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.