The film industry has really been scraping the bottom of the barrel over the past few years to find “inspirational” LGBT stories to appease their DEI overlords in Hollywood.  Without a significant American audience the production of woke films is beginning to fade; no one wants to watch these movies.  However, some distributors can’t help themselves as they search foreign markets to purchase far-left content and get their ideological fix. 

The newest foreign art house slop making it’s way to Netflix audiences in the US this month is a movie called “Queen Of Coal”, originally titled “Miss Carbon” in Argentina where the flick was originally released.  Pedro Pascal plays a role in the film (of course he does), and it’s set to hit Netflix on December 19th.  

The story is a docudrama based on the true story of an 18-year-old man named Carlos Antonella Rodríguez who gets work as a coal miner in 2011.  He then “transitions” over the course of a few years to become a transgender woman named “Carlita” (take note of the almost worshipful manner in which the trans character is portrayed). 

Carlos is officially recognized as a woman under an Argentina law enacted on May 23, 2012.  It was the world’s first legislation to allow legal gender recognition based on self-identification, without requiring medical interventions, psychological diagnoses, or judicial approval (this might be something that Javier Milei should look into).  The man was then declared the “first woman coal miner” in Argentina’s history. 

That’s right, a man dressed up as a woman defeated the patriarchy for all women because he is now legally considered a real woman in Argentina.  In other words, this is a lot like Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) winning Glamour Magazine’s “woman of the year.” 

Netflix describes the movie as:

Carlita, a trans woman, dreams of working in the coal mines but faces superstitions and a ban on female workers, forcing her to fight for her place and disrupt the system.

Some might wonder why anyone would “dream” of becoming a coal miner.  No one does, but in Argentina in 2012 coal mining was considered a higher paying job ($1500 per month US).  Carlos does not actually extract coal, he repairs machinery that helps in the mining of coal, but is technically considered a “coal miner”.

Some people might remember the explosive controversy over Netflix’s distribution of the 2020 film “Cuties” – A French movie featuring 11-year-old girls in a highly sexualized dance troupe.  Critics accused the filmmakers of creating thinly veiled child pornography disguised as feminist empowerment.  The film’s director is a female Muslim feminist from Senegal who grew up in a polygamous family.  Around 10% of Senegalese Muslim marriages involve minors under the age of 15. 

The foreign feature did not go over well with American audiences, except for leftist activists who widely defended the movie and even argued in favor of the child dance scenes.  Much was revealed about the political left in 2020.  

There has been a similar reaction with the announcement of Queen Of Coal:  Audiences are laughing at the concept while rejecting the basic premise that a man can become a women and then be declared the “first woman coal miner”.  It does not appear that the film will draw many viewers for Netflix, but it does showcase why Netflix’s attempted purchase of Warner Bros. is very bad for movie goers. 

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Dec. 10 blocked President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with civil unrest.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected the Trump administration’s argument that protests against federal immigration authorities constituted a rebellion that warranted the president’s federalization of California National Guard troops.

Breyer had previously blocked the deployment. On Sept. 2, he found the federal government had violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

The federal government has argued that the sometimes-violent protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were interfering with the government’s ability to enforce federal immigration law.

Although the federal Posse Comitatus Act restricts the ability of the federal government to use military resources for domestic law enforcement, a president may take over, or federalize, state National Guard troops on an emergency basis in certain circumstances.

“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one,” Breyer wrote in the court order.

“Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly.”

The judge also rejected the administration’s argument that the court system has no authority to review a president’s takeover of state National Guard troops in an emergency situation.

Breyer wrote that it was “nonsensical to suggest that the law would permit a president to … send Guardsmen wherever he wanted for as long as he wanted.”

After California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued to block the deployment, the Trump administration took the position that “after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts,” the judge wrote.

“Defendants’ position is contrary to law,” and, coupled with the Trump administration’s deployment of California National Guard troops to other states, is “effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops,” the judge added.

Breyer stayed his preliminary injunction until noon on Dec. 15, presumably to give the federal government an opportunity to appeal.

Newsom hailed the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is abundantly clear – the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal and must end,” the governor said in a statement.

“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations. We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Justice for comment. No reply was received by publication time.

Separately, on Sept. 8 the Supreme Court stayed a lower court order restricting immigration stops in Southern California. Three justices dissented.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement started operations in the Los Angeles area on June 6. Local and state officials strongly criticized the effort, saying the federal government was overstepping its legal authority.

