Authored by T.L.Davis, 

A recent interview Tucker Carlson had with George Galloway, a long-time member of the British Parliament and with a show himself in Britain, who was recently detained at the border under terrorism charges for, apparently, the opinions broadcast on his show.

No nation has fallen quicker or more completely than Britain into the totalitarian mindset.

It’s why we highlighted this aspect of modern Europe into the film Deconstruction.

Britain, as long as it pursues the same oppression of free speech as the Soviet Union, can not be called or considered an ally of the United States.

This is what we have to decide as a people, the American people, who will and who will not be our allies. Governments, especially now, are poor judges of character. They will hold onto traditional alliances, when those alliances have long been strained, simply because they would be unsure of what that would do to international relationships. If we lose Britain, France and Germany as allies, what effect does that have on NATO?

My question, however, is what damage does continued alliances with nations who punish their people for what they have said, posted or broadcast do to international perception? Are we not tarnished by their brush? Yes. It also signals that the United States is not determined to uphold the right to free speech. That in order to maintain these alliances will betray their own people.

As Britain, France and Germany turn toward implementing a police state to support immigrants who rape and kill their sons and daughters, put protesters in jail and silence not only their own citizens, but any who arrive through the internet, can they still be considered allies of a free nation? No. So, how free is that “free” nation? It is not free as it supports and continues alliances with nations diametrically opposed, not only to free speech, but a series of democratic principles.

The battle taking place within the European nations draw a stark contrast to the Central and Eastern European nations, formerly Soviet client states, who distance themselves from European Union dictates that promote illegal migration and the silencing of objectors.

The whole idea of democracy comes from the idea that the people have a say in who governs them and the policies they impose. When freedom of speech is so blatantly outlawed and only approved narratives permitted, there is no democracy. I don’t know what sort of government Britain has, but it is not a democracy as it claims. Yes, I know it’s technically a Monarchy, but the King or Queen has nowhere near the political power they once held.

All of this centers around illegal migration, it’s where people like Keir Starmer intend to derive their power, in the end. If he supports the replacement population when it is unpopular to do so, they might look kindly on him when the Islamists take full control of the politics, but he is a useful idiot.

They continue to put forth the idea that a declining birthrate is the reason for the importation of these migrants, but if European and American birthrates are dropping, as it is in all Western societies, it would seem that the logical conclusion would be to outlaw abortion, not import rapists and murderers.

But that’s not the reason. It isn’t the birthrate, it’s an attempt to forever change politics that eliminates the right, the Christians. This point was made clear by Viktor Orban in the film Deconstruction that’s coming out soon.

Communists and Islamists work well together. They have the same goal, supremacy through murder and imprisonment of an uncompliant populace. Democracies must tolerate the naysayers, the critics, that’s the difference. It won’t be long and the UK will be an Islamic nation, just as Iran became an Islamic nation. Are they still allies of the US? If so, why are not all Islamic nations allies? Because Islamic nations are at war with the US. “Death to America” does not seem like the pronouncement of an ally. Will it be heard across Britain, while we still consider it a close ally? Of course.

The United States had better figure this out, too. The only true allies the US has in Europe are the Central and Eastern European nations.

They are also the ones that need more protection from Russia and China, because, as smaller economies, they can’t afford to be too choosy about who they do business with and the more that the United States can be a better economic partner, the stronger we will all be.

The world is changing rapidly and our government is incapable of keeping up with the pace. It has to be led by the people.

The film Deconstruction makes this point. 

Here’s a trailer that we’ve produced that gives one a sense of where we’re going with the message of the film.

It’s important, because a lot of changes are coming down the pike and if we don’t build some sort of resistance mechanism by which the people will have an increasing say in what policies our government promotes, all is lost. Governments can’t understand issues as quickly as the people can. When the internet came along, the government did not prevent corporations from using and selling information required to establish an account. They did nothing, now it’s just a land of pillage and plunder, unless one spends an inordinate amount of time protecting oneself from it.

AI is coming and the government is not in a position to be able to control it, or protect its citizens from being victimized. Already, I get AI solicitations for marketing my books. No human has read the books and has come up with the information about them. I delete those, even though they are quite complimentary about my work. I don’t want anything to do with AI, or as little as I can tolerate. I don’t want anything to do with AI film production, even though it can be a lot cheaper and quick to produce.

There’s value in simply rejecting what is obviously detrimental to the people. Who gains form AI? Just corporations. Yes, it might be slightly more convenient, but is that worth the ultimate sacrifice of a doomed economy, soaring electric costs and depleted water resources? Not to me.

The need to fight back is urgent. And I expect my warnings to go unheeded, as always. The average person is much too willing to give up, to not fight it when everyone in a position of power decides something. This was illustrated during the pandemic. A lot of us knew it was a false flag, that what they were saying was untrue, that masks didn’t help, that the vaccine wasn’t even a vaccine, but a DNA altering injection. Yet, everywhere I went, people just lined up and took it, accepted the ridiculous distancing and mask wearing.

We’re now in for a lot of that, because it was not ridiculed out of existence from the very beginning. That’s the power of the people, the ability to ridicule nonsense. Finally, slowly, the whole transgender nonsense is losing potency due to that very ridicule that we all possess naturally. Use it.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Gold is on a hot streak, up more than 50% to-date despite retreating from October’s record highs of $4,380 per troy ounce.

Driving global demand is the mixture of geopolitical tensions, a weaker U.S. dollar, and sticky inflation. In Q3 2025, central bank purchases were up 28% over the quarter, while inflows of gold-backed ETFs hit $26 billion.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, breaks down the total global supply of gold, both above and below ground, based on data from the World Gold Council.

All of the World’s Above and Below-Ground Gold

As of year-end 2024, the total above-ground stock of gold was 216,265 tonnes. Based on a gold price of $4,166 per troy ounce, all of the world’s mined gold is valued at $29 trillion.

