66.3 F
Chicago
Wednesday, September 30, 2026
Home Blog Page 846

Arab Nonprofit Stirs Pot With Times Square Ad On Christianity’s Holiest Day

0
Arab Nonprofit Stirs Pot With Times Square Ad On Christianity’s Holiest Day

On the holiest day of the Christian calendar, the nonprofit Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) purchased a gigantic Times Square advertisement in New York City declaring, “Jesus is Palestinian.” This inflammatory and divisive rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt by the Arab nonprofit to stir up the Christian nation with their own narrative.

Adeb Ayoub, National Executive Director of ADC, told The New York Post that the nonprofit has been renting ad space in Times Square this year, with rotating weekly messages.

“There’s a lot more similarities between Arabs and Muslims and Christians in this country than others want to allow us to believe and there are similarities and there is a fear of culture, shared religion,” Ayoub said.

NYPost’s report continued:

“Most of the Americans in this country are Christian and the birthplace of Christianity is Palestine. If people wanna go back and forth and debate it, then great, the billboard sparked debate. At least you’re having a conversation about it. Otherwise, we’re silenced and our voices and positions don’t come out.”

When asked whether his group is disputing that Jesus was Jewish, Ayoub said that “Jesus lives within all of us” and that the subject was “up for interpretation.”

He added that Jewish groups he claims have waged a digital war against him since the Spring are free to promote their own views about Jesus.

Based on publicly available records, Adeb Ayoub appears to be affiliated with the United Mission for Relief and Development (UMR), which has a significant focus on Palestine. He also has links to “Liberation Legal” … 

Earlier this year, ADC hosted ArabCon 2025, the nation’s largest annual convention of Arab Americans, in Deaborne, Michigan, which hosted anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour and China-linked Medea Benjamin of CodePink, among others.

Ahead of ArabCon, ADC wrote on their website, “Recent attempts to smear the organization and our upcoming conference deploy the same racist and tired playbook meant to intimidate and shame Arab and Muslim spaces– branding ArabCon with inflammatory labels like ‘pro‑terrorism’ and ‘antisemitic.'”

Ayoub told NYPost that a new billboard will appear in Times Square for New Year’s Eve… 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 09:55

Stunner: DOJ Finds A Million More Epstein Documents – Will Take ‘Weeks’ To Review

0
Stunner: DOJ Finds A Million More Epstein Documents – Will Take ‘Weeks’ To Review

In a stunning development, the embattled Department of Justice chose Christmas Eve to announce it had discovered more than a million more documents with potential links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Already in violation of a legislatively-mandated Dec 19 deadline to release all such files — and facing demands for an audit of its handling of the process — the DOJ says the enormous new tranche of documents will require “weeks” of additional work before they can be posted.  

“We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible,” the DOJ said. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks. The Department will continue to fully comply with federal law and President Trump’s direction to release the files.” The DOJ said the documents come from the Southern District of New York and the FBI. 

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who’s been the Capitol Hill’s leading voice on Epstein-file declassification, indicated the staggering volume of newly-acknowledged documents gives new reason to question the lack of additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell:

Employing more pointed rhetoric, Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the Trump administration is “openly engaged in a cover-up protecting Epstein’s co-conspirators and the powerful men who abused women and girls.” 

Also on Christmas Eve — and before the million-document “discovery” was announced — a group of 12 senators sent a letter to DOJ Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume demanding an audit of the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files. Beyond pointing to the failure to meet the Dec. 19 deadline, the senators said the huge number of redactions in the released documents have raised “serious questions as to whether the Department is properly applying the limited exceptions for redaction that are permitted under the Act. Any withholding or redaction beyond those specified circumstances is against the law.” Eleven of the 12 signatories were Democrats, with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski the only Republican. 

On Sunday, Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna said they were in discussions with other members of Congress about potentially holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt — over the DOJ’s failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act enacted in November. “We only need the House for inherent contempt,” Khanna said on Meet the Press, “and we’re building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents.” 

Khanna also decried the volume of redactions in the files that have been released. “The redactions were excessive. And even Harvard Law professors who have looked at that have said, you can’t redact internal communications, you can’t redact workforce product, and the courts are going to find that these were excessive.” 

Transparency advocates have been exasperated by the amount of content that’s been redacted — with hundreds and hundreds of pages completely blacked out. However, raising additional questions about the DOJ’s competence, some of the department’s black ink turned out to be see-through, as internet sleuths discovered some of the redacted Epstein files can be read by simply cutting and pasting blacked-out passages into a new document. While they first bloomed on social media, the easily-erasable DOJ redactions have been subsequently reported by The Guardian and New York Times. 

It’s not clear how many documents have been incompetently redacted. While no bombshells have yet been uncovered, the un-redactions may be damning in a different kind of way, as they might demonstrate DOJ is failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s mandate for maximum disclosure, with redactions only allowed for a narrow set of exceptional circumstances.