The high court order paused a temporary restraining order that Judge Maame Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued on July 11 that limited the factors that law enforcement officials may use when making immigration-related stops and arrests.

Specifically, Frimpong barred the Department of Homeland Security from stopping or arresting individuals based exclusively on factors such as the language the person speaks or where the person works.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

“Apparent ethnicity alone” is not enough to establish the reasonable suspicion needed to justify an immigration stop, but it may be relevant to the issue,” he wrote.

Congress this week has been threatening to withhold travel funds for Pentagon leadership as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has refused to turn over videos of strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats off the coast of Latin America, amid the ongoing debate over their ‘legality’ of the actions.

The demand, which would significantly reduce Hegseth’s own travel budget, has been quietly tucked into the final draft of the annual defense policy bill. Congressional leaders called for “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the United States Southern Command” to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has expressed new frustration on Wednesday over Hegseth’s refusal to release a Sept. 2 video which shows strikes on men who survived the first round of a drone attack.

“I’m going to stay hopeful for a couple more days. But the idea that he’s going to try to simply drag this out until Congress breaks for the holidays is outrageous, and folks ought to be pretty damn pissed off,” said Warner.

Hegseth earlier said the request to release the video is still under review, and that his office is mulling it. While top national security officials have seen it, Warner said further that “There were other members of the administration in that briefing who understood that Congress has an oversight responsibility to see this video.”

The so-called Gang of Eight were allowed to view it in a closed session. These are the eight leaders within Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters.

However, there are signs that Congressional leaders could back down, as CNN newly reports on Wednesday: 

House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers is prepared to end his panel’s investigation into the September double-tap strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, a committee aide tells CNN.

Rogers received a classified briefing last week to view the video footage and is now pushing for the rest of his panel to be able to see the video.

The committee aide said, “The video and classified briefings from the Pentagon were sufficient to convince him this was a legal action. But he’s also been clear that we need a classified briefing where the rest of HASC’s members can see the video, and we expect that to happen next week.”

Some lawmakers have disagreed, calling it an appalling act and war crime, while others said the video showed the survivors trying to salvage the drugs…

Lawmakers were shocked and appalled Thursday after they were shown video footage of the September 2 double tap that killed two survivors of an airstrike in the Caribbean. https://t.co/tNPk6tioJ5 pic.twitter.com/LgWC183iJe

— The New Republic (@newrepublic) December 4, 2025

Some conservatives have decried the whole saga as but a carefully orchestrated plan of character assassination campaign targeting Hegseth.

But Trump has been sticking by him. The last word Hegseth gave on releasing the video was as follows: “We’ve got operators out there doing this right now, so whatever we were to decide to release, we would have to be very responsible about, so we’re reviewing that right now.”

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on Dec. 10 in a case that could impact how prisoners attempt to prove the type of intellectual disability that would allow them to avoid a death sentence.

In 2002, the court held in Atkins v. Virginia that sentencing intellectually disabled convicts to death violated the Eighth Amendment’s bar on “cruel and unusual punishment.” How prisoners go about proving that disability can vary, but doing so may involve showing that their IQ falls below a particular threshold.

The case currently before the court—Hamm v. Smith—focuses on how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit weighed multiple IQ scores in a murder case.

Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of brutally murdering a man. Under Alabama law, Smith could demonstrate low intellectual functioning with an IQ of 70 or below and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior.

According to court filings, Smith received five IQ scores: 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. When the case reached the 11th Circuit in 2023, the appeals court upheld a lower court decision vacating his death sentence.

The more controversial part of its decision was how it weighed Smith’s IQ scores. Although each of the scores was above the 70-point threshold, the court said it wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Smith was intellectually disabled. Given the margin of error for IQ tests, the court said Smith’s score could actually be as low as 69.

It pointed to another Supreme Court decision—Hall v. Florida—which said that courts must consider the standard error of measurement when an IQ score is close to, but above, 70. It has also said that courts should move beyond IQ and consider “adaptive deficits,” or things like changing behavior with different circumstances, when IQ scores are close to but above 70.

Considering those deficits, the appeals court said Smith shouldn’t receive the death penalty.

Alabama told the Supreme Court that this was the wrong approach and that Smith had a burden of proving disability by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead of focusing on the error range for a lower IQ score, courts should instead weigh the cumulative effect of multiple scores, Alabama said.