When including identified underground gold, the total reaches 348,375 tonnes. All of the world’s gold together in a sphere would be about 107 feet tall, matching the approximate height of the White House from the south side’s lawn to the top of its flagpole.

The data table below breaks down all of the world’s above and below-ground gold and its value.

The world’s below-ground stock (gold that hasn’t been mined yet) is an estimated 132,110 tonnes, covering reserves and resources. Gold reserves are the part of underground gold resources (identified deposits) that are economically viable to extract at current prices.

Resources are not yet proven to be economically viable to mine and process.

How Much Gold is Left to Mine?

With most of the world’s gold already having been mined, only about 38% of the known gold supply remains underground, identified as reserves and resources.

At 2024’s pace of roughly 3,661 tonnes of gold production a year, that below-ground stock equates to just under four decades of additional output, assuming prices or technological advancements make resources economically feasible to mine in the future.

For investors, that mix of finite physical supply, ongoing central-bank purchases, and rising investment demand helps explain why this 107-foot sphere of gold now represents more than $47 trillion in combined above- and below-ground value at current prices.

To learn more about where the world’s gold is mined, check out this graphic which breaks down global gold production by region and country.

Via Remix News,

While Russia is routinely portrayed as a serious military power, as the war drags on, Russia is becoming more and more reliant on Chinese drone components to survive.

Now, China’s drone component supplier Wang Dinhua has just purchased a 5 percent stake in Russia’s Rustakt, a top drone manufacturer in Russia.

Rustakt is subject to sanctions imposed by both Ukraine and the European Union, reports Do Rzeczy, citing an article from FInancial TImes. 

Samuel Bendett, a drone expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted the growing cooperation between the Russian and Chinese military-industrial complexes, as well as Putin’s reliance on Chinese components for Russia’s growing drone needs.

However, this reliance is nothing new. 

Another Russian company, Aero-HIT, has also benefitted from this partnership, reportedly producing up to 10,000 drones per month this year.

It also plans to produce more advanced models.

China is generally considered the leading drone component manufacturer in the world, dominating much of the supply chain to the point that many of the components also purchased by the United States also come from China.

Ukraine has also discovered laser sensors manufactured by a South African company in Russian drones attacking its cities.

It remains unclear how products intended for civilian use ended up on the kamikaze drones, the independent Russian-language website The Moscow Times reported on Friday.

Laser rangefinders from several countries, including South Africa, have been detected in long-range drones modified from the Iranian Shahed, according to Vladislav Vasilyuk, a Ukrainian official responsible for sanctions policy.

Industrial lasers from South Africa’s Lightware are small and lightweight, making them suitable for installation in drones.

The supply of military equipment to countries engaged in armed conflict without the consent of the South African government is prohibited, but Lightware is not registered as a trader in ammunition or dual-use products or technologies.

Read more here…

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Modern western culture is an absolute anomaly in the history of human civilization. If one studies the principles and doctrines of nearly every other society and empire around the world, you will not find one that allows mass immigration of foreigners with contrary ideologies.

You will not find one that allows foreigners to migrate without strict assimilation and loyalty.

From the Arab states, to China, South Korea, and Japan (until recently), to India and beyond, every culture maintains a strict sense of supremacy. There is an absolute expectation that newcomers will adapt to political policies, belief systems, social norms, etc. Most of the world for thousands of years has operated in this way. Only the modern west deviates and only the west is chastised as “xenophobic” for establishing barriers to foreign influence.

The US in particular has been typecast as a “global melting pot”, even though the vast majority of immigration up until the last half of the 20th century was from other western nations with similar beliefs and traditions. The melting pot theory was largely promoted and glorified by socialist elites in the early 1900s and was not a value of the common American.

Israel Zangwill (a British-Jewish Broadway playwright and devout socialist/supporter of feminism) popularized the term nationally in 1908. Even then, he spoke specifically about various European cultures coming to America.

The “melting pot” was never about inviting millions of people from the third-world with utterly exclusive and hostile ideologies. This notion did not become popular until recently.

What happened? When did it become America’s “duty” to adopt the problem children of the rest of the planet? And why is western civilization the only civilization that is expected to be submissive to the concept of multiculturalism?

This topic is at the very root of nearly every political conflict raging today. The ICE raids, the foreign travel bans, the use of the National Guard to deter organized interference of deportations, the recent terror attack in Washington DC, the increasing calls by Democrats and woke activists for violent “resistance” – All of it goes back to the notion that America is SUPPOSED to welcome anyone and everyone, legal or illegal, from any part of the world regardless of the threat they might pose to our society.

Progressives, for various reasons, furiously insist that America is THE melting pot. That this is our national heritage and that anyone who says otherwise is a “fascist” trying to fundamentally change our cultural foundations.

NGOs and globalist foundations spend billions of dollars to facilitate mass immigration to the US, often in violation of the will of the voting public and the administrations in power. They also fund the majority of activist groups trying to disrupt deportations.

Global governance organizations like the UN spend vast sums of money to enable illegal immigration into the US, providing subsidies, maps, and legal advice to migrants seeking to sneak into America or exploit loopholes for temporary residency.

A number of foreign governments (mainly India and Mexico) lobby the US government to open the floodgates, expanding visa programs and allowing non-citizens to take American jobs, housing and other resources.

The “melting pot” has been poisoned with a rancid cocktail of nefarious agendas. Any positive vestiges of the ideal have been lost. Any value the melting pot might have once had is gone. All that is left is an army of parasites looking for blood; a swarm of mosquitoes rushing in to latch onto a vein. Few if any of these people or institutions care about the “American Dream”, they only see the US as an easy target ripe for conquest.