For example, one of the documents that’s been cleansed of black-outs and posted to social media is an exhibit from a civil suit against two executors of Epstein’s estate — Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. Two of the redacted passages read:  

“Between September 2015 and June 2019, Indyke signed (FAC) for over $400,000 made payable to young female models and actresses, including a former Russian model who received over $380,000 through monthly payments of $8,333 made over a period of more than three and a half years until the middle of 2019.”  …

“Defendants also attempted to conceal their criminal sex trafficking and abuse, conduct by paying large sums of money to participant-witnesses, including by paying for their attorneys’ fees and case costs in litigation related to this conduct.”  

It’s not clear why these entire passages would be redacted. Even if there were reasons to hide Indyke’s name, it’s far from clear why the other allegations would be hidden from the public.  

While ZeroHedge readers may differ with Khanna on a long list of issues, he raised some important questions on Meet the Press: 

“I guess the question the American people have even to me, is, is the system so corrupt, is the system so corrupt that Thomas Massie and you defy the odds, pass a bill through a discharge petition, get the Senate, get the president to sign it, and still, these rich and powerful people are being protected. Who has this kind of hold on our government? What are they hiding? Why are they not releasing this?” 

On a lighter note, news that the DOJ is suddenly aware of more than a million additional Epstein documents gave social media users grist for some dark humor: 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 09:20

Is There A “Cuba Connection” Behind The Radicalization Of America’s Nonprofit Left

0
Is There A “Cuba Connection” Behind The Radicalization Of America’s Nonprofit Left

A common pattern across America’s far-left organizations is alarming behavior that appears militant, resembling revolutionary movements more than civic advocacy. There is a historical explanation that is rarely discussed: for decades, Cuban intelligence has penetrated and influenced segments of the radical left, enabling influence operations with nation-killing objectives.

This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it speculative. The pattern stretches back more than half a century and follows a consistent arc: student activism, escalation into disorder, foreign ideological grooming, and institutional capture through nonprofits that later rebrand as “civil society.”

The story begins in 1968, when members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), including Mark Rudd and Bernadine Dohrn, were invited to Cuba. That trip resulted in the founding of the Venceremos Brigade, which publicly framed itself as a solidarity delegation but privately represented something more consequential. Multiple intelligence assessments and contemporary reporting alleged that SDS radicals requested formal training from the Castro regime, including instruction in explosives and sabotage. The objective was explicit: to move from protest politics to revolutionary struggle with foreign backing.

Upon his return to the U.S., Rudd was elected president of Columbia University’s SDS chapter and quickly presided over a wave of sit-ins, building takeovers, and riots that paralyzed campus life and captured national attention. After his expulsion, Rudd, alongside Dohrn, went on to become co-founders of the Weather Underground, a domestic extremist organization responsible for bombings and violent underground activity throughout the early 1970s.

The lesson Cuba learned from this period was very simple: American radicals could be trained, networked, ideologically shaped, and then sent back to do their dirty work.

Guess where Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass got her start in politics…

Here’s what happened in Los Angeles this summer…

Fast-forward to 2025, and the same structure still exists, but it has been supercharged with vastly greater assets and manpower, fueled by billionaire leftists who operate what is now widely described as the protest industrial complex. This network is increasingly described as a color-revolution-style operation led by NGOs to undermine the Trump administration and ‘America First.’ What were once underground protest movements now operate openly and, in some cases, violently, supported by armies of “movement lawyers,” expansive national coalitions, and dark-money-funded NGOs. There was even the political assassination of Charlie Kirk this fall, a reality that even Deep State media outlets like The Atlantic were forced to acknowledge…

According to a defected Cuban intelligence officer and corroborating intelligence reporting, legacy Castro-aligned groups such as the Venceremos Brigade and the National Lawyers Guild have been controlled by Cuba’s Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI) since at least the 1980s. That influence is exerted through ICAP (the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples).

ICAP is an official Cuban government organization, founded in 1960, that promotes international solidarity and cultural exchange. On paper, it organizes delegations, volunteer brigades, educational tours, and international conferences that oppose U.S. sanctions and support Cuba’s political system. It appears benign – almost quaint.

But declassified CIA documents dating back to the Cold War describe a consistent operational method: foreign recruits were brought to Cuba for training in intelligence tradecraft or guerrilla sabotage and were received by DGI officers posing as ICAP officials. ICAP functioned as the intake valve – political cover for intelligence operations designed to cultivate long-term assets rather than short-term spies.

What exists today is not a single organization but a complex ecosystem.

ICAP sits at the center, functioning as a coordinating hub. Orbiting it is the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), a deliberately loose coalition that links 77 organizations of activists, nonprofits, and campaigns while minimizing legal exposure or clear command structures. The National Lawyers Guild serves as the lawfare and agitation arm, training protesters, facilitating delegations, and litigating against U.S. institutions under the guise of civil rights.

