels, and hostages released on clear terms—but each piece also works like a lever that can stall any truce. Control of the Philadelphi Corridor isn’t just about weapons; it’s a pressure point that lets Israel decide what crosses in or out, while “tunnel destruction” requires open-ended operations underground that rarely fit neat timelines. The sequence of releases turns people into bargaining chips: if one side doubts the other’s next step, everything pauses. To supporters, these safeguards prevent another October 7 and force real demilitarization before aid and rebuilding scale up. To skeptics, they look like moving goalposts—conditions broad enough to keep Israeli forces in key zones, ration humanitarian access, and delay withdrawals while leaders say they’re still “working the plan.”

The September 1, 2025 vote by the International Association of Genocide Scholars doesn’t put Israel on trial, but it does put a clear label on what many officials avoided saying out loud. Their resolution says the Gaza campaign meets the legal definition of genocide in the 1948 Convention, which raises a practical question for other governments: if there’s a serious risk of genocide, they must act to prevent it, not just issue statements. That pressure can show up fast—in court filings, calls to condition or halt arms transfers, export-license reviews, sanctions debates, and divestment pushes by universities and pension funds. Israel rejects the charge and says it targets Hamas, not civilians; supporters of Israel call the vote biased and political. Backers of the resolution point to mass civilian deaths, forced displacement, starvation warnings, and the wrecking of basic services as signs of intent. The bottom line is that this expert vote won’t end the war by itself, but it will be cited in every major argument from here on out—by judges weighing complicity claims, by lawmakers deciding aid, and by allies deciding whether they can keep saying “business as usual” while the bombs keep

The International Court of Justice hasn’t decided the genocide case yet, but its January and May 2024 orders changed the ground rules: the judges said there’s a “plausible” risk of genocidal acts and told Israel to prevent them, open the way for aid, stop and punish incitement, preserve evidence, and report back on what it’s doing. That’s not a final guilty verdict, but it’s not a suggestion either—these are binding steps that trigger duties for other countries, too. Governments that keep supplying weapons or political cover now have to explain how they’re not helping a “plausible” crime, which is why you’re seeing lawsuits, export reviews, and calls to pause arms transfers. Israel says it targets Hamas and follows the law; critics point to collapsed services, aid blockages, and mass displacement as signs the orders aren’t being met. The bottom line is simple: even without a final ruling, the court raised a legal red flag, and the world is expected to act like it matters. 

The International Criminal Court track targets people, not states, so warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant mean prosecutors believe there’s evidence that specific crimes may have been committed—and that those two bear responsibility. 

Even if Israel rejects the ICC’s authority and the U.S. punishes court officials, the warrants still matter: they can limit travel to countries that cooperate with the court, complicate diplomacy, and push allies to review arms transfers and intelligence sharing. Supporters of the warrants say this is how the law should work—no leader is above it, and accountability can deter future abuses. 

Critics argue the court is politicized, that Israel has its own investigations, and that dragging wartime decisions into The Hague will only harden positions and prolong the conflict. Either way, judges’ refusal to withdraw the warrants keeps the pressure on: evidence must be preserved, victims’ testimony protected, and governments that say they back the rule of law will be asked if their policies match their words.  

Supporters of Israel’s approach argue that any pause without firm security guarantees would leave Hamas in place and hostages at risk, so hard conditions are necessary even if they slow the deal. Critics counter that Israel initially backed the framework, then moved the goalposts, and that the gap between public diplomacy and battlefield policy has prolonged suffering in Gaza while eroding trust in negotiations. 

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4051310?v=pdf

 https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/s-res-2735.php

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/24/families-flee-gaza-city-as-israel-vows-to-press-on-with-offensive

What to watch next is whether the latest truce proposals are accepted without new preconditions, how humanitarian access changes on the ground, and how courts and governments act on the scholars’ genocide declaration and existing legal orders. These decisions will shape whether the ceasefire framework turns into a lasting stop to the war or becomes another plan that stalls in practice.

  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas

 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192

Complete reference list

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4051310?v=pdf

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/s-res-2735.php

https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2025/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-on-reaching-a-ceasefire-and-hostage-deal/

https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2025/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-ceasefire-and-hostage-deal-north-charleston-sc/

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/4032622/biden-announces-ceasefire-deal-between-hamas-israel-in-farewell-address/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/amid-massive-protests-across-israel-netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-reach-cease-fire-deal

https://www.pbs.org/video/amid-protests-netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-reach-cease-fire-1725315875/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/aug/19/aid-ship-food-gaza-cyprus-israel-middle-east-crisis-latest-updates-news

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/24/families-flee-gaza-city-as-israel-vows-to-press-on-with-offensive

https://www.ft.com/content/470b61ff-aa1c-487f-a9ae-477b5c142a53

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-worlds-top-scholars-on-the-say

https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203447

https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204091

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/gaza-icj-ruling-offers-hope-protection-civilians-enduring-apocalyptic

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/icc-judges-reject-israels-request-withdraw-netanyahu-arrest-warrant-2025-07-16/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/sc-9650th-meeting-10jun24/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x_2M9V-3Gc

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Taken together, Graham’s recent comments paint a clear pattern: he isn’t just backing Israel—he’s urging Washington to act as enforcer. Saying in Tel Aviv that Hezbollah should be disarmed “by military force” if it won’t comply, that “Hamas needs to go…this year,” and that President Trump will “back Israel’s decision no matter what they do,” signals a blank-check posture that sidelines debate. 

