“KILL THEM ALL”!! Hegseth Exposes Trump War Crimes Problems, OU Bible-Gate Scandal, & Rage Bait
PDS Published 12/01/2025
-
Kill them all.
That is reportedly the order given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before the military launched its first attack against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea.
And so when the initial strike left two men “clinging to the smoldering wreck” of the boat?
The commander overseeing the operation ordered another strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions.
And the two survivors? They were blown apart in the water. []
At least, all that is according to recent reporting from The Washington Post,.
Which is coming as Trump seems closer than ever to authorizing military action on Venezuelan soil aimed at ousting the country’s president: Nicolás Maduro.
Who the White House claims is the head of a drug cartel it’s just recently labeled as a foreign terrorist organization.
Although, notably, that’s as you’ve also had Trump announcing he plans to PARDON a different Latin American president guilty of bringing more than 500 tons of cocaine into the US over two decades.
So yeah…there’s a lot to unpack here.
And we should start back at the beginning with this first strike which took place on September 2nd and killed 11 people.
Right, because current and former officials within the US military and Drug Enforcement Administration? They have reportedly expressed doubt that everyone onboard were involved in trafficking. []
With one DEA official explaining that more people on board means less room for drugs to sell – and concluding that the 11 people may have been a mix of drug runners and illegally trafficked migrants. []
And there’s similar doubts about the identities of the more than eighty people killed in the nearly two dozen attacks since then.
Right, Colombia’s president has publicly accused the US of killing at least one innocent fisherman.
And lawmakers have said that even in classified briefings Pentagon officials haven’t given any specific names of traffickers or syndicate leaders targeted. []
Also, notably, there are gaps in the videos the administration has released of the strikes.
And the Pentagon hasn’t fulfilled a bipartisan request from lawmakers to see unedited footage.[]
Although, with all that, as I’ve said many times before, even if it’s true that everyone killed is a blood-thirsty narco-terrorist, that doesn’t make it legal.
Right, experts as well as current and former U.S. officials have said these strikes are illegal under US and international law and may open up those involved to future prosecution.
Because no matter what the administration claims, there’s no imminent threat of attack and the US isn't in an “armed conflict” with the cartels.
With a former military lawyer who previously advised US Special Operations forces, and is now director of the national security law program at Georgetown Law, explaining that because there is no real war, killing any of the men in the boats “amounts to murder.” []
But notably, he said, even if the US were at war with the traffickers? An order like the one Hegseth allegedly gave, to kill all the boat’s occupants even if they were unable to fight?
It “...would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.”
Now, with that, the special operation commander overseeing the operation reportedly told subordinates that survivors were legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo. []
But in briefing materials provided to the White House, however, the Joint Special Operations Command reportedly said something different.
Arguing that the follow-on strike had been intended to sink the boat and remove a navigation hazard to other vessels — not to