Katherine Robertson, an attorney with the Alabama attorney general’s office, told The Epoch Times that courts had strayed from the actual meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

“I think what we’re looking for is just a return to what the Eighth Amendment actually requires, and a move away, ultimately, from all this judge-made precedent,” she said. She add that “our position in our office philosophically has always been: if you’re competent enough to stand trial, then … how do you get special treatment when it comes to the penalty phase?”

While she wasn’t asking the Supreme Court to overrule its precedent in Atkins, she said it would have to revisit it.

“I think they’re going to have to revisit it,” she said, suggesting that it could foster a return to the true meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

In the Atkins majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that society viewed mentally challenged individuals as less culpable than the average criminal. Among other things, he said that those individuals may be less able to give meaningful assistance to attorneys defending them.

“Mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution,” he said.

It’s unclear how the Supreme Court will rule but Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision in 2002.

The Trump administration has also intervened in support of Alabama. It argued that the decision in Atkins broke from the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning but also afforded states flexibility in determining intellectual disability.

Smith’s attorneys, meanwhile, defended the appeals court decision and said courts should take a “holistic approach” to evaluating intellectual disability. Regardless of whether IQ scores are conclusive, they said, defendants should be able to present additional evidence surrounding their intellectual functioning.

Elon Musk joined Katie Miller’s podcast for a wide-ranging interview, opening with a question about his time at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and whether the effort was worth it.

Musk said DOGE’s push to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the federal government was “somewhat successful,” but cautioned he wouldn’t take on that role again given the backlash from what he described as the DC swamp.

Miller asked Musk:

“Would you do DOGE again knowing what you know now?”

Musk responded:

“I mean, the thing is, I think in terms of instead of doing DOGE, I would have basically built you know, worked on my companies essentially. So and not and the cars would they wouldn’t have been burning the cars…”

Miller noted:

“You gave up a lot to DOGE.”

Musk said:

“Yes.”

He continued:

“They really want the money to keep flowing. Um, so if you stop it from flowing, there’s like a very strong reaction to to stopping the money flowing.”

The backlash Musk faced originated from left-wing NGOs and activist groups that targeted Tesla showrooms, progressive politicians openly rooting for the stock to crash, and a sustained pressure campaign by the broader Democratic Party machine, which, he argues, sought to damage the Tesla brand. Let’s not forget that militant leftists firebombed Tesla vehicles at showrooms.

It really depends on how one measures success. Musk told Miller the cost-cutting effort was “somewhat successful,” but noted that, given the response from Deep State-aligned activist groups that targeted Tesla, he wouldn’t do it again. 

“We were a little bit successful. We were somewhat successful. We stopped a lot of funding that really just made no sense, that was entirely wasteful,” he said. Miller if he would go back to lead the organization again, he said: “No, I don’t think so.”

Absolutely surreal to interview one of the greatest minds of our time, a friend, and boss.

Thank you, @elonmusk 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸pic.twitter.com/vbYlZTTaBf

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) December 9, 2025

As of early December, DOGE claims on its website to have slashed $214 billion in estimated savings. However, this figure is far from the $2 trillion in savings Musk pitched during the presidential election. 

Perhaps not measured in total dollar amount, some of the success came from dismantling corrupt USAID funding pipelines into NGOs and rooting out other fraud, waste, and abuse that funneled into the Democratic Party’s machine; then maybe the true nature of DOGE’s successes emerges. The lashing out by left-wing activist groups and progressive politicians against Tesla is exactly the response one would expect if you stopped their years of taxpayer looting sprees.

Let’s revisit what we said very early in DOGE’s noble efforts, noting that while Musk’s foray into the DC swap to drain it to the degree pitched would not be attainable. 

Here’s the bigger play at hand, and why there is only token pushback to DOGE.

You cut enough spending – even if it’s all grift and fraud – you eventually get a recession, guaranteed. That’s all Congress is waiting for cause then they use the “emergency” to vote through a far…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2025

What the DOGE effort revealed was that Democrats and their unhinged left-wing groups would pursue violence to stop Musk. This is the same political machine attacking Trump and ‘America First’… 

A Minnesota State University student has sparked outrage and a federal investigation after posting a video on TikTok in which he explicitly threatened to shoot Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

“ICE, I actually heard you guys pulled up to Owatonna, the big O, and you pulled up when I was not there? Y’all so p–s-ass s–t, boy. You’re gonna get popped next time I see you,” the student, identified by the New York Post as Hasan Mohamed, said in the clip, which was later deleted. “Bring the whole cavalry. Yeah, boy, you guys are scared.”

