Then a mother strangles her 5-year-old, 3-year-old, and 8-month-old - shifts to postpartum psychosis and diminished responsibility.

I think this comparison misses something important, and that difference needs to be understood before we start treating these situations as morally identical.

An unborn child and a child who has already been born are both human, but they are not in the same physical or developmental circumstance. An unborn child exists entirely within the mother’s body and depends upon her body for survival. A child who has been born exists separately. That distinction matters enormously when discussing pregnancy, bodily autonomy, medical decisions, and the law.

When a mother kills her five year old, three year old, or eight month old child, she is killing a person who already exists independently outside her body. That child can breathe, eat, interact with others, receive care from someone other than the mother, and exist as a separate individual. If the mother is suffering from postpartum psychosis or another severe mental disorder, that may affect how we understand her actions and her legal responsibility. But it does not change the fact that a born child was killed.

Pregnancy presents an entirely different situation. The unborn child is developing inside another person’s body and cannot simply be separated from that body without ending the pregnancy. That creates a conflict between two lives, two sets of interests, and two very different forms of dependency. Pretending that this distinction does not exist does not make the abortion debate more honest. It makes it less honest.

At the same time, saying that an unborn child is different from a born child does not automatically answer the deeper moral question of whether that unborn life deserves legal protection. That is where the real disagreement exists. Some believe personhood and legal protection begin before birth. Others believe those protections begin at birth or at another point during development. People can disagree about that without pretending the circumstances are identical.

What we should stop doing is using emotionally powerful comparisons that erase the actual differences. A mother struggling with pregnancy is not necessarily comparable to a mother standing over an already born child. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy is not automatically comparable to someone intentionally killing a child who is already living independently outside her body.

We can recognize the value of unborn life, recognize the rights and physical reality of the woman carrying that life, understand the devastating circumstances that can surround pregnancy, and still have an honest discussion about where society should draw the legal line. Those are complicated questions. They deserve more than slogans and comparisons designed to provoke outrage.

If we truly want to understand one another, we have to acknowledge the difference between an unborn life and a life that has already been born.

That difference does not settle the entire debate. But ignoring it guarantees that we will continue talking past one another.

----

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #UnbornLifeMatters #TheAbortionDebate #ProtectInnocentLife

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth SEPTEMBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

Comedians Claim Rome Means America Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in a video exchange with a journalist that he was reading the book Jews versus Rome by historian Barry Strauss.

When asked why he chose it he replied Well we lost that one I think we have to win the next one. The book published in 2025 covers two centuries of Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire from 63 BCE to 136 CE.

Those revolts included the Great Revolt that ended with the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem the Diaspora Revolt and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Rome crushed the uprisings killed or enslaved large numbers of Jews and scattered many others.

The historical record shows the Jewish people suffered massive military defeat under Roman power. The Temple was burned the city of Jerusalem was razed and Jewish political independence ended for nearly two thousand years. Strauss documents how internal Jewish divisions combined with Roman military strength produced those outcomes. Netanyahu framed his reading as a lesson from that defeat. He did not name any modern country as the new Rome in the recorded remarks.

Comedians Jimmy Dore and Kurt Metzger have claimed the statement means Netanyahu views the United States as the modern Rome and therefore as an enemy that must be defeated. They link the comment to the biblical idea of Amalek an ancient people described in Jewish scripture as an eternal foe that attacked the Israelites without cause. Some Israeli officials including Netanyahu have quoted the command to remember what Amalek did when speaking about Hamas after the October 7 2023 attacks. Critics argue the Amalek language justifies harsh measures against Palestinians. Official Israeli statements have applied it to groups that openly seek Jewish destruction not to entire civilian populations.

A separate rabbi named Yom Tov Glaser has said the most powerful nations including America Germany France England Russia and China must go down to their knees as divine punishment for past mistreatment of Jews.

That remark is theological opinion not government policy. No public record shows Netanyahu endorsing the idea that the United States or Europe must be brought low. Israel receives billions in annual military aid from the United States maintains close intelligence sharing and relies on American diplomatic cover at the United Nations.

Rome was a specific ancient empire that controlled the Mediterranean. The United States is a modern constitutional republic founded on principles that include individual rights and limited government. Equating the two requires ignoring two thousand years of changed technology institutions and alliances. Jewish tradition sometimes used Rome as a symbol for any dominant power that oppressed Jews but Netanyahu has repeatedly called the United States Israel’s closest ally and thanked American leaders for support.