We have made ourselves an easy target. Our faith in liberalism has led us down a dark path of suicidal empathy. We naively assumed that “tolerance” is a virtue; it is not. Tolerance is a luxury – A luxury for the ultra wealthy and the extraordinarily dimwitted.

No other culture on Earth worships tolerance like westerners do, and there’s a good reason for that. In the case of the US, our ancestors already invested their blood and tears and treasure into this nation to make it the most wealthy and successful in the world. We have been living off their labors for generations.

The people that want to give that civilizational wealth away are people who lack respect for the trials and tribulations required to obtain it.

Another problem is that our tolerance often goes unappreciated because it is not a virtue for any other culture, either. The third world sees tolerance as weakness and opportunity. Many foreign social belief systems, from Judaism, to Hinduism to Islam, carry an ancient code of tribalism, an insider/outsider mentality of supremacy which is admonished in modern western thought but tolerated in immigrants.

For third worlders, a culture which is tolerant is fair game for exploitation and perhaps even invasion. You will consistently see foreign groups in the US argue that they are indeed American, but at the same time they will declare allegiance to their nation of origin. Their love of America is based on their love of the WEALTH they can derive from America. They’re laughing all the way to the closest Western Union.

Most have no interest in our principles and our heritage. They see America as an economic zone, a global commons with resources to be tapped. In other words, foreigners see immigration as a fishing business, a means to gain access to a largely unprotected wealth pool created by a culture with more historic merit and more success. They have been gathering their nets for quite some time.

In 2024 the US government under Joe Biden spent over $72 billion on foreign aid with another $26 billion in supplementals. India and Mexico transfer around $100 billion total in remittance from the US each year (foreign workers sending money back home). A number of officials with ethnic roots in these countries regularly argue in favor of continued visas and mass immigration while claiming it’s “for the good of Americans.”

Again, their loyalty is to their culture of origin first and America last.

For progressives and globalists immigration is also about wealth, primarily the redistribution of it from middle-class and upper-class Americans into foreign coffers. They see the common American people (conservatives) as a thorn in their side that needs to be removed. The draining of our buying power and living standards is a stepping stone to cultural deconstruction.

Mass immigration is a tool for social change. Multiculturalism erases national pride and the concept of protected borders. For if we are overwhelmed by the third world, who is going to care about maintaining the borders of our nation anymore? We might as well let the whole thing collapse, right?

They openly admit to this agenda, it’s not a secret. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Black-pilled nihilists will say that we’ll “do nothing”, but I’m not really interested in the opinions of conservatives who have given up. They are just as responsible for our troubles as progressives. They are weaklings and cowards.

Donald Trump’s recent declaration of a ban on third world immigration is at least bringing the topic to the average American dinner table. It’s been a long time since we had a real national reexamination of the “melting pot” idea. And, from my observations the use of mass deportations is gathering vast support among the American public.

I really don’t think officials living in the bubble of DC or mainstream journalists suffering from delusions of influence realize just how deep the anger goes when it comes to foreign exploitation and foreign influence over American society. I would suggest that there are tens of millions of patriots on the verge of walking out the door tomorrow to wage war on leftists and illegal immigrants should the obstructions of deportations continue.

The naysayers just don’t get how fed up people are becoming. Third world enclaves in places like Minneapolis and Dearborne don’t get it, either. Our tolerance is rapidly melting away, faster than the melting pot can be filled. The era of liberalism is over. The era of western multiculturalism is about to be stamped out. Mark my words, we are on the precipice of a reckoning.

* * *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

A big Washington Post report issued Friday detailed allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an order to “kill everybody” aboard an alleged drug boat in September.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” the WaPo report reads. “The order was to kill everybody,” it quotes a Pentagon official as saying.

After that, “A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.“

From there, Hegseth’s ‘kill them all’ order was followed through with. “The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water,” the Post wrote based on its sources.

President Trump on Sunday addressed the allegations, which the report present as tantamount to ‘unlawful orders’ and a war crime, as he traveled back to Washington D.C. after the Thanksgiving weekend. Some Congressional leaders, mostly Democrats, have expressed outrage and vowed to look into the apparently standing orders.

Trump in his response declared that he has complete confidence in Hegseth in the top Pentagon post. While Trump said that he personally would have ordered a second strike on the boat, he explained, “I don’t know anything about it. He said he did not say that, and I believe him, 100 percent.”

“He said he didn’t do it. He said he never said that,” Trump emphasized when asked specifically about the second strike. “He said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.” According to more from Trump’s response:

“Number one, I don’t know that that happened,” Trump said, when asked whether a hypothetical second strike would be illegal. “And Pete said he did not want them — he didn’t even know what people were talking about. So, we’ll look at, we’ll look into it.”

“But no, I wouldn’t have wanted that, not a second strike,” he continued. “The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence in him.”

A reporter asked the president if he was “saying there’s no second strike.” “I don’t know,” Trump responded. “I’m going to find out about it. But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”

Trump was asked “would you be OK if he did do it?”

Reporter: Can you talk a little bit about the strikes and controversy around Hegseth—

Trump: I don’t know anything about it. He said he did not say that.

Reporter: You don’t know if there was a second strike to kill the two men

Trump: He said he didn’t do it

Reporter: Would… pic.twitter.com/JvxUvnaeQJ

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 30, 2025

This is after Hegseth late in the day Friday had blasted the “fake news” Washington Post report, calling the series of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats “lawful”. If Hegseth and Trump as commander-in-chief were to actually say they gave an order to “kill everybody” – such an order could open them up to international legal action related to war crimes, as it would be tantamount to openly admitting to giving orders to pursue extrajudicial killings. This is also given that any survivors of an initial strike would not be a threat, and they would likely be unarmed.

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Navy is pulling the plug on a new series of Constellation-class frigates, although construction will continue on the first two ships in the program.

Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan announced his decision to cancel the program in a video message on Nov. 25.

“My job as secretary of the Navy is to be a responsible steward of the trust and resources the American people place in us, delivering modern, lethal, and reliable platforms that strengthen readiness and give our war fighters every advantage to deter, fight, and win,” Phelan said.

The move comes as the U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding efforts are falling behind China’s.

According to a March congressional report, the size of the U.S. fleet has ranged between 270 and 300 battle force ships since the early 2000s, despite a force-structure goal that calls for 355 battle force ships. China’s navy, by contrast, is expected to reach 395 ships by the end of 2025.

Phelan said the decision to cancel the Constellation-class frigates will be his first major public action to reshape the Department of the Navy.

Frigates are generally considered the smallest surface combatants, behind the medium-sized destroyers and larger cruisers.

Plans for the Constellation-class guided-missile frigate called for a warship with 32 vertical launch systems, capable of firing a variety of missiles, including Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and air-defense missiles. These frigates would also be equipped with 16 additional missile launch canisters.

Fincantieri Marinette Marine won the contract to design and build the Constellation-class frigates in 2020.

The Navy originally planned for 20 ships in the Constellation frigate program. Before the cancellation decision, the service had six frigates under contract, with two under construction.

Phelan said the Navy had reached an agreement with industry partners to cancel four Constellation-class frigates that had not yet begun construction. Construction on the first two ships in the class will continue, for now.

“We greatly value the shipbuilders of Wisconsin and Michigan,” the Navy secretary said. “While work continues on the first two ships, those ships remain under review as we work through this strategic shift. Keeping this critical workforce employed and the yard viable for future Navy shipbuilding is of foremost concern.”

In a statement addressing the changes to the Constellation-class frigate program, Fincantieri said it is expecting new shipbuilding orders from the Navy, guaranteeing work for Fincantieri employees.

“Entering into the future and in alignment with the Group’s industrial capabilities and potential, Fincantieri will support the U.S. Navy, as it redefines strategic choices in the Small Surface Combatants segment, manned or unmanned,” the shipbuilder said.

John Phelan at a Senate Armed Services confirmation hearing in Washington on Feb. 27, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Frigate Program Faced Growing Concerns

In his video address announcing the decision, Phelan did not offer a specific reason why the Navy is canceling the Constellation-class frigate program. However, the program had faced mounting concerns over costs, construction delays, and whether the final product would be the right design.

A March report by the Congressional Research Service noted that the first frigate of the class, to be named USS Constellation, already faced an estimated three-year delay.

The design for the Constellation-class was based on an earlier design Fincantieri had prepared for European navies, known as the Frigate European Multi-Mission (FREMM) design. The March congressional report noted the Constellation-class design at one point had 85 percent commonality with the FREMM parent design but that alterations to the Constellation design had reduced that commonality to less than 15 percent.

Congressional researchers also highlighted disagreements over the number of vertical launch missile silos the new frigates would carry.

The March report noted that the original plan for the new frigates calls for a ship that’s about three-quarters of the size of the current Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyers, while only carrying about a third as many missile silos as the destroyers. On the other hand, the March report noted that concepts for expanding the number of missile silos on the frigates from 32 to 48 would increase the cost per ship by between 1.3 and 2.2 percent.

Other shipbuilding projects have challenged the Navy in recent years.

In the 1990s, the Navy began pursuing a new class of stealthy destroyers, eventually settling on the Zumwalt-class destroyer. The program was originally set to include 32 ships, but the Navy truncated the class to just three ships in 2008, amid ballooning cost projections.

Crew members of the USS Sioux City, a Freedom-class littoral combat ship, gather before the ship’s commissioning ceremony at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., on Nov. 17, 2018. Patrick Semansky, File/AP Photo

The Navy also began a Littoral Combat Ship program in the 2000s, based on two different designs, known respectively as Freedom-class and Independence-class vessels. A 2019 Congressional Research Service report noted that the littoral combat ship program has been troubled by cost overruns, design and construction issues, and questions about the survivability of the vessels in a combat scenario.

Although the first Littoral Combat Ships began construction in 2005, several have already entered early retirement.

Luigi Mangione, accused of shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel last December, is entering a crucial week-long pretrial hearing in New York state court.

The hearing will focus on whether the evidence collected against him was obtained legally and if his statements to police violated his constitutional rights.

Mangione’s defense is pushing hard to have key evidence, including a red notebook described by authorities as a “manifesto,” tossed out, arguing the items were seized after an illegal search and that he was interrogated without Miranda warnings.

“The hearing could last at least a week. Marc Agnifilo, one of Mangione’s attorneys, said he expects prosecutors to call as many as 28 witnesses — including some from Altoona, Pennsylvania, where Mangione was apprehended last December at a McDonald’s restaurant days after the shooting,” reports NBC News.

“The proceedings are set to be divided into two sections. Both will focus on whether any evidence or statements were obtained illegally and should be excluded from trial.”

Judge Gregory Carro is overseeing the two-stage pretrial process: 

• In the first part, known as a Mapp hearing, Carro will hear testimony and arguments before deciding whether the police had a legal right to obtain physical evidence.

• In the second, known as a Huntley hearing, Carro will review evidence before ruling whether statements Mangione made to law enforcement were coerced or obtained in violation of his rights.

Carro’s rulings will determine the extent of evidence the prosecution can present at trial, and could potentially make or break the case against Mangione.

Karen Agnifilo, another Mangione attorney, said the defense is not expecting a third section known as a Mosley hearing, which focuses on whether a non-eyewitness can testify about whether a person in a video or photo is Mangione.

Mangione has pleaded not guilty to nine state charges and four separate federal counts, the latter carrying the possibility of the death penalty.