Somali man in Minnesota claims that ICE showed up to near him, threatens to “pop” them the next time they show up.

“They’ll have to bring the Calvary.” pic.twitter.com/7lbdU0BsHW

— ICE of TikTok (@ICEofTikTok) December 9, 2025

Only after the video went viral and outrage ensued did Mohamed post a video expressing any kind of regret.

“I don’t expect to be forgiven. I’m just here to apologize,” the student claimed. “I truly did not mean what I said. I was just trying to be funny.”

The episode unfolded against the backdrop of an intensified federal enforcement operation in the Twin Cities area. Last week, ICE concluded “Operation Metro Surge,” arresting nearly a dozen criminal aliens in Minneapolis, including five Somali nationals, several Mexicans, and one individual from El Salvador, according to Fox News.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin linked the arrests to Minnesota’s sanctuary policies.

“Sanctuary policies and politicians like Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey allowed these pedophiles, domestic terrorists, and gang members to roam the streets and terrorize Americans,” McLaughlin said. “ICE law enforcement are risking their lives to protect Minnesotans while their own elected officials sit by and do nothing. No matter when and where, ICE will find, arrest, and deport ALL criminal illegal aliens.”

The arrests and the subsequent threat come weeks after a bombshell investigation by journalists Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe exposed systemic fraud in Minnesota’s social-safety-net programs, much of it allegedly involving members of the state’s large Somali community.

The report focused particular attention on the Feeding Our Future case—prosecutors have called it the largest pandemic-era fraud scheme in the country—with defendants accused of diverting at least $250 million to $300 million in federal child-nutrition funds. More than 70 individuals, predominantly Somali-Americans, have been charged, while dozens have already been convicted or pleaded guilty. Investigators say proceeds were used to purchase luxury vehicles and real estate in the U.S. and abroad. Most shockingly, Rufo and Thorpe cited federal counterterrorism sources who alleged that millions in fraud proceeds were transferred to al-Shabaab in Somalia through informal hawala transfers.

President Donald Trump responded by revoking Temporary Protected Status for certain Somali nationals and, in a Thanksgiving-week Truth Social post, referred to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as “seriously retarded.”

Walz responded by whining that people had begun shouting the slur while driving past the governor’s residence.

“This creates danger,” Walz claimed. “We know how things go. They start with taunts, they turn to violence.”

People are driving by Tim Walz and calling him “retarded” 🤣

pic.twitter.com/FbcMR2rnGn

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) December 4, 2025

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who was born in Somalia, also jumped on the victimhood bandwagon, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper last week that Trump’s rhetoric was stoking fear in the Somali community.

“It creates fear. And there is a possible danger that a lot of the people who follow the president have exhibited violence in many cases,” Omar said. “There are so many people that have been incarcerated over the years that have been encouraged by the president’s words.”

Republicans looking for hints on how midterms might go need look no further than Miami, Florida – where Democrat Eileen Higgins won the mayor’s race, becoming the first woman to lead the city – and the first Democrat to take the helm in nearly 30 years. 

The 61-year-old campaigned on opposition to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, saying many in Miami have voiced concerns over family members being detained. 

Higgins beat Trump-backed former city manager Emilio Gonzales by roughly 19%. That said, there are a few caveats:

– The race was supposed to be nonpartisan, meaning voters didn’t see party labels when they cast their ballot.

– It’s an off-year election, and the first Miami mayoral runoff since 2001.

– It’s the first time the mayor’s race has ever been decided in December, while people are preparing for the holidays. 

Yet, since Republicans have held the seat for so long, and because Higgins won by nearly 20 points, Democrats get to add Miami to their list of wins in 2025. 

“We are facing rhetoric from elected officials that is so dehumanizing and cruel, especially against immigrant populations,” Higgins told AP following her victory speech. “The residents of Miami were ready to be done with that.”

RESULT: D+19 pic.twitter.com/etROjOCyqZ

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 10, 2025

While the Miami race might be an outlier when it comes to predicting midterms, the victory gives Democrats some momentum heading into midterm elections, where the GOP is looking to keep Florida red – including a Hispanic-majority district in Miami-Dade county that has been shifting increasingly conservative in recent years. 