The notion that Zionist leaders seek the destruction of Western civilization contradicts observable facts. Israel participates in Western technological markets military exercises and cultural exchanges. Jewish communities in the United States and Europe have contributed disproportionately to science medicine and finance within those societies. Claims that a Judeo Christian alliance is a lie overlook the shared biblical roots that shaped American founding documents and the consistent bipartisan US policy of supporting Israel’s existence since 1948.

Amalek in scripture represents a force that targets the weak and seeks total elimination of the Jewish people. Modern applications of the term by Israeli leaders have focused on organizations that publish charters calling for Israel’s elimination and that carry out mass killings of civilians.

Stretching the term to cover every critic of Israeli policy or every Western government that pressures Israel is rhetorical overreach. The historical pattern is that Jewish survival has depended on military self defense and alliances with stronger powers not on fantasies of bringing those powers to their knees.

Netanyahu’s comment is best read as determination not to repeat the strategic errors that led to total defeat two thousand years ago. Current Israeli security doctrine prioritizes preventing existential threats from Iran and its proxies. That doctrine does not require treating the United States as an adversary. Speculative interpretations that invent a secret plan to destroy the West serve mainly to inflame suspicion rather than clarify policy.

Public statements and voting records in the US Congress continue to reflect broad support for Israel as a strategic partner in a volatile region. Military cooperation remains active. Trade and technology ties grow. These realities stand in contrast to online narratives that recast a history book comment into a declaration of war on America.

The Jewish experience under Rome produced both catastrophe and long term cultural resilience through rabbinic adaptation. Netanyahu referenced the loss while affirming the need to prevail in whatever conflict comes next.

The record contains no evidence that the next one is defined as war against the United States.

Address links:

https://barrystrauss.com/books/jews-vs-rome/ 

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Jews-vs-Rome/Barry-Strauss/9781668009598 

https://unherd.com/2026/04/bib-has-become-the-new-king-herod/ 

Why is Netanyahu reading the book "Jews vs. Rome"? | Politics | Al Jazeera Net

https://britanniadaily.com/watch-rabbi-yom-tov-glaser-sparks/ 

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #NetanyahuRomeStatement #JewsVsRome #WinTheNextOne

Share

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth AUG 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

The Old Testament records a specific land grant from God to Abraham and his descendants..

Genesis 15:18 states that the Lord made a covenant giving the land from the river of Egypt to the great river the Euphrates.

Other passages such as Joshua 1:4 and Numbers 34 describe related boundaries that include parts of what are now Egypt Lebanon Syria Jordan and Iraq. These texts form the religious basis for the idea of a large territory sometimes called the Promised Land or Eretz Israel.

Isaiah chapter 28 addresses the leaders of Jerusalem directly. The prophet records them claiming they have made a covenant with death and an agreement with Sheol the grave. They believed this arrangement would protect them from coming disaster. God rejects that claim outright. The text declares that the covenant with death will be annulled and the agreement with the grave will not stand. Judgment will still arrive and trample them.

Historical context shows the leaders relied on political deals and deception rather than trust in God. Most scholars identify the false security as an alliance with Egypt against the Assyrian threat. The language is figurative. It exposes empty confidence in human schemes that cannot stop divine judgment. The passage has no connection to any modern treaty or state policy.

The phrase Greater Israel appears in modern discussion with two main meanings. One refers to the State of Israel plus the West Bank Gaza and Golan Heights.

The other points to the full biblical span from the Nile region to the Euphrates. Early Zionist figures such as Theodor Herzl referenced large biblical scale maps in private notes. Revisionist groups later claimed the entire British Mandate including Transjordan.

After the 1967 war some Israeli groups formed the Movement for Greater Israel and pushed to keep and settle the captured territories. Certain religious nationalist parties and individuals continue to invoke the broader biblical vision. In 2023 Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich spoke near a map that included Jordan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described attachment to a historic and spiritual mission linked to the concept.

No official document of the State of Israel declares a policy to expand to the Nile and Euphrates. Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and returned the Sinai Peninsula. It signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 and recognizes Jordanian sovereignty. The Abraham Accords further normalized relations with several Arab states. These actions contradict any active plan for the maximum biblical borders.