A day earlier he called defeating Hamas “non-negotiable” and told Lebanon that promises to disarm Hezbollah must be matched by action, pushing the region toward choices made with jets and tanks rather than negotiations. On Meet the Press, his Tokyo-and-Berlin analogy implied total war followed by reconstruction—an endgame measured in rubble and years, not weeks. 

He even floated economic punishment for Norway over its sovereign fund’s Caterpillar decision, showing that pressure won’t stop at borders or battlefields. Read as a whole, this is a roadmap where U.S. policy tracks Israeli preferences on pace, targets, and tools—raising the stakes for a wider fight with Iran’s network, squeezing dissent at home and abroad, and treating questions about cost, law, and limits as obstacles to be cleared rather than problems to be solved.

Here are Senator Lindsey Graham’s most recent on-the-record remarks about Israel (newest first), with dates:

• Aug. 29, 2025 — In Tel Aviv, he said Hezbollah should be disarmed “by military force” if it will not disarm voluntarily, and added that “Hamas needs to go and they need to go this year.” He also said President Trump “is going to back Israel’s decision no matter what they do.” 

• Aug. 28, 2025 — In an interview published the same week, he called defeating Hamas “non-negotiable” and urged that it be done “as soon as possible,” while welcoming Lebanon’s stated goal of disarming Hezbollah but warning that “words must be followed by action.” 

• Jul. 27–28, 2025 — On NBC’s Meet the Press, he predicted Israel would “do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin — take the place by force, then start over again,” framing it as a shift to end the war with Hamas. Multiple outlets carried the quote and clip. 

• Jun. 22, 2025 — Asked about Iran on Meet the Press, he relayed messages from Prime Minister Netanyahu and said that if he were Israel, he “would have [pursued regime change in Iran] a long time ago,” while adding he did not foresee U.S. ground troops. 

• Aug. 29, 2025 — Related to Israel policy, he criticized Norway’s sovereign wealth fund for excluding Caterpillar over ties to Israeli operations and suggested the U.S. consider tariffs or visa limits in response. 

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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 many California classrooms and campus meetings, educators now start with a land acknowledgement that names the local Indigenous people and recognizes their historic and ongoing ties to the area. This practice has grown across K-12 districts, community colleges, and universities over the last few years as part of broader efforts to teach local history and promote respect. 

In many California classrooms and campus meetings, land acknowledgements now open the day by naming local Native nations and affirming that the campus sits on their ancestral territory—but critics say the ritual often functions less as education and more as signaling. They argue it can blur legal realities by implying all property is unsettled or illegitimate, and sometimes pressures students to assent to a political claim they haven’t studied. Supporters counter that it’s a simple first step toward honesty about place and history, yet skeptics note the pattern: lofty statements followed by little change, while the acknowledgements themselves are used to justify new mandates or branding without funding real partnerships. A practical middle path is doable—tie any acknowledgement to concrete actions students can see: primary-source lessons on local treaties and missions, paid talks with tribal historians, fieldwork co-led by tribes, land-access MOUs for cultural use, and scholarships or research grants funded by institutions that occupy that land. This keeps the message in the classroom from becoming a checkbox or an oath—and turns it into work that actually teaches, builds relationships, and benefits living Native communities.

California’s state Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum gives teachers examples and context, noting that some educators begin lessons by acknowledging they are on Native land and naming the specific peoples connected to that place. This is not a statewide legal mandate to recite a statement, but it is guidance many districts draw from when shaping local practice.   

LA County Land Acknowledgement

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.

Dec 15, 2016 President-Elect Donald Trump is back-pedaling on earlier claims that President Obama's birth certificate is a fraud. Now one of Trump's biggest supporters, outgoing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is making headlines once again over the issue.

WOW: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Releases New Information on President Obama's Birth Certificate (FNN)

Arpaio’s Claims & Timeline

2012 (March–July)

In March 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his "Cold Case Posse" announced they believed Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House in April 2011, was a computer-generated forgery and possibly fraudulent

In 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his volunteer “Cold Case Posse” shook things up when they claimed that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate wasn’t just suspicious, but looked like a digital fabrication.

They pointed to layers in the PDF file, odd inconsistencies in the typeface, and what they called “copy-and-paste” elements that suggested the certificate had been assembled on a computer rather than scanned from a real document. To them, this wasn’t a sloppy clerical error but evidence of intentional deception, and they argued it was part of a larger cover-up at the highest levels of government.