“Tonight’s result is yet another warning sign to Republicans that voters are fed up with their out-of-touch agenda that is raising costs,” said DNC chair Ken Martin following Higgins’ win. 

Conservative activist Scott Pressler sounded the alarm, writing on X: “Republicans are completely squandering all of the work we did to win the 2024 elections.”

Yep. Leave it to the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 10, 2025

As Politico notes, Higgins’ campaign is likely to be carefully studied by other Democratic hopefuls in Florida – after she ran “not on social justice or culture war issues, but on improving affordability and making government work better. She agreed with Republicans that the city’s finances needed a careful look.” 

Republicans will certainly face questions after Tuesday’s result – including whether they’re losing ground with Latinos, and whether it will continue to be effective to call Democrats “socialists” at every turn given that it didn’t work whatsoever with Higgins. 

“Donald Trump got involved in this election. Ron DeSantis got involved in this election. Every statewide elected Republican got involved in this election,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. “They knew this was an important race, and them blowing it off today is why we’re going to be able to win some really big races next year — because they think they just have Florida in the bag.”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There was an interesting complaint filed in New York yesterday in which a group of parents and educators sued New York Attorney General Letitia James over a letter viewed as threatening those who are raising transgender policies in public meetings.

While the legal basis for the complaint is likely to be challenged as premature by the state, the lawsuit exposes an effort that seems clearly designed to chill such public discussions of transgender issues. The “guidance letter” warns school boards that discussing student trans issues at public meetings could violate the right to privacy for affected students and, if board members engage in such public discussions, “they may be removed” by state education officials.

The letter seems designed not only to threaten those who want to raise these policies, but also to offer cover for boards to cut off public debate. Few boards want to discuss the issue and we have seen heavy-handed tactics to cut off those who raise the policies.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation filed the lawsuit and faces considerable challenges in using a guidance letter as the basis for a lawsuit. James will argue that such letters are common and merely express how her office will interpret the law in these areas in light of questions from various boards.

It states:

“Board members may be removed by the commissioner of education if they, (1) violate the education law or another law ‘pertaining to [public] schools,’ including the state Human Rights Law; (2) willfully neglect their duties as public officers; or (3) willfully disobey a ‘decision, order, rule or regulation’ of the Regents or the commissioner of education.”

The question is whether a court will find the letter itself insufficient to trigger a lawsuit, rather than waiting to see how that legal guidance is applied in any given case.

Putting aside the merits of the legal cause of action, the letter should raise free speech concerns. It seems designed to intimidate some who want to raise these policies while giving others support for shutting down debates. Polls show that the public is generally opposed to transgender policies on pronouns, sports, and bathroom access.

The letter emphasizes that free speech can be limited at these meetings:

“[u]nder the First Amendment, school board meetings are considered limited public fora. This means that school boards that allow public comment ‘may make reasonable, view-neutral rules governing the content of speech allowed,’ including prohibiting all comments on a particular topic that would have discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects.”

James leaves the scope of what would be considered “discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects” lingering without any clear definition. It is the same vagueness in standards that we have seen used in higher education where administrators have succeeded in getting students to self-censor to avoid the unknown lines of speech regulation.

In other words, the letter is giving these boards guidance on how to stop public debate in their meetings on issues that are currently unpopular and leading to rising opposition among parents and students.

The timing of the letter before the midterm elections only magnifies suspicions that James is nudging boards to prohibit all comments on these divisive issues.

The United States is planning to require visitors from dozens of countries on the visa waiver program to provide up to five years of their social media history, according to a proposal from the US Customs and Border Protection posted to the Federal Register on Wednesday. 

Countries on the list include much of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Qatar, Israel, Chile and Brunei. Citizens or nationals of these countries have been allowed to freely travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. If the proposal is adopted, they’ll have to share their online footprint – something that immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants from different categories have been required to provide since 2019. 

According to the proposal, adding social media would be a “mandatory data element” for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application, WaPo reports, adding that applicants would also be required to provide additional information “when feasible.” 

The list also includes; 

• Telephone numbers used in the last five years
• Email addresses used in the last 10 years
• IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos
• Biometrics – including facial, fingerprint, DNA and Iris data
• Information about one’s family – including  names, telephone numbers, dates of birth, places of birth and residences.

The CBP proposal is open for a 60-day public comment period. 