Claims of a secret Greater Israel Project that drives all Israeli policy lack supporting evidence from government archives or consistent state action. The term is used by some far right Israeli voices as aspiration.

Opponents use it as an accusation of endless expansion. Both sides stretch the biblical text to fit current agendas. The original Genesis promise was unconditional in form yet later texts link possession of the land to obedience.

Isaiah 28 does not describe any peace treaty as a covenant with death. The prophet targeted ancient leaders who hid behind lies and foreign alliances while ignoring the terms of their own covenant with God. Applying that language to modern diplomacy requires ignoring the clear historical setting and the plain wording of the chapter.

Religious belief in an eternal land grant remains central for many Jews and some Christians. Political reality operates under international law recognized borders and negotiated agreements. The State of Israel has never defined final borders in a single binding document yet it has repeatedly traded land for peace and security arrangements. Confusion arises when ancient poetry and prophecy are treated as modern blueprints.

The Old Testament texts stand as religious literature with specific ancient contexts. They do not automatically translate into twenty first century foreign policy. Readers who demand exact territorial fulfillment must also confront the conditional elements and the historical failures recorded in the same books.

Accurate discussion requires separating the biblical record from current political claims.

The land descriptions exist in scripture. The covenant with death exists as a prophetic rebuke of false security. Neither supplies proof of a coordinated state project to seize the full Nile to Euphrates region today.

This is what conflicts with others opinions and beliefs in the Modern World

It’s true, the Scriptures record direct land promises from God to Abraham and his descendants. Genesis sets the borders from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Those words stand as the landlord deed in scripture. Modern leaders and courts deny the scriptures and fight endless wars over the same territory.

Money and power drive the conflicts instead of honest reading of the Scriptures. But because no one has ever “Seen” the Landlord, they must take the writings on Faith. The modern world does not recognize the Scriptures as “Legal Deed" to promised land.

This divide fuels nonstop violence. One side holds to the scripture as title. The other side pushes human drawn maps and calls the biblical claim dangerous myth. Greater Israel ideas flow straight from the verses. Hidden interests use the split to keep control and sell more weapons. Isaiah exposed the rulers for their worthless safety agreements. He warned the covenant with death would fail and judgment would hit anyway. The same false deals appear today in every summit and news report.

Real powers push fake peace while the core landlord question remains buried. Everyday people suffer in the middle of holy claims and global power plays.

Palestinians demand their homes. Israelis defend history and existence. The landlord question creates constant tension because scripture and modern borders refuse to line up.

No side wants to discuss the full weight of the original text.

Scripture delivered the land grant. The current world dismisses it or turns it into a tool while leaders chase their own agendas. The biblical promise clashes with every international rule written by men. That refusal to face the words keeps the region locked in endless dispute. People continue to die over ground one book assigns to a chosen line and the planet rejects outright. The collision between ancient deed and present day maps produces only more death. No amount of talks or bombs will settle this fight until someone deals with the plain text that started it.

No side wants to discuss the full weight of the original biblical text because doing so would require everyone to confront its claims on equal ground. If the Scriptures are accepted as the inspired word of God, then God is not simply another voice in the conversation. He is the Creator, the Owner, and the ultimate authority over His creation. In that sense, He is the Landlord of the earth, and humanity is accountable to Him.

If everyone agreed on that foundation, there would be far greater clarity about right and wrong, truth and error, and the purpose of human life. Much of today’s division exists because people begin with different authorities, whether government, science, philosophy, religion, or personal opinion. The Bible presents a different starting point by declaring that truth begins with God.

The real debate, then, is not simply about interpreting Scripture. It is about whether Scripture has the authority to define reality in the first place.

Until there is agreement on that question, people will continue to reach different conclusions because they are building on different foundations.

Sources:

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

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

https://biblehub.com/genesis/15-18.htm 

https://www.gotquestions.org/covenant-with-death-annulled.html 

https://jesusplusnothing.com/series/post/what-covenant-death-mentioned-isaiah-28 

https://www.bibleref.com/Isaiah/28/Isaiah-28-18.html 

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #thegreaterisraelproject #neverendingwars #israelwars

Share

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth JULY 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Rashida Tlaib Attacks The Foundations Of America

Rashida Tlaib holds a seat in the United States Congress. She represents a district in Michigan. She has used her position to attack the country and its core institutions in strong terms.