The defense claims police conducted a warrantless search of Mangione’s backpack at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where he was arrested days after the shooting. 

They argue this search violated the Fourth Amendment, making any evidence recovered—including a 3D-printed ghost gun, fake IDs, ammunition, and his writings—inadmissible.

They also contend that officers failed to promptly read Mangione his Miranda rights, questioned him without informing him of his right to remain silent, and thereby violated his Fifth Amendment protections. The defense attorney Karen Agnifolo stressed the prejudice caused by the “manifesto” label and improper police procedures in detaining and interrogating Mangione.

“Law enforcement has methodically and purposefully trampled his constitutional rights by interrogating him without Miranda warnings in violation of the Fifth Amendment and illegally searching his property without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Agnifilo claimed in a statement.

Prosecutors claim Mangione planned the attack by traveling to New York, stalking Thompson, and killing him. Ammunition at the scene was engraved with words like “delay,” “deny,” and “depose,” reflecting grievances against the healthcare industry found in Mangione’s writings. Surveillance footage, including a viral shooting video, captured Mangione’s movements before and after the assassination. The prosecution intends to use this evidence to secure a conviction in what is expected to be a high-profile trial.

Mangione became something of a celebrity on the political left after his capture. Saturday Night Live’s audience even applauded at the mere mention of him. Back in February, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins casually shared Mangione’s legal defense site on social media. In June, a musical about Mangione opened in San Francisco.

The coming days will reveal whether prosecutors can keep their case intact or whether the defense’s sweeping claims of constitutional abuse gain traction, but the stakes stretch far beyond the courtroom.

The hearings will show if a man embraced by the left will be held accountable for the execution-style killing that stunned the country last year.

Update(1710ET): Russia finally and formally announced Monday its forces have captured the city of Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine, the long fought-over strategic military logistics hub, as well as the city of Vovchansk in the northeast.

The capture of Pokrovsk has long been seen as inevitable, after starting weeks ago Russian troops were filmed patrolling freely and casually in a southern district of the city which had a pre-war population of 60,000.

Russia’s military chief of staff, Valery Gerasimov, on Sunday had “informed [President] Vladimir Putin of the liberation of the cities of Krasnoarmeysk and Vovchansk,” according to the Kremlin statement first released on Telegram Monday. Krasnoarmeysk is the Russian name for Pokrovsk.

Pokrovsk has long been seen as military gateway for control over the whole east, and if there were any doubts about Russia’s military dominance along the frontlines – the overrunning of Pokrovsk has laid these doubts to rest. Russian media is in a celebratory mood…

Moment Pokrovsk became Krasnoarmeysk.

As I was saying… https://t.co/FNnFgueU7s pic.twitter.com/M5sKdoutuB

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) December 1, 2025

RT writes of the huge development, “The Russian Ministry of Defense has released frontline footage of its forces operating in key logistics hub Krasnoarmeysk in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic.”

“The city, which is known as Pokrovsk in Ukraine, along with Volchansk in Kharkov Region, has been fully liberated by Russian forces as of Monday, the chief of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, told President Vladimir Putin during a visit to a command post on November 30.”

The state media report continues, “In the raw video footage provided by the MOD, soldiers of Russia’s Center joint group of forces can be seen sprinting from cover to cover and clearing buildings in Krasnoarmeysk.”

Russian troops have been taking the city district by district for over the past month, and the precise timing of the Kremlin’s announcement to have ‘liberated’ it is without doubt intentional and strategic. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff is set to meet with President Putin on Tuesday. He will be presenting a revised Trump-backed peace plan, coming off Sunday’s meeting with the Ukrainian delegation in Miami, at a moment Ukrainian defense lines in key sectors are collapsing.

As a reminder, all of these battlefield development are unfolding rapidly while Kiev is suffering its worst political crisis of the war, and the Zelensky government is struggling to unify itself and be “on message” – also amid an embarrassing and far reaching corruption scandal and investigation. 

The cause of removing Yermak united top officials in Zelensky’s administration. The way UP describes it, it all sounds like the removal of Khrushchev by the Politburo and KGB, only the organisers coordinated their actions in an online chat. https://t.co/8xlzAtuoGh

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) December 1, 2025

* * *

Both sides kept their comments somewhat vague after the US and Ukrainian delegations met in Miami on Sunday to discuss a potential outline for a peace deal to end the war with Russia. One of the Ukrainian delegates called it “intense but not negative.” Axios wrote, “After an hour in a wider format, the meeting narrowed to three officials from each side — with the line of territorial control virtually the only issue discussed, according to the two Ukrainian officials.”

The American side which was led Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited simply that there’s “more work to be done,” including more direct engagement with Russia, also as Steve Witkoff is set to travel to Moscow this week to meet with President Vladimir Putin. Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, also attended the talks, despite not actually having an official position in the Trump administration. Axios reports some of the details gleaned thus far as follows:

Negotiations between the U.S. and Ukraine on Sunday focused on where the de facto border with Russia would be drawn under a peace deal, two Ukrainian officials tell Axios. They described the five-hour meeting as “difficult” and “intense,” but productive.

Rubio said in the immediate aftermath of the meeting, “We had another very productive session, building off Geneva, building off the events of this week. As I told you earlier this morning, our goal here is to end the war, but it’s more than just to end the war. We don’t just want to end the war. We also want to help Ukraine be safe forever, so never again will they face another invasion.”

This presumably is a reference to security guarantees, which were outlined in the Trump-proposed plan and likened to Article 5-like protections, something which Moscow is likely to reject if it does actually invite the possibility of future NATO military intervention. 

Rubio is still only emphasizing laying the “groundwork” at this late stage. “And so this is comprehensive, what we’re working on here today. It’s not just about the terms that end fighting. It’s about also the terms that set up Ukraine for long-term prosperity. I thought we started laying the groundwork for that, most certainly in Geneva,” he described.