ESTA – an automated system, costs $40 and is generally valid for two years. An ESTA holder can enter multiple times during that period.

Farshad Owji, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and partner at law firm WR Immigration, told the Post that it appears the Trump administration wants to evaluate social media histories to “understand the person’s view of general politics around the world.”

The proposal would also require applicants to apply for ESTA via a mobile app, and would remove the option from the government’s website. According to CBP, over 14 million people will use the mobile app annually after the changes come into effect. 

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

Anyone who has spent decades within a specific craft or industry (be it carpentry, medicine, academia, masonry, or markets) slowly acquires not only skills but pattern recognition. The years, as I like to say, gradually teach things the days don’t notice.

Such context cannot be downloaded, transferred or absorbed through an AI tool, which, by its very title, can never be a genuine substitute for earned (and therefore, actual) intelligence.

Gaining Perspective

Having traversed years of complex market forces, themes and instruments (from derivative timebombs and COMEX tricks to banking risks and bond market signals), I, like many others, have acquired certain, well, Jaded perspectives.

This, of course, also includes biases, of which I am no less guilty.

Experience nevertheless allows for recognizing occasional lighthouses amidst the otherwise intentional fog of data overload, obfuscation, and noise. In short, and without crystal balls or a genius IQ, we can endeavor to derive the simple from the complex, and then act upon that simplicity with a modest degree of understanding.

Patterns Repeating Themselves

As we approach the end of 2025, we are seeing, yet again, certain familiar and simple patterns which can serve as potential lighthouses for those endeavoring to navigate so much admitted fog. 

We all recognize, for example, debt levels screaming well beyond the Rubicon of the sustainable, resulting in further and familiar currency debasement, ripping (and predictable) gold prices, metals exchanges running out of metals, escalating geopolitical tensions and risk assets defying the gravity of fair valuation by literally every metric, from the Buffet and Shiller indicators to the NVDA market cap.

And for years, we’ve tracked these and countless other themes, both complex and simple, exciting and less exciting, together—yet always free to make our own conclusions from the patterns, facts, numbers and themes presented.

Below, I address two themes from 2025 which tell us much as we head toward a future riddled with increasing landmines as well as opportunities.

Specifically, I am referring to: (1) insider stock selling and (2) a potential revaluation plan hiding beneath the Strategic BTC Reserve Order.

Insider Selling: The Rats Leaving a Sinking Ship

Although an ardent capitalist, I have, over the years, been critical of the neo-feudalism which has replaced free-market capitalism in what I have critiqued as an unhealthy and rigged-to-fail game of insider lords and Main Street serfs.

The lords of finance and politics have long ago accepted that it was better to “be inside” than to do the “right thing” when it came to monopoly powers, fractional reserve banking, asset-bubble creation, the repeal of Glass Steagall, the deregulation of derivatives, stock buy-backs or appalling management/employee salary ratios, all of which objectively defy greed and creep toward pathology. 

Such laws of markets and human nature will likely never change, but that doesn’t mean we can’t prepare ourselves for the consequences of this gamed system.

What many have not noticed from 2024 to now, however, is the astronomical level of insider selling of publicly traded stocks. 

Massive Selling

Beginning in 2024, for example, Jeffrey Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Jamie Dimon, and the Walton family, along with numerous other C-suite denizens, have individually and collectively been selling billions worth of their own shares at the top of a market they knew was grotesquely over-valued and heading straight for a recession. 

In fact, the $464B of insider selling in 2024, which continued well into 2025, was the highest level of insider dumping ever seen, save for the $650B of similar dumping in 2007, a year before the Great Financial Crisis sent the global financial system to its knees in 2008.

This (and not “estate planning,” “philanthropy” or “diversification”) was why a banking CEO like Jamie Dimon, otherwise a vocal proponent of long-term holdings yet intimately aware of defaulting loan and consumer credit signals, was selling $150M worth of his own Morgan Chase stock for the first time in 18 years. 

And Bezos dumping $13B worth of his Amazon shares or Ellison taking $3B off his Oracle account while Zuckerberg cashed in a 2024 personal Meta stake of $50B came from the same motives and knowledge of the NVDA insiders who were simultaneously dumping their shares at record levels and all-time-high valuations. 

This was not diversification or coincidental profit taking; it was shared recognition that their valuations, priced to perfection, were heading toward a crisis. 