In a public speech she stated that the political structures she works in and that surround everyone were built on slavery and genocide and rape and oppression.

She added that this institution will never save us. These remarks paint the United States as evil from its beginning. They dismiss any positive aspects of American history or government. They focus only on the worst parts of the past.

America ended legal slavery after a long and costly civil war. It passed amendments and laws to expand rights over time. Millions of people from every background have come here and built better lives. Her description leaves out these facts and the self improvement that took place. Tlaib posted a video that included the slogan from the river to the sea Palestine will be free. Many people view this slogan as a direct call to remove Israel as a country. Israel serves as a close ally to the United States in a dangerous region.

She defended the slogan as a call for freedom human rights and peaceful coexistence. Critics reject this defense. They note that the words describe a single area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea with no room for the existing Jewish state. The House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Tlaib over her statements. The action addressed her defense of the slogan and other comments about events in the Middle East. Lawmakers from both major parties supported the measure in large numbers.

Nick Freitas has spoken directly about her comments. He pointed out that she describes the country as horrible in front of crowds.

He asked why she came to America in the first place if she holds these views. He also raised the idea of removing citizenship and sending her out of the country if she rejects it so completely.

Freitas and others see her words as proof that she does not value the United States. They argue that a person in her role should not spread the message that the entire system is corrupt at its root. They say this kind of talk crosses a line. Jesse Kelly has covered her statements on his program as well. He and Freitas both note that her repeated criticisms fuel anger among people who support the country. They explain that her approach treats America as the problem rather than a place worth defending and improving.

Tlaib takes an oath when she enters Congress. She receives a salary paid by American taxpayers. She uses the full protections of free speech and due process that exist here. At the same time she tells audiences that the structures around her rest on oppression. Her broad condemnations create outrage for a clear reason. Most Americans see their country as a place of opportunity despite real flaws in the past. They expect elected leaders to work inside the system to fix issues rather than declare the whole thing rotten.

Tlaib can criticize specific laws or policies without attacking the country itself. Many leaders do exactly that. Broad claims that the foundations rest only on terrible acts go beyond normal debate.

They treat the United States as uniquely bad in world history. No law forces Tlaib to remain in America. She enjoys the freedom to speak her mind and to leave if she chooses.

Other people who dislike their home countries often move elsewhere. She faces no such barrier.

Americans grow tired of hearing leaders in high office express open contempt for the nation. They want representatives who defend the country and its values even while pushing for changes. Tlaib chooses a different path that keeps drawing strong reactions.

Address links:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/845/text 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-slogan-that-led-to-rashida-tlaibs-censure-explained/ 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-squad-member-lashes-out-pro-israel-movement-fiery-speech

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #news #politics #leftistsagendas

Share

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth JULY 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

New Focus on Useful Tools Over Super Intelligence

They poured massive money into computer systems that learn patterns from data.

Now those systems demand endless power, chips, and buildings. Returns stay small while expenses explode. This forces changes in plans across companies.

Meta under Mark Zuckerberg keeps pouring cash into AI. The company plans to spend as much as 145 billion dollars on infrastructure in 2026. That nearly doubles earlier spending. Wall Street gave approval at first. But results lag behind the spending. Meta cut roughly 8,000 jobs earlier in 2026. Zuckerberg linked part of those cuts to AI costs for computers and data centers. The company re assigned thousands more workers to AI teams. These moves aim to free up money for bigger builds. They also show the pressure to control spending.

Progress on AI agents has slowed inside Meta. These are systems meant to handle tasks on their own. Zuckerberg told staff the development did not speed up as leaders expected. The new company structure focused on AI has not yet delivered the gains hoped for. Improvements may appear in the next three to six months according to internal updates. Meta now pushes paid AI tools and proprietary models. It wants users and businesses to pay for better access. This shift tries to turn heavy investment into actual revenue. Earlier open sharing of models gave way to more controlled products that compete in the cloud market.

Elon Musk made a clear structural change with his AI work. He folded the independent xAI company into SpaceX. It became a division called SpaceXAI. The move combines resources for data centers and other projects.

It also fits plans around a possible SpaceX stock offering. Grok tools and related work now sit inside the larger rocket company. Musk still drives hard on practical AI uses at Tesla. Full self driving software and humanoid robots like Optimus face tight 2026 targets. Tesla shifts capital spending toward AI chips, robots, and energy systems. The focus stays on real world machines rather than abstract super intelligence alone.