Funding and infrastructure come from the Neville Roy Singham Network, a web of organizations tied to Chinese Communist Party-aligned capital that provides money, logistics, and professionalized organizing capacity. Public narratives are amplified by legacy anti-war organizations like CODEPINK and the ANSWER Coalition, which are also now under the Singham umbrella. They frame U.S. foreign policy as illegitimate while defending authoritarian adversaries. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) functions as the political activation channel, translating activist energy into electoral and legislative influence on behalf of the Cuban regime.

Viewed individually, each organization insists it is merely engaging in advocacy. Viewed together, the pattern is unmistakable.

Examine the leadership and membership of the National Network on Cuba and the picture sharpens further. Calla Walsh, founder of PalAction U.S. and Unity of Fields, served as a co-chair of NNOC. Manolo De Los Santos lived in Cuba for six years and maintains relationships with senior ICAP officials and Cuban political leadership. Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK lived in Cuba for five years, married a Cuban communist, and went on to build organizations centered around Cuba delegations. Groups as radical as Armed Queers of Salt Lake City appear inside NNOC membership rolls. The DSA has held meetings at the Cuban Embassy in New York City and subsequently traveled to Cuba, where it announced a formal partnership with ICAP.

None of this proves espionage in the cinematic sense. It does not need to.

Come on now…

Influence operations are not about secrets; they are about shaping norms, training protest foot soldiers, and aligning political instincts. By that measure, Cuba’s intelligence services have been extraordinarily successful. Entire segments of the U.S. radical nonprofit sphere now reflexively defend foreign authoritarian regimes and justify violence, while dehumanizing and demonizing half the country by calling them “Nazis” and “fascists.”

The reason target profiling of Republicans was done by the radical left and Democrats is very simple:

Many of these organizations are conspicuously opposed to anything associated with America First, with some openly calling for the destruction of Western capitalism and even the end of the U.S. Strikingly, they all sing from the same radical Marxist songbook.

If you want to understand why the radical left appears to hate America and seeks to implode the nation from within, it is not difficult to see that these ideas are rarely developed organically. More often, they are shaped and reinforced by outside influences. This chart helps explain why the radical left has become so radical.

As per The Washington Times, “Cuba’s intelligence apparatus is training foreign nationals to wage war against the West.”

It’s already begun:

The Atlantic is absolutely correct: “Left-Wing Terrorism Is on the Rise.” And perhaps we just unveiled why… 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 08:45

“And May All Your Christmases Be [Woke]”: Liberal Pundits Come For Santa And Other Holiday Traditions

0
“And May All Your Christmases Be [Woke]”: Liberal Pundits Come For Santa And Other Holiday Traditions

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“And may all your Christmases be [woke].”

As Santa prepares for his harrowing journey around the world, he is being closely pursued by liberal commentators protesting his race, gender, and capitalist leanings.

The perpetually outraged have finally come for Christmas.

One columnist at Slate called for Santa to be replaced by a penguin due to his race.

Aisha Harris admitted that she was being a bit cheeky in pushing the penguin substitute but sought to express “my real concern that America continues to promote the harmful idea of whiteness-as-default.”

Back to Santa. The British Brighton and Hove Museums have been the focus of this debate over the reposting of an earlier column by the museum’s Joint Head of Culture Change, Simone LaCorbinière, who explained that the traditional Christmas simply will not do with a Santa who is “too white, male” and a colonizer of elves.

I suppose that when you use public dollars to hire someone who will serve as “Joint Head of Culture Change,” it was only a matter of time before they came for Christmas. After all, the idea is that the British culture must generally change, right?

In a 2023 column titled Decolonising Father Christmas, LaCorbinière warns that Santa is “too white, male” and the traditional story “presents Santa as the ultimate authority of all societies. This asks us to accept colonial assumptions of cultural superiority. It doesn’t recognise the complex realities colonised people face.”

She expresses horror at the fact that Santa is “an old white man [who] supervise[s] the elves’ work.” We can put aside that Santa was identified in “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (1823) as a  “chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf.” LaCorbinière portrays him as a heartless white capitalist living off the labor of a captive elf workforce. She calls for “Santa to work in the factory alongside the elves.”

Changes must be made, according to the museum, to decolonize Christmas and break away from holiday images that are “white, male and non-disabled”:

“This perpetuates the harmful ‘colonial gaze’. Non-Western cultures are ‘othered’. It says that the coloniser has the power to judge all people. And it ignores many communities’ histories and traditions. Telling the story like this teaches new generations that the coloniser knows best.”

Santa is not alone.

In the meantime, NPR noted White Christmas has racist undertones, while Joy Reid has declared Jingle Bells to be a racist song.

Even “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a “bigoted” story fed to the populace to reinforce capitalist and racist values. Professor James Deaville warned recently that “while some viewers see the ending as affirming community, the film also keeps George partly ignorant of how the forces of inequity are actually operating in his largely white community.”

They are the self-flagellants of the holidays, moving through Christmas markets (which are also fascist traditions) with Gregorian chants of guilt.   Here are some enlightened carolers seen recently spreading “Tidings of Great Joy [Reid]” for the holiday:

Clearly there are many liberals who still enjoy the holidays without the need for self-affirming declarations of outrage or disgust. 