History Rhyming

This, of course, is a familiar playbook. From Countrywide Mortgage to Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, we saw similar insider dumping in 2007—and it always came before rather than after they tanked.

The sell-offs quietly marking 2024 and continuing into 2025 are, at least to me, a signal that the rats are jumping ship months before the market bow dips beneath the equity waterline.

What’s even more telling is that the sell-to-buy ratios behind these insider sales had skyrocketed to ratios of 9:1 and even 12:1 in 2024, the highest in history, against an average healthy rate of 3:1.

Do you see a sell signal?

The Emergency Plan Hiding in Plain Sight?

2025 was also year of headline-making executive orders promoted to make America great again.

Regardless of one’s politics, however, we can all agree that when the interest expense on America’s public debt exceeds $1.2T (well above its annual military budget), there’s a giant and economy-crushing elephant in the room.

As I’ve warned from the writings of 18th-century mathematicians to 21st-century Debt/GDP ratios, there’s no longer an easy solution to such historically unprecedented debt and hence currency traps. 

Instead, we’ve reached the desperation stage.

As a result, the evidence of a world steadily turning away from the USD and toward physical gold as a superior strategic reserve asset is not a theory but a fact, one confirmed from the COMEX and BRICS to the BIS.

In this backdrop of such largely ignored yet empirically mathematical realism, came a flurry of executive orders to keep the headlines positive while the experts scurried for alleged solutions. But was there a deeper “plan” behind all this?

Is Something Hiding Within the Strategic Reserve BTC Order?

One so-called solution, of course, was the March 2025 Strategic BTC Reserve Order, intended to be codified by a subsequent Act of Congress. Like all desperate legislation in the face of an objective debt crisis, this gold play, carefully hiding under a BTC mask, showed its sunny side and “digital future” to the media while hiding a darker side (of centralized control) in carefully worded sabotage.

Tucked, for example, within the language of this and other so-called odes to a “decentralized future of digital efficiency” and “digital gold” was a provision which hid the hints of a planned and centralized currency debasement. This hidden skunk in the woodpile is now waiting for an inevitable “uh-oh” moment to trigger it. 

Specifically, the crypto language of 2025 contains a lot of talk regarding “strategic reserve assets,” which, of course, referred to BTC, but which some feel was just a cover story. But if you dig deeper into this definition within the Federal Reserve Register, “strategic reserve assets” do not explicitly include “monetary metals” – i.e., gold and silver. 

In fact, under US law and Fed regulations, there is no statutory or regulatory definition of “strategic reserve assets” that covers metals, BTC or any other assets in a general sense. 

The Fed, does, however, publish policy guidance on the composition of FX reserves and the gold holdings within the Treasury’s “Exchange Stabilization Fund” – a veritable “slush fund” created by the profits FDR made from his $2.8B gold confiscation of citizen metals/wealth in 1933…

This is no coincidence.

Unbeknownst to most, the powers floating around all this crypto legislation allows the Treasury Department to acquire, manage and value these reserve assets for “national security.” This is clever legalese for: The government, subsequent to altering official statements, can, at its discretion, later devalue, re-value and/or acquire these assets whenever the $#!7 hits the next fan…

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

In case you think such a tin-foil-hatted suggestion smacks in the face of American freedoms, please know that such a playbook for emergency gold re-valuation and dollar-debasement is nothing new at all.

In 1933, when FDR faced a debt crisis of “national security” (due, of course, to the banking and leverage practices of the roaring 20’s), he was able by executive order (6102) to not only confiscate citizen gold at the $20.00 market price, but 9 months later, having taken his citizens’ gold, to then reset the price higher at $35.00/ounce. He then placed the billions he “acquired” into the same ESF “slush fund” still at play today.

Overnight, your government thus devalued the dollar by 69%, which made it easier to pay down Uncle Sam’s debt after robbing the gold and debasing the dollar by which its citizens measured their wealth. 

Concerns…

Such clever yet complex legislative theft, of course, was no shocker. All debtors, including Uncle Sam, prefer a debased currency to pay down fixed debt. 

I have some concerns that the same playbook of 1933 is now quietly in motion today, only the debt levels are much higher and the potential debasement to come would be much harsher for Joe Six-Pack.

Why the concern? Because desperate governments have shown their true faces before, and they are more desperate today than ever before.