Across the industry 2026 brings delays in key areas. New data centers take longer to finish. Supply problems hit chips, power equipment, cooling systems, and skilled workers. Some companies may store extra chips instead of installing them right away. These bottlenecks slow the race everyone expected. Timelines for advanced AI slipped. Many experts now place full artificial general intelligence in the 2030s at the earliest. Earlier talk of breakthroughs by 2027 faded after reviews from leading researchers. This longer view changes how companies plan big spending today.

Large businesses outside tech report fatigue with AI projects. Many stay stuck in testing phases. Promised gains in speed or output often fail to appear fast.

Workers feel let down when tools create extra low value work instead of clear wins. This disappointment reduces excitement for broad adoption.

Investors flag real risks from the spending wave. Big Tech groups plan hundreds of billions more on AI buildings and power. Revenue from AI products stays modest compared to those outlays. Warnings point to possible overbuilding and weak profits if breakthroughs stall. The boom entered a riskier stage according to some major funds.

Energy demands add another limit. Running large AI systems uses huge amounts of electricity. Data centers already consume large shares of power in some regions. Companies must solve power and grid issues or face higher costs and delays. This practical barrier hits every major player.

The AI race now stresses different priorities. It moved past racing for the biggest models at any cost.

Leaders focus on useful tools that fit real products and control expenses. Specific applications like robots or customer service agents matter more than vague future promises. Competition shifts toward efficiency and actual delivery.

These adjustments reflect hard lessons. Early excitement ignored limits on time, money, and technology. Billions spent do not create instant revolutions. Companies that adapt to costs, delays, and slower progress will shape what comes next. Others risk wasting more resources on outdated plans.

Sources and links:

https://sequoiacap.com/article/ai-in-2026-the-tale-of-two-ais/ 

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/02/mark-zuckerberg-tells-staff-that-ai-agents-havent-progressed-as-quickly-as-hed-hoped/ 

https://www.weforum.org/stories/artificial-intelligence/ai-paradoxes-in-2026/ 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-invest-650-billion-162045430.html 

https://www.reuters.com/business/metas-profit-hit-by-16-billion-one-time-tax-charge-2025-10-29/ 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/xai-dissolved-musk-spacex-ipo-1d035d36 

https://aimagazine.com/news/metas-profit-surge-ai-spending-set-to-nearly-double 

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #news #datacenters #aitechinvestments

Share

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth JULY 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

No Relevant Background in UAP Analysis or Intelligence Matters

Dr. Phil McGraw recently shared his views on new Pentagon documents about unidentified anomalous phenomena.

He stated that the federal government has lied to the public for 79 years through omission and misdirection on this subject.

Television and news outlets sometimes invite well-known personalities to comment on unusual topics. This approach increases audience interest but does not replace analysis by people with direct expertise in the relevant technical or intelligence fields.

McGraw’s comments reflect his personal response after seeing the documents. They do not stem from years of specialized research or professional work in UAP investigation or national security policy.

The public gains little from treating his statements as expert analysis on aliens or government secrecy. His platform comes from television success and name recognition, not demonstrated qualifications in this area.

Individuals seeking reliable information on UAP should review official government reports directly. They should also examine statements from scientists, engineers, and analysts who have studied sensor data and flight records in detail.

Celebrity opinions on technical government matters often prioritize emotional impact over precise evaluation.

Viewers and readers benefit from separating fame from actual subject-matter authority. McGraw received an early review of the latest batch of files released by the Pentagon. These files include reports, videos, and records from military and other agencies. He spoke about them in an interview with The Hill.

Credible accounts from military pilots and other witnesses exist and warrant careful study. However, broad assertions of a deliberate multi-decade cover-up of alien craft have not been supported by verifiable, independent evidence made public.

Topics involving government records on unidentified aerial objects require specialized knowledge. This includes understanding sensor systems, classified information rules, and technical evaluation of flight data. These subjects lie outside McGraw’s professional training.

McGraw’s strong reaction focused on claims of long-term secrecy and possible nonhuman technology. McGraw expressed fury over what he described as decades of misleading the American people. Phillip Calvin McGraw was born in 1950 in Oklahoma. He originally planned a career in football but shifted to psychology after an injury. He completed his studies at several Texas universities. McGraw earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Midwestern State University in 1975. He then obtained a master’s degree in experimental psychology and a doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas in 1979.