However, for some on the left, there is little joy in Christmas without identity politics and white guilt.

So the more the merrier and, as Tiny Tim declared, “God bless us, every one!”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 08:10

White House Orders Venezuelan Oil “Quarantine” As Gunboat Diplomacy Drives Dark Fleet Tanker Into Atlantic

0
White House Orders Venezuelan Oil “Quarantine” As Gunboat Diplomacy Drives Dark Fleet Tanker Into Atlantic

The Trump administration has ordered the U.S. military to enforce a two-month “quarantine” of Venezuelan oil, signaling an intensification of gunboat diplomacy aimed at fostering regime instability in Caracas, with potential spillover effects that could ripple across the Caribbean into Cuba.

“While military options still exist, the focus is to first use economic pressure by enforcing sanctions to reach the outcome the White House is looking (for),” a U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday afternoon, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. Coast Guard has already intercepted two Venezuelan crude tankers this month and is prepared to seize another dark fleet tanker, but the vessel Bella-1 was chased away.

Sources familiar with the sanctioned Bella-1 told Bloomberg that the tanker retreated into the Atlantic after being pursued by U.S. Coast Guard forces. The tanker failed to comply with instructions to move to calmer waters for boarding.

Bella-1’s decision to evade closely monitored Venezuelan waters underscores how the Trump administration’s U.S. blockade, widely viewed as gunboat diplomacy, has already disrupted Venezuela–Cuba–China oil flows. The blockade is set to further tighten financial pressure on President Nicolás Maduro’s government by constraining crucial oil revenues. Beijing has already condemned Trump’s gunboat diplomacy.  

According to analytics firm Kpler, Caracas has shipped nearly 900,000 barrels per day this year and relies on 400 dark-fleet tankers to transport the crude, much of which is bound for China. 

“The efforts so far have put tremendous pressure on Maduro, and the belief is that by late January, Venezuela will be facing an economic calamity unless it agrees to make significant concessions to the U.S,” the U.S. official told Reuters.

Also reported this week, the Trump administration continues to expand its large military presence in the Caribbean, with more than 15,000 troops, an aircraft carrier, multiple warships, and stealth fighters staged across the region.

As we have repeatedly noted, this all reflects a significant reposturing of the U.S. military toward so-called Western hemispheric defense, effectively a Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 07:50

Tense UN Meeting Sees Russia, China Blast US ‘Cowboy Behavior’ Against Venezuela

0
Tense UN Meeting Sees Russia, China Blast US ‘Cowboy Behavior’ Against Venezuela

A Tuesday UN Security Council session quickly grew tense and members squared off over what’s happening off the coast of Venezuela, scene of apparent preparations for some kind of US military action.

Russia and China issued common condemnation of Washington, blasting a campaign of intimidation against Caracas which goes against the principles of the United Nations, and is based on “cowboy behavior”.

via Reuters

The emergency session of the UNSC was formally requested by Venezuela and immediately backed by China and Russia.

Additionally the Chinese side complained that the US is currently “infringing upon other countries’ sovereignty, security, and legitimate rights and interests, seriously violate the UN Charter and international law, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro initially submitted a formal appeal to all 193 UN member states and Caribbean leaders, calling out the US “escalation of extremely serious aggression” and urging the UN to act.

The the American side wasn’t having it, with US Ambassador Mike Waltz responding by saying, “The United States will do everything in its power to protect our hemisphere, our borders, and the American people.”

“Maduro’s ability to ‌sell Venezuela’s oil enables his fraudulent claim to power and ‍his narco-terrorist ‍activities,” Waltz said before the 15-member council. “The people of Venezuela, ⁠frankly, ‌deserve better.”

The US administration’s rhetoric has grown increasingly in favor of admitting the end goal is regime change, also connected with Trump’s earlier declaration of “total and complete blockade” of sanctioned oil vessels sailing to and from Venezuela. 

The American President has insisted that Maduro is using oil money to finance “drug terrorism, human trafficking, murder and kidnapping” and so it would be “smart” for him to step down.

American military assets, including special forces, are at the moment in a ‘holding pattern’ awaiting potential orders from the Commander-in-Chief, in a build-up which has been happening for a long time.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 07:35

The Economics Of Santa Claus

0
The Economics Of Santa Claus

Authored by Vincent Cook via The Mises Institute,

When I was a junior at a high school in the suburbs of Los Angeles in late 1978, rather uncharacteristically, I took a big risk. The teacher of my American Government class, Mr. Knapp, gave us an assignment to write a serious paper about government economic policy. Instead of doing that, I decided to submit a paper with a satirical theme, estimating what it would cost to become Santa Claus. Not only was I not following instructions, I had no idea how Mr. Knapp would react to my brand of humor.