As for the degree to which the Zelensky government is actually on board, Rubio acknowledged, “I think there is a shared vision here that this is not just about ending the war, which is very important. It is about securing Ukraine’s future, a future that we hope will be more prosperous than it’s ever been.”

Amid the typical vagueness present in such post-meeting comments, Rubio did note that progress was made. “I think additional progress was made, and we continue to be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic, particularly given the fact that as we’ve made progress,” he said. But a key question remains the degree to which the Ukrainians finally expressed willingness to make territorial concessions in the Donbass and Crimea.

The Ukrainian delegation was led by Rustem Umerov, the secretary of the Ukrainian National Security Council, after Andriy Yermak, who was until Friday Zelensky’s top aide and chief negotiator, resigned – or rather was pressured out -following a police raid on his home by anti-corruption investigators. He has since dramatically announce that he has gone to the front lines. Some say he is hiding from investigators, which can’t reach him in a military zone.

Umerov began his post-meeting remarks, “Once again, we are grateful to American people, American leadership and great team with State Secretary Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner for their tremendous work with us. Our objective is prosperous, strong Ukraine. We were discussing about the future of Ukraine.”

He continued, without tipping his cards, “We worked. We already had a successful meeting in Geneva, and today, we continue this success. So at the moment, this meeting was productive and successful.”

So territorial concessions and security guarantees remain the central sticking points, with many analysts saying now that Umerov is running point, and with Yermak pushed aside, President Trump’s vision for bringing an end to the war could be more easily accomplished.

At this moment, US officials say Witkoff is expected to submit updated documents in his upcoming meeting with President Putin that incorporate the latest talks and revisions that were made with Kiev and European leaders.

🇺🇸🇺🇦 Looks like the meeting between the US and the Ukraine didn’t go too well.

According to sources, the US wants Ukraine to hold elections as soon as possible and enforces it has to give up territories.

Witkoff will now be heading to Moscow to meet President Putin. pic.twitter.com/naITjcZke6

— Spetsnaℤ 007 🇷🇺 (@Alex_Oloyede2) November 30, 2025

Still, the Ukrainian side didn’t look happy based on the few photographs of the meeting’s start which emerged. The Trump administration is definitely in the driver’s seat, and Europe is not even at the table. This is likely become they know the clock is ticking on the battlefield, where as Moon of Alabama has noted, “The Ukrainian army is collapsing. Pokrovsk had been enveloped and occupied a week ago. But Zelenski and others kept claimed that the Ukrainian was winning that battle.” The geopolitical analysis source continues:

As the army breaks down and its soldiers flee from their positions (in Russian) other cities, like Huleipole and Siversk, will soon fall too.

There is no way for Ukraine to win the war. The longer the war takes the more will be lost for Ukraine.

The utter delusion behind the rejection of Trump’s 28 point plan was demonstrated by the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs Katja Kallas: “We still need to get from a situation where Russia pretends to negotiate to a situation where they need to negotiate.”

Moon of Alabama quips rhetorically: “Sure. And how are going to get there? After 19 rounds of EU sanction on Russia the 20th package will certainly take care of it?”

Below are more of the latest Monday morning headlines and developments via Newsquawk…

* * *

• Russia’s Kremlin said that Russian President Putin is due to meet US envoy Witkoff on Tuesday. On the Russia-Ukraine peace development, the Kremlin adds that they are not going to engage in megaphone diplomacy.
• Ukrainian President Zelensky said a delegation headed by the security council chief travelled to the US for talks, while it was also reported that Zelensky is to visit French President Macron in Paris on Monday.
• US and Ukraine negotiations on Sunday focused on where the de facto border with Russia would be drawn under a peace deal, while the five-hour meeting was said to be difficult and intense, but productive, according to two Ukrainian officials cited by Axios.
• US Secretary of State Rubio said the meeting with Ukrainians was very productive but noted there is more work to be done, while he added that they have been in touch to varying degrees with the Russian side.
• Ukraine’s First Deputy Foreign Minister said there was a good start to US peace talks with a warm atmosphere conducive to a potential progressive outcome.
• Ukraine’s military hit Russia’s Afipsky oil refinery, while it was also reported that Ukrainian sea drones struck two Gambia-flagged tankers off the Turkish coast on Friday, which were said to be part of a Russian shadow fleet used to bypass Western sanctions.
• Russian forces carried out a massive strike on Ukrainian military-industrial and energy facilities.
• Russia’s Foreign Minister said following a Ukrainian drone attack on the CPC Black Sea terminal, that the civilian energy infrastructure that was attacked plays an important role in ensuring global energy security and has never been subject to any restrictions or limitations, while they strongly condemned the ‘terrorist attacks’ on CPC and oil tankers.
• NATO is considering being “more aggressive” in responding to Russia’s cyber-attacks, sabotage and airspace violations, according to its most senior military officer, Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, cited by FT.
• NATO is reportedly preparing for the scenario of confronting Russia with limited US support, according to a report by Bloomberg citing a wargame in Transylvania that showed European soldiers defending the continent largely without US support as President Trump reduces US deployments in Europe.

Little public optimism for a quick peace by close of this year:

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the latest development in the investigation of the environmental crimes committed in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden in 2022. The German court issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian in a move that could prove an embarrassment for not just Volodymyr Zelensky but Joe Biden. The truth is still unknown with allegations against both Russia and Ukraine. There are “false flags” flying on both sides that dismiss clues pointing to one country or the other. However, the Germans appear to be zeroing in on key Ukrainian figures.

It is often said that “the first casualty when war comes is truth.” A criminal warrant just issued in Germany shows that war continues to claim its victims. However, this warrant could prove to be as great an indictment not just of the government of Volodymyr Zelensky, but also of former President Joe Biden.