While officials in Hawaii quickly dismissed their claims as baseless, Arpaio’s team insisted that the anomalies were too precise to be explained away as mistakes, fueling the idea that the public was being shown a carefully crafted image designed to look legitimate, not an authentic piece of historical record.

By July, Arpaio declared at a public briefing that the birth record was “definitely fraudulent.” 

Arpaio doubled down in a public briefing, telling the crowd that Obama’s birth record was “definitely fraudulent,” leaving no room for doubt in his words.

He argued that his team’s analysis showed patterns and digital markers that couldn’t have come from a simple scan of a paper document, but instead pointed to deliberate tampering.

Arpaio painted the picture of a government willing to present a doctored file as fact, raising questions about who had the power to produce such a document and why it was allowed to stand unchallenged. For those listening, it wasn’t just about one certificate—it suggested the possibility of a deeper deception, where layers of authority worked together to protect an official story while hiding the real truth.

2016 (December)

Arpaio persisted, claiming his team had identified “9 points of forgery” in the digital image of the certificate and planned to forward this evidence to federal authorities.

Arpaio refused to let the matter die, insisting that his investigators uncovered “9 points of forgery” in the digital image of Obama’s birth certificate.

He claimed these points showed telltale signs of manipulation—misaligned letters, repeated elements, and digital layers that suggested parts of the document were copied and pasted from other sources. Rather than treating it as a simple curiosity, Arpaio framed it as a smoking gun, saying the odds of all these irregularities happening by accident were virtually impossible. 

He announced that his findings would be sent to federal authorities, hinting that powerful figures might be forced to answer how such a questionable document had been presented to the American people as proof of legitimacy.

2018 (March)
As a U.S. Senate candidate, Arpaio reiterated with confidence, “We 100% proved that’s a fake document."

When Arpaio later ran for the U.S. Senate, he didn’t back away from his earlier claims—instead, he leaned into them with even greater certainty, declaring, “We 100% proved that’s a fake document.” He spoke as if the case was already closed, treating the supposed evidence gathered by his team as undeniable proof of a cover-up.

By repeating the claim on the campaign trail, Arpaio tied his political identity to the idea that powerful people had orchestrated a deception and gotten away with it. His words suggested that the issue wasn’t just about where Obama was born, but about how far institutions would go to protect their chosen figurehead, raising the possibility that the truth had been deliberately buried under layers of official approval and media silence.

Official Response & Reality Check
Hawaii officials—including the Attorney General’s office—responded that President Obama was born in Honolulu and the birth certificate is valid. They described Arpaio’s allegations as “untrue, misinformed and misconstrue Hawaii law.” 

Hawaii officials quickly fired back, with the Attorney General’s office insisting that Obama was born in Honolulu and that his birth certificate was fully valid, brushing off Arpaio’s claims as “untrue, misinformed and misconstruing Hawaii law.” To critics, this strong dismissal looked less like a calm clarification and more like a defensive move meant to shut down debate before it spread further. 

Instead of addressing the technical details Arpaio’s team raised, Hawaii’s response focused on authority—asserting their word as final rather than proving point by point why the irregularities meant nothing. For those skeptical of official narratives, this reaction only deepened suspicions, suggesting that government officials were circling the wagons to protect a story they couldn’t afford to unravel.

Arizona state leaders, such as Governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett, also dismissed the claims and affirmed the document’s authenticity.

Arizona’s own leaders, including Governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett, moved quickly to dismiss Arpaio’s claims and declare Obama’s birth certificate authentic. To many, this looked like party lines didn’t matter—officials from both sides were eager to put the controversy to rest. But skeptics argued that such a rapid dismissal without public hearings or independent investigations suggested political convenience more than certainty. 

By affirming the document’s legitimacy outright, Arizona leaders signaled they had no interest in stirring a national crisis, yet their refusal to even entertain Arpaio’s evidence fueled the idea that maintaining stability and avoiding embarrassment took priority over digging deeper into uncomfortable questions.
Multiple courts and official verifications have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship and the legitimacy of his birth documentation.

Bottom Line
Yes, Arpaio never let go of his charge, hammering the same points again and again—calling the birth certificate “definitely fraudulent,” pointing to supposed “points of forgery,” and claiming his team had nailed down proof. Official voices answered back with blanket reassurances that the document was real, that the case was closed, and that the courts had already settled the matter. 

But the question that lingers is whether these responses were genuine refutations or just a way to smother the controversy before it caused deeper cracks. When authorities rely on declarations of credibility rather than transparent, line-by-line dismantling of the evidence, it leaves room for doubt. 

Was the so-called “credible evidence” upheld by officials actually the full story, or was uncomfortable material swept aside to protect a presidency from destabilizing questions?

Related news


Axios
Joe Arpaio's most controversial moments
Aug 25, 2017


Vanity Fair
The Conception of the Birther
May 24, 2012


Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 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.