As you read the transcription of my paper below, bear in mind that I wrote it a few years before I learned anything about libertarianism or about Austrian economics. Still, I was under the influence of the libertarian zeitgeist prevailing in California at the time. With inflation raging out of control while traditional statist authority figures in both major parties were lamely touting yet more business-as-usual interventions and tax increases, Californians had had enough by then. In November of 1978, they revolted against property taxes (led by the legendary anti-tax gadfly Howard Jarvis, passing the Proposition 13 voter initiative to amend the state constitution) and even gave a libertarian candidate for governor 5.5 percent of the vote. Reading this work of mine, I’m sure you’ll agree that there was a definite proto-Austro-libertarian influence at work.

Keep in mind too that the purchasing power of the dollar in 1978 was at least a factor of ten times greater than it is today, and, of course, the American population has increased a great deal too, so you might find my cost estimates absurdly low. They weren’t low at the time, however. Also be mindful that there was neither an internet nor privacy-unfriendly smart phone service, and personal computers had only just been introduced into the marketplace (in fact, my part-time retail job responsibilities at Radio Shack the previous summer included sales of the primitive TRS-80 computer), so you’ll have to pardon the technological backwardness of my cost analysis in the information category—that part of Santa’s job could probably be done much more cheaply these days.

I have added screenshots of my paper showing a couple of Mr. Knapp’s comments.

Figure 1: Important Question Posed by Mr. Knapp

Source: Vincent Cook

Figure 2: Mr. Knapp’s Overall Comment

I’m taking another big risk to spring my youthful joke on you nearly five decades later, hoping that you’ll enjoy it as much as Mr. Knapp did back then—Merry Christmas!

Economics of Santa Claus

How often have you heard that there is no Santa Claus? If you check your history books, there was a real St. Nicholas who gave gifts to children, and he was given the Santa Claus title. Suppose someone wanted to claim this title now. How much would it cost? (I will restrict this Santa to the United States.)

To examine this profound question, I will break down the cost analysis into the three major categories which Santa is expected to fulfill.

1) Manufacture of 220 million gifts. These must be elf-handcrafted, at a factory at the North Pole.

2) Distribution of 220 million gifts. Local distribution takes place during about 5 hours on Christmas Eve by assistant Santa’s with 12 reindeer sleighs.

3) Monitoring of 220 million people, to determine how good they are.

For the first category, I will assume that an elf is a special sub-culture of human beings.

An elf should be able to turn out one hand-crafted gift a day. Since working conditions at the pole are very difficult, Santa will be expected to provide room and board, plus a salary of $200 per day. 220 million gifts then would require 220 million elf-days of labor at $200 per elf-day, at a total cost of $44 billion. Assuming continuous use of facilities, a city would be needed to house 600,000 elves. At the North Pole, this would be very expensive, say $1,000 per elf per day. This would bring the cost of facilities to $219 billion per year. Assuming the materials for each gift cost an average of $30, including transport to the pole, then the materials cost would be roughly $7 billion. Finally, we have the cost of the factories themselves; which, given the transient nature of the arctic ice cap, might cost $60 billion per year.

We see that arctic manufacturing is very expensive, I estimate the sub-total for this category to be $330 billion each year.

The second category is distribution.

This can be further divided into primary distribution (from North Pole to local distribution centers) and Christmas Eve local distribution (from local centers by sleigh to living rooms of families).

For the primary distribution, airlifting goods from the North Pole to the Canadian railroad network would be needed. This would probably cost about $10 billion. Further distribution and storage would also cost about $10 billion.

For Christmas Eve, assuming a sleigh crew of 3 men could handle 20 households, a fleet of 3 million sleighs, 36 million reindeer, and 90 million man-hours of labor would be needed. Assuming $500 a year for maintenance, the sleigh fleet would need $1.5 billion, plus another $0.5 billion for storage. Each reindeer would probably cost $1000 a year, for a total of $36 billion. 90 million man-hours, at $10 per man-hour, would cost about $1 billion. An additional $1 billion would be needed to cover the cost of legal expenses involved for employees caught trespassing while delivering gifts.

The sub-total for this category is about $60 billion.

The third category of Santa’s activities is in checking up on people to see who is good and who isn’t, to determine who deserves the best gifts.

The best method would be to hire a detective to monitor listening equipment at homes, workplaces, and schools. A single Santa detective could probably monitor 20 people, and write in-depth evaluations of them. For the United States, this would require 11 million detectives, plus a communications network, information storage and processing at the north pole, and equipment for the detectives. Since a full-time detective probably would cost $20,000 per year, total labor cost would be about $220 billion per year. Information evaluation, storage, and communications might cost $30 billion for 220 million reports. New equipment costs (such as “bugs,” mini microphones, transmitters, tape recorders, etc.) might run about $2 billion a year.

Sub-total for this category might be about $252 billion per year.

Adding up the three subtotals, we get a grand total for being a Santa Claus as $642 billion per year.

This is even more than the federal government spends, which shows how impractical it is to become a Santa Claus.

Still, there might be some potential income for Santa.

Huge sums of money could be extorted from people by the bad information that Santa’s detectives get.

Santa might also get to claim his 600,000 elves as dependents on his tax forms. His detectives could claim to be unemployed, and thus collect welfare and unemployment checks from the government. Santa could incorporate and collect royalties on the use of his image from corporations.