This week, a German court issued an arrest warrant for Ukrainian Serhii Kuznietsov, which may finally confirm what was long suspected: that Ukraine was responsible for the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden.

The Biden administration may have been given prior warning. It was allegedly told years ago by a Ukrainian whistleblower that a six-person team of Ukrainian special forces was planning to rent a boat, dive to the sea floor and blow up the Nord Stream project. The operation was reportedly led by Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, after the attack, the Biden administration and many in the media fueled speculation that Russia had destroyed its own pipeline, despite evidence and logic to the contrary.

It was another convenient claim of a Russian false-flag operation that allowed the Biden administration to ignore the possibility that Ukraine had not only engaged in environmental crimes but had also knowingly lied to its allies.

For years, some of us have questioned the official account from the Biden administration about the available evidence of those responsible.

The suggestion of a Russian attack on a Russian pipeline never seemed logical.

However, the administration was funneling billions in support for Ukraine, funding that now exceeds an estimated $180 billion.

Having Ukraine sabotage pipelines to our allies would hardly be opportune when many were questioning the costs to U.S. citizens.

The Biden administration was not alone in running interference for Ukraine, as Zelensky denied responsibility despite mounting evidence to the contrary. When another alleged Ukrainian saboteur was found in Poland, a Polish court blocked the extradition to Germany and ordered his release. The reason? The judge did not base the decision on Ukrainian denials. Instead, he declared that the act had been committed in the name of a just war. (Poland remains the frontline against Russian aggression in Europe).

An Italian court did not engage in such rationalization. It ordered the extradition of Kuznietsov, believed to be a key figure in the conspiracy. The attack involved leasing a yacht in the German port of Rostock, using forged IDs and a screen of intermediaries. Kuznietsov insists that he was an army captain serving in Ukraine at the time.

If the investigators are correct, it was not just the Ukrainian government that was lying to us. Biden was also presumably informed by the intelligence agencies of this evidence. Yet Biden kept suggesting anyway that the Russians were covering up the truth. He told the public, “The Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom [of precisely what happened] Just don’t listen to what Putin’s saying. What he’s saying we know is not true.”

Ironically, even if we were told about this evidence, the public might still have supported the commitment to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is the victim of a horrendous invasion that has involved repeated charges of war crimes against the Russian forces. However, the public has a legitimate expectation that a country that is receiving billions in support will not engage in environmental attacks on our allies. These pipelines were in the economic zone of two NATO countries.

As the Germans work to find the truth, the question is whether the American public will ever be given transparency on our own government’s alleged complicity or knowledge. The public was asked to pump billions into a war while the administration allegedly covered up an attack by Ukraine on a Western pipeline — and then may have misled the public.

The public also has a right to know if the CIA was told in advance that this attack was coming and either gave tacit approval or said nothing to our allies.

While Johnson is often quoted on his 1929 line about truth in war, the line following was equally poignant: “this mode of propaganda whereby … people become war hungry in their patriotism and are lied into a desire to fight. We have seen it in the past; it will happen again in the future.”

It may have happened in the U.S., and truth was not the only casualty. The American people were treated as chumps who could not handle the truth.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

One of my favorite writers for the WSJ is Spencer Jakab, who recently penned an article explaining why a bear market is not necessarily a bad thing. He starts with a quote from “The Godfather.”

““These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood…been ten years since the last one.”

In today’s markets, mentioning the “B-word” will get you thrown into the “permabear” camp, and everyone immediately assumes you mean the end of the world: death, disaster, and destruction. Unfortunately, even the Federal Reserve and the Government also believe bear markets “are bad.” As such, they have gone to great lengths to avoid bear markets and recessions through massive interventions and zero-interest-rate policies.

Yes, bear markets are indeed destructive, as they reverse the “wealth effect.” People lose their jobs as economic demand declines, weak companies go out of business, and consumer sentiment declines. However, sometimes destruction is a “healthy” thing, and there are many examples we can look to, such as “wildfires.” Like a bear market, wildfires are a natural part of the environmental cycle. They are nature’s way of clearing out the dead litter on forest floors, allowing essential nutrients to return to the soil. As the soil enriches, it enables a new, healthy beginning for plants and animals. Fires also play a vital role in the reproduction of some plants.

However, just as the Federal Reserve has tried to stop bear markets, California has had similar negative results from trying to prevent wildfires, as noted by MIT:

“Decades of rushing to stamp out flames that naturally clear out small trees and undergrowth have had disastrous unintended consequences. This approach means that when fires do occur, there’s often far more fuel to burn, and it acts as a ladder, allowing the flames to climb into the crowns and takedown otherwise resistant mature trees.

Yes, bear markets have terrible short-term impacts, but they also allow the system to reset for healthier growth in the future.

As we discussed in “Full Market Cycles,” markets thrive on cycles of expansion and contraction.

“Throughout history, bull market cycles are only one-half of the ‘full market’ cycle. This is because during every ‘bull market’ cycle the markets and economy build up excesses that are then ‘reverted’ during the following ‘bear market.’ 

In other words, just as wildfires restore the balance to the forest, a bear market reverses the buildup of excesses from the previous bull market phase. When valuations accelerate unchecked, speculative excess proliferates. As shown in the chart below, when valuations rise unchecked, the market grossly exceeds its long-term exponential growth trend, eventually leading to a reversion.

In the late 1990s, for example, the valuations of technology companies bore little relation to their actual profits, and leverage accumulated in non-bank financial sectors. Without a meaningful contraction, the excesses cumulated and amplified. A proper bear market forces participants to re‑evaluate assumptions, rein in leverage, and ultimately restore alignment between price and fundamentals. It is no coincidence that the most significant financial calamities have followed periods of weak or absent corrections. The Dot‑com Crash (2000‑2002) and the Global Financial Crisis (2007‑2009) both came after long expansion phases with little meaningful reset. The crisis that followed those periods was far more damaging than the corrections themselves.