His doctoral research examined psychological factors related to rheumatoid arthritis. He completed one year of additional training in forensic psychology at the Wilmington Institute. McGraw worked as a licensed clinical psychologist in Texas for several years. He practiced with his father and developed approaches for managing chronic pain in patients. He later moved away from regular patient therapy. McGraw founded Courtroom Sciences Incorporated, a company that applied psychology to help lawyers prepare for trials and lawsuits. This work brought him attention in high-profile legal cases. One connection led to appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show, which helped launch his public profile. McGraw started his own daily television talk show in 2002. The program focuses on giving advice about family issues, relationships, personal problems, and emotional challenges.

The show presents psychological ideas in an accessible format for viewers. It functions mainly as entertainment programming rather than formal clinical treatment or scientific research.

McGraw has authored multiple best-selling books on self-help topics. These books cover life strategies, relationships, and personal improvement using concepts from his psychology background. His education and experience center on clinical psychology and media production. He holds no advanced training or professional background in physics, astronomy, military intelligence analysis, or aerospace technology.

Recent Pentagon releases of UAP files form part of broader transparency efforts. Official reviews by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office have explained many cases as ordinary aircraft, balloons, drones, or sensor issues. Some cases remain unresolved but show no confirmed evidence of extraterrestrial origins.

Address links:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/ufo-files-dr-phil-conspiracy/ 

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

https://www.war.gov/UFO/ 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ufo-files-4th-release-pentagon/ 

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #news #facialrecognition #privacy #drphil #wokecelebs

Share

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth JULY 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Foreign Enclaves Now Challenge the Old Rules

America was built on the idea that every citizen stands equal before the law. The Bill of Rights laid out clear protections for individual liberty that applied to rich and poor alike.

Those rights formed the foundation for a nation where opportunity depended on effort and character rather than birth or group membership. Patriots understood that freedom required constant defense against threats from within and without.

They fought and died for a system that treated people as individuals rather than members of favored or disfavored groups.

This system produced strength because it rested on shared commitment to self government and personal responsibility. The belief in that America held firm as long as the people inside its borders accepted those same rules.

Mass immigration from regions with different traditions and values changed the balance over time. New arrivals often formed tight communities that kept their original loyalties stronger than their attachment to American principles. In places like Dearborn Michigan the shift became visible in large public gatherings.

Crowds there wave flags and express support for foreign conflicts tied to groups that reject American alliances.

Local leaders describe these events as peaceful celebrations while downplaying the open display of divided priorities. Data on attitudes within Muslim American communities shows patterns that clash with the old ideal.

Significant portions express favorable views toward organizations hostile to American partners. Many prioritize foreign policy concerns over full alignment with the founding vision of limited government and equal individual rights. Officials respond by offering accommodations instead of requiring complete adoption of American norms.

This approach turns equality into special treatment based on identity and background.

True equality under law cannot survive when some groups receive exemptions or protections denied to others. National pride has fallen to record lows in recent surveys. Fewer Americans express strong attachment to the country compared to past decades.

The drop reflects growing awareness that the original promise no longer matches daily reality in many areas. The light of hope America once represented for the world relied on cultural cohesion and clear borders. Open policies that imported large numbers without demanding assimilation created parallel societies inside the nation.

Those societies operate with their own rules and symbols while using American freedoms to advance separate agendas. Citizens who point out the mismatch between the founding vision and current conditions face pressure to stay silent.

The system that once protected open debate now often shields certain groups from criticism. This reversal undermines the very rights the founders placed at the center of American life. Wishing the old innocent view could return does not erase the facts now visible on the ground.

Demographic concentration combined with low assimilation in key communities produces real divisions. Those divisions weaken the trust required for a free society to function over the long term.

Restoring the original strength means facing the choices that led here.

It requires ending policies that treat immigration as an unlimited right rather than a privilege tied to compatibility. Only then can equality of opportunity and respect under law return as more than empty words.

Address links

https://news.gallup.com/poll/692150/american-pride-slips-new-low.aspx 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn,_Michigan 

https://ispu.org/poll/american-muslim-poll-2025/ 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript 

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #constitution #news #substack #nosharia #deportislam

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth JULY 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.