Best of all, Santa’s free gifts might drive corporations into bankruptcy, and he could take over all economic activity in the United States, with all of its potential for profit.

Santa could then proceed to take over the economies of many extremely rich nations, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and thus assure himself of enough money to run his operations.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 12/25/2025 – 07:00

If Jesus Were Born Today, Would He Survive The American Police State?

0
If Jesus Were Born Today, Would He Survive The American Police State?

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

“When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.”—Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist

Every Christmas, Christians celebrate the birth of a child born into oppression—an occupied land, a climate of political fear, and a government quick to crush anything that threatened its authority.

Two thousand years later, the parallels are unmistakable.

If Jesus were born in modern America, under a government obsessed with surveillance, crackdowns on undocumented immigrants, religious nationalism, and absolute obedience to a head-of-state rather than the rule of law, would he survive long enough to preach about love, forgiveness and salvation? Would his message of peace, mercy, and resistance to empire be branded as extremism?

As familiar as the Christmas story of the baby born in a manger might be, it is also a cautionary tale for our age.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.

Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?

What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?

A singular number of churches across the country have asked those very questions in recent years, and their conclusions were depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.

Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.

The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?

What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do about the injustices of our  modern age?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.

Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.

Their lives make clear that the question “What would Jesus do?” is never abstract. It is always political, always dangerous, and always costly.

Even now, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”

Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.

After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state.

Jesus was not born into comfort or security. He was born poor, without shelter, in an occupied land ruled by force and fear, under the watchful eye of a government obsessed with control, compliance, and the elimination of perceived threats. His parents were politically powerless. His birthplace was makeshift. His earliest days were shaped by fear of state violence.

Herod’s response to the news of the Messiah’s birth was not humility or reflection, but paranoia. Threatened by the mere possibility of a rival authority, Herod turned to brute force. The lesson is timeless: this is how tyranny operates. Unchecked power, when gripped by insecurity, will always seek to eliminate dissent rather than allow its own corruption to be confronted.

Modern governments, including our own, cloaked in the language of security and “law and order,” behave no differently. Any challenge to centralized power is treated as a threat to be neutralized. In such an environment, speaking truth to power is dangerous. Challenging imperial authority invites retaliation.

From the moment of his birth, Jesus represented a threat—not because he wielded violence or political power, but because his life and message exposed the moral bankruptcy of empire and offered an alternative rooted in justice, mercy, and truth.

When Jesus grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say—things that would change how we view people, things that challenged everything empire stood for. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.

When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?

Consider the following if you will.

Had Jesus been born in the era of the American police state, his parents would not have traveled to Bethlehem for a census. Instead, they would have been entered into a vast web of government databases—flagged, categorized, scored, and assessed by algorithms they could neither see nor challenge. What passes for a census today is no longer a simple headcount, but rather part of a data-harvesting regime that feeds artificial intelligence systems, predictive policing programs, immigration enforcement, and national security watchlists.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth.

Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed.

Had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and their newborn child might have been swept up in an early-morning ICE raid, detained without meaningful due process, processed through a profit-driven, private prison, and deported in the dead of night to a detention camp in a third-world country.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little—if anything—about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.

Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Jesus’ teachings—his refusal to pledge allegiance to empire, his warnings about wealth and power, his insistence that obedience to God sometimes requires resistance to unjust authority—would almost certainly be interpreted today as signs of ideological extremism. In an age when dissent is increasingly framed as a threat to public order, Jesus would not need to commit violence to be labeled dangerous. His words alone would suffice.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his forty days in the wilderness, his visions, or his confrontations with evil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and subjected to an involuntary psychiatric hold—detained not for what he had done, but for what authorities feared he might do. Increasingly, expressions of distress, spiritual conviction, or nonconformity are pathologized and treated as grounds for confinement, especially when paired with homelessness or poverty.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.

Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Indeed, whether Jesus had been born in his own time or in ours, the outcome would likely be the same. A government that demands obedience over conscience, order over mercy, and power over truth will always view a figure like Jesus as a threat.

The uncomfortable truth is that a nation willing to surveil, detain, and silence Jesus today is a nation far removed from the Gospel it claims to honor.

Christmas, then, is not merely a celebration of the Christ child’s birth. It is a recognition of all that follows it: what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.

That contradiction forces a reckoning.

The work of peace, justice, and compassion does not begin in the manger and end with a holiday, but demands courage long after the carols fade.

This reality stands in stark contrast to the brand of Christianity increasingly embraced and promoted by the government and its enforcers. A faith fused with nationalism, militarism, and obedience to authority bears little resemblance to the teachings of Christ.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is that this distortion of Christianity is no longer marginal—it is increasingly mainstream.

In too many cases, the modern church has not merely failed to challenge the machinery of empire—it has baptized it. When religious leaders bless endless wars, celebrate militarism, and portray violence as divinely sanctioned, they invert the Gospel itself.