However, that is why a bear market can be beneficial.

Reducing the Risk of Major Crises

As investors, we should welcome normal bear market corrections (of 20% or more) as they help maintain the health of the market system. Research by Goldman Sachs identifies three kinds of bear markets: event‐driven, cyclical, and structural. Each serves essentially as a purge of excess in different ways. In other words, bear markets are not “accidents” to be feared exclusively, but mechanisms by which markets self‐correct.

More importantly, the Federal Reserve and the Government should NOT intervene during these corrective processes, as bear markets act as a “clearing mechanism” of weak underpinnings. Bear markets ferret out weak companies, capital misallocations, and unsustainable business models. However, when the Federal Reserve or the Government intervenes to “bail out” that weakness, it fosters an environment that leads to a more substantial crisis in the future. As legendary investor Warren Buffett said, “The stock market is designed to transfer money from the active to the patient.” That patient capital works best when the speculative froth is stripped away.

In short, bear markets serve as a form of market hygiene. They remove the buildup of risk, correct structural mispricings, and pave the way for healthier expansions. In this way, they reduce the chances of a runaway boom and subsequent catastrophic bust. As noted above, the problem with letting expansions run unchecked is that risk accumulates, leverage becomes excessive, valuations become detached from earnings, and investor psychology becomes euphoric. We can see this now, given the amount of leverage and speculation currently in the market.

Euphoria is dangerous. As Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary, observed:

“Corrections are healthy. They’re normal. What’s not healthy is straight up, that you get these euphoric markets.”

Without a meaningful correction, the system grows brittle. Research shows that structural bear markets, the most severe type, tend to follow bull phases characterized by broad-based excess, speculative bubbles, and large-scale private-sector leverage.

A good example was the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. House prices soared, complex derivatives proliferated, and many investors believed that “this time is different”. When the unwind began, the fall was severe, with markets plummeting by over 50% in the U.S. However, had the Federal Reserve taken some action to reduce more speculative lending by hiking reserve requirements or rates, such action would have likely caused a more moderate bear market earlier, which may have deflated the excess, avoided a systemic collapse, or at least reduced the scope of the damage.

By welcoming bear markets (or at least accepting their inevitability), markets allow weaker players to exit, capital to be reallocated, and valuations to reset before the next leg up. In effect, a bear market lowers the “tail‑risk” of a catastrophic event by forcing more minor corrections instead of one massive collapse. Scholars have found evidence of asymmetric causality: bear markets can cause recessions, but recessions do not always cause bear markets.

In practice, this means that the wiser investor should view a bear market not just as a risk, but as a protector of the system over the long term. It reduces the buildup of fragility. It deflates bubbles in a more controlled manner and mitigates the risk of a major meltdown. While such a process would lower equity market returns, the net effect is fewer large‐scale economic dislocations, even if the short term is painful.

Why Investors Should Welcome Bear Markets as an Opportunity

Although bear markets feel uncomfortable, they offer fertile ground for long‐term returns if you’re prepared. Data supports this: bear markets are a normal phase, and historically, investors who remain invested and buy quality assets at discounted prices have achieved outsized returns over time.

“Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases.” – Warren Buffett

That sums it up. In a deep market correction, quality companies often trade at irrational discounts. The unsophisticated sell in panic; the prepared buy selectively.

Moreover, bear markets deepen your discipline. Many younger investors and even many professionals today lack experience of a complete bear cycle. Shallow corrections have dominated the past decade, depriving markets of real stress testing. Without that testing, many young investors today fundamentally underestimate the risk they carry by chasing fads and misallocating capital. A bear market teaches humility, demands capital preservation, forces a reappraisal of business models and valuation, and separates the durable from the ephemeral.

In effect, bear markets give you two gifts if you play them well:

1. The chance to own high‑quality assets at lower valuations, and

2. The ability to compound from a lower base into more substantial returns over time.

With markets overvalued, speculation elevated, and forward outlooks likely overly optimistic, investors should consider taking some actions today to navigate the current bull market environment.

• Conduct a portfolio fundamentals review now. Ensure that the companies you hold have durable profitability, competitive moats, and manageable debt.

• Maintain or build a liquidity buffer. You should have dry powder, cash, or equivalents, ready to deploy when valuations become compelling.

• Define your “target” valuations or business attributes ahead of time. Know what you’re willing to pay for quality companies when market fear arrives.

• Resist chasing speculative themes when valuations are elevated. Validate earnings, balance sheets, and business models.

• Set allocation controls. For example, determine in advance the percentage of your equity exposure you are willing to add in a downturn.

• Stay invested rather than sell in panic. Exiting during a dramatic decline often locks in losses and misses the early recovery.

• Be emotionally prepared. Bear markets test your nerve, not your cleverness. Discipline beats market timing.

• Keep your horizon long‑term. Bear markets are chapters in multi‑decade investment journeys. The compounding value arises from staying engaged through the cycle.

• Use a watch list of high‑quality names you’d like to own if they drop significantly. Prep the list now so you move from reactive to proactive when the opportunity arises.

• Monitor macro signals and valuations, but don’t let them paralyze action. The market will not wait for perfect clarity.

By executing the checklist, you position yourself to benefit from a bear market rather than be overwhelmed by it. In the end, market downturns are part of the process of long‑term wealth creation, but you must remain disciplined.

Bear markets are a necessary mechanism for healthy financial markets. They reduce the risk of systemic excess and crises. They enable the wise investor to acquire high-quality assets at attractive valuations and participate more fully in the next growth cycle.

But you must prepare today to take advantage of and welcome the eventual and inevitable “bear market,” which is an opportunity, not a curse.