Uncle Sam, for example, knows that he is approaching $40T of public debt, which no one in the world, including the White House, believes can ever be repaid—at least not unless he finds some equity real fast. This is because more Fed money printing is becoming politically embarrassing and globally distrusted, as gold is now held by more central banks than USTs.

The Hidden Piggy Bank

Currently, and conveniently, the US sits on over 260 million ounces of gold reserves whose certificates have been priced at $42.22/oz since 1973, creating a current value of $11B, which we all know is peanuts when measured against trillion-dollar debt levels.

In my opinion, we should at least be concerned of a move to one day re-value those certificates higher, much higher, to give Uncle Sam some needed cash. 

But rather than just reprice those certificates to the market price for a trillion or so of fast cash (also peanuts), it’s possible that the Fed, in conjunction with the US Treasury, would reprice those certificates much higher, as they did in 1933.

Specifically, and thanks to the hidden language above, they could legally reprice gold at $20,000, a deliberate number which would revalue those gold certificates from $11B to $5.2T, which is closer to the valuation needed to stabilize (i.e. match the assets and liabilities) of the USA’s most liquid M0 monetary base (cash + bank reserves at the Fed) of $6.7T.

What’s Good for Government is Bad for the Governed 

In other words, and by one emergency action taken in a moment of “national security” (i.e., an act of war, rate spikes or market implosion), the US could unilaterally re-establish a shadow “gold standard light” on its M0 monetary base. 

Such an “emergency measure” would restore faith in Uncle Sam’s otherwise unloved Treasury bonds without having to “print” a single dollar at the Fed nor issue a single IOU from the Treasury. It’s basically “golden QE.”

But as in 1933, that same emergency measure would mean an absolutely disastrous devaluation of the USD by 80%. Such debasement would hit the man (and savers) on the street square in the gut, while rescuing the government at their expense. 

Shocking? Unthinkable? Koo-Koo? Well, we’ve seen this movie and playbook before, less than a century ago—it’s just that so few read history…

Insiders Building Their Arcs Before the Rain

As in 1933, the current government and the commercial banks aligned with it would need to hold this physical gold before it was repriced. In my admittedly jaded mind, hints of this were signaled (and prepared) three years ago when the Basel III rules conveniently classified allocated, physical gold with Tier-1 asset status. 

This made gold equal to risk-free money prior to the uh-oh moment (of “national security”) they know is coming. The BIS was effectively helping itself and the banking system build their Arc of PHYSICAL GOLD before the flood of deliberate dollar debasement under a gold revaluation plan. 

Real Gold Matters More than Ever

If this “conspiracy theory” is true or at least plausible, it serves as yet another obvious reason to never “own” gold in an ETF or futures contract. As we have warned for years, such holdings are not gold ownership but a mere claim on gold.

And as for future contracts and other levered instruments of legalized price fixing on the openly wounded COMEX, we already know that the leverage on those permanent gold and silver shorts is multiples beyond the metals actually available. 

The gold (and silver) just ain’t there…

Banking Tricks vs. Tricked Gold

If gold were suddenly re-priced well beyond the market price, the short-squeeze to follow would be fatal to such discredited exchanges. In such an event, the market would immediately go “no offer,” which means the exchanges, ETFs, and even commercial banks holding client gold would exercise their force majeure clauses, also hiding in plain sight. 

This means they could settle your gold “claims” and contracts at the last official settlement price, depriving you of any upside in such an emergency repricing of gold. Those holding their gold at banks could thus wake up to realize that they’ve been paying storage fees for an asset whose sudden price appreciation would be denied them.

Gold held in so-called “safe deposit boxes” would be equally at risk.  As we also learned from the 90-year playbook of the last great taking/moment of “national security,” anyone seeking access to their safe deposit boxes required the presence of a federal agent to legally “acquire” their gold as a matter of sovereign necessity.

Jurisdiction Matters

Given the above reasons and risks, we have consistently recommended that US investors create a legal firewall between their precious metals and sovereign governments. This is not because we KNOW a great taking WILL happen, but because we know it CAN happen. 

“Gold hub” jurisdictions like Switzerland and Singapore, wherein gold is a uniquely protected asset, have therefore been an equal, essential and deliberate part of this preparation and conviction.

Again, I cannot say the above revaluation will happen, only that it could happen. As such, it is better to be prepared and informed than re-valued, robbed or surprised. Either way, physical gold, properly owned and protected, prevails over melting currencies and desperate/broke sovereigns.