Yet Jesus did not preach dominance, conquest, or submission to empire. He stood with the poor, the imprisoned, and the outcast—and he paid for it with his life.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we must decide, once again, whether we will march in lockstep with the machinery of a military empire—or with the child born under its shadow who dared to resist it.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/24/2025 – 22:45

Another Bombing On Moscow Streets Kills 3, Including Two Police Officers

0
Another Bombing On Moscow Streets Kills 3, Including Two Police Officers

The plot has thickened, becoming even more alarming and stranger, connected to a top Russian commander’s assassination in Moscow. Lt Gen Fanil Sarvarov was killed in a car bombing on Monday. But on Wednesday, there’s been yet another bomb blast under mysterious circumstances, with Russian authorities confirming the deaths of three more people, including two police officers. The whole thing happened close to the location where the Russian general was killed early in the week.

According to scant details issued by officials, two traffic police officers began investigating a “suspicious individual” near a police car on the city’s Yeletskaya Street. The officers approached the suspect, intending to detain him, but when they got close an explosive device was detonated.

via Reuters

There hasn’t been much in the way of official statements on the nature or motive of the attack issued from the Kremlin, but Russia’s Investigate Committee spokesperson Svetlana Petrenko said in a statement on Telegram a formal criminal case has been opened “regarding an attempt on the lives of traffic police officers”.

BBC in its reporting has pointed to a likely anti-Kremlin act of terrorism and sabotage:

Sources in Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, HUR, told the BBC that a local resident, eliminated two representatives of the Russian law enforcement agency, “as a sign of disagreement with the Kremlin’s aggressive policy” and said that a man “threw an explosive package through the car window, causing an explosion”.

According to the HUR sources, two other people were taken to hospital with serious injuries.

Ukrainian military sources also told the BBC on Wednesday that the two officers killed had “participated in hostilities against Ukraine,” and added there was “evidence of their involvement in the torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war”.

If this account is accurate, this may have been yet another Ukraine-linked assassination targeting Russian personnel.

The Guardian also suggests this scenario: 

Russian Telegram channels close to the security services said the third person who died was believed to have been planting the explosive device.

An anonymous official from Ukraine’s military intelligence, known as the GUR, told the Associated Press the attack had been carried out as part of an agency operation.

Throughout the course of the war there’s been a string of high profile assassinations on Russian soil involving car and even cafe bombs. Attacks on local police officers have not been part of this, apparently until now.

This adds to a growing list of high profile assassinations related to the Ukraine war. To review:

—Darya Dugina was killed in a car bombing in 2022 which was likely meant for her father, prominent political thinker and often dubbed “Putin ally” Aleksandr Dugin.

—Gen Igor Kirillov died in December 2024 outside of his residence when a bomb planted in a nearby scooter detonated.

—Gen Yaroslav Moskalik, who served as deputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was killed in a car bomb attack last April. A “homemade” explosive device detonated under his Volkswagen Golf in a residential neighborhood.

—This week: the targeted killing of Lt Gen Fanil Sarvarov by car bombing.

Also, a cafe bombing had happened in April 2023, and killed prominent pro-Kremlin blogger and war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky. The blast at a St. Petersburg cafe during a close-quarters speaking event wounded some two dozen bystanders, six of them critically.

America’s CIA or Britain’s MI6 has long been suspected of also being involved in these targeted killings, or at least assisting in such brazen Ukrainian-linked operations, but ultimately little has been uncovered or proven in terms of a potential Western hidden hand in this ongoing ‘dirty war’.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/24/2025 – 22:00

Largest Acquisition In Nvidia History: Jensen Pays $20BN For AI Chip Startup In Bid For Google’s TPU Tech

0
Largest Acquisition In Nvidia History: Jensen Pays $20BN For AI Chip Startup In Bid For Google’s TPU Tech

Just before the market close on Friday, Nvidia unveiled its largest ever acquisition (which however was structured as a licensing deal to avoid anti-trust concerns) when it agreed to buy Groq – pardon license all of Grok’s assets and acquire its entire executive team – a designer of high-performance artificial intelligence accelerator chips, for $20 billion in cash. In reality what the deal is really about is Grok’s TPU expertise, and specifically the knowledge inside CEO Jonathan Ross’ head, who helped launch Google’s TPU, the search giant’s custom Application-Specific Integrated Circuit. 

Jonathan Ross, chief executive officer of Groq 

The news was first reported by CNBC, citing Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive, which led the startup’s latest financing round in September. Davis, whose firm has invested more than half a billion dollars in Groq since the company was founded in 2016, said the deal came together quickly (that part is true: the deal likely came together in the days following the recent dramatic ascent of Google’s Gemini and TPU architecture, not to mention stock price, as explained below).

Groq raised $750 million at a valuation of about $6.9 billion in September. Investors in the round included Blackrock and Neuberger Berman, as well as Samsung, Cisco, Altimeter and 1789 Capital (where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner). Groq said at the time it would use the funds to expand its data center capacity. Instead, the participating funds are about to 3x their money in 3 months, an unprecedented venture return, thanks to Nvidia’s massive cash hoard.

Groq said in a blog post on Wednesday that it’s “entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Nvidia for Groq’s inference technology,” without disclosing a price. Clearly, however, this is much more than just a licensing agreement since Groq founder and CEO Jonathan Ross along with Sunny Madra, the company’s president, and other senior leaders “will join Nvidia to help advance and scale the licensed technology,” the post said.

As Bloomberg explains, sharing a slightly different perspective on how the deal is structured or rather wants to be structured, the world’s largest publicly traded company paid for the right to use Groq’s technology and will integrate its chip design into future products. Some of the startup’s executives are leaving to join Nvidia to help with that effort, the companies said.

Groq will continue as an independent company with a new chief executive, existing finance chief Simon Edwards as CEO, it said Wednesday in a post on its website, which of course it will only pretend to be for regulatory and anti-trust reasons: Nvidia will have stripped all the good stuff, i.e., the TPU IP. It’s data center business, which offers outsourced computing, will continue, the company said in the post. 

Davis told CNBC that Nvidia is getting all of Groq’s assets, though its nascent Groq cloud business is not part of the transaction. Groq said “GroqCloud will continue to operate without interruption.”

The deal represents by far Nvidia’s largest purchase ever. The chipmaker’s biggest acquisition to date came in 2019, when it bought Israeli chip designer Mellanox for close to $7 billion. At the end of October, Nvidia had $60.6 billion in cash and short-term investments, up from $13.3 billion in early 2023. 

In an email to employees that was obtained by CNBC, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said the agreement will expand Nvidia’s capabilities.

“We plan to integrate Groq’s low-latency processors into the NVIDIA AI factory architecture, extending the platform to serve an even broader range of AI inference and real-time workloads,” Huang wrote, revealing the deal rationale. 

Groq has been targeting revenue of $500 million this year amid booming demand for AI accelerator chips used in speeding up the process for large language models to complete inference-related tasks. The company was not pursuing a sale when it was approached by Nvidia, Davis said. While it is unclear what is the actual LTM revenue, the acquisition represents a 40x multiple of its “targeted” sales… so do the math. 

So what is the reason for the deal? Well, as we explained in “The Google TPU: The Chip Made For The AI Inference Era“, in recent months Nvidia and its GPU architecture has lost momentum to Google and its TPU, which as noted above, is the “chip made for the inference era.” And so, instead of developing its own Tensor architecture, Nvidia decided to just buy it. Or rather, it pretends not to buy it as regulators may just kill the deal, which instead was structured as an asset-purchase/licensing deal. 

And the punchline: Groq was founded in 2016 by a group of former engineers, including CEO Ross. Ross is a former Google chip executive who helped start that company’s Tensor Processing Unit, or TPU, the search giant’s custom chip that’s being used by some companies as an alternative to Nvidia’s graphics processing units. As part of the deal, he and other top executives will join Nvidia “to help advance and scale the licensed technology,” Groq said in the statement. 

In its initial filing with the SEC, announcing a $10.3 million fundraising in late 2016, Groq listed as principals Ross and Douglas Wightman, an entrepreneur and former engineer at the Google X “moonshot factory.” Wightman left Groq in 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile. 

Huang added that, “While we are adding talented employees to our ranks and licensing Groq’s IP, we are not acquiring Groq as a company.” Narrator: you are.

Nvidia has ramped up its investments in chip startups and the broader ecosystem as its cash pile has mounted. The company has backed AI and energy infrastructure company Crusoe, AI model developer Cohere, and boosted its investment in CoreWeave as the AI-centric cloud provider was getting ready to go public this year.

In September, Nvidia said it intended to invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI, with the startup committed to deploying at least 10 gigawatts of Nvidia products. The companies have yet to announce a formal deal. That same month, Nvidia said it would invest $5 billion in Intel as part of a partnership.

Nvidia has been making investments in companies across the AI infrastructure ecosystem and is trying to keep a large lead in the market for inference — running models once they have been developed. The company’s leadership has already pledged billions to a wide variety of projects that it believes will further the overall AI industry. Nvidia agreed to invest as much as $100 billion in OpenAI and has even bought a stake in erstwhile nemesis Intel Corp.

By incorporating a new type of design into what it sells, Nvidia is showing willingness to be flexible and add novel capabilities. That approach is likely aimed at keeping its biggest customers and new adopters focused on its technology at a time when in-house efforts from Google, Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. are gaining momentum as the industry rushes to install as much computing capacity as quickly as it can.

With today’s purchase, pardon, “licensing deal”, Nvidia has formally lobbed its response to Google’s recent ascent with its Ironwood TPU and Gemini AI, which saw a dramatic divergence in the Google vs Nvidia ecosystems (chart below).  The question now is will Google issue its own “code red” and pull every string in its power to kill the deal, or will it respond even more forcefully. One thing is certain: if Nvidia has now successfully caught up to Google and its TPU technology, the alligator jaws of the Google vs OpenAI/Nvidia chart are about to slam shut.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/24/2025 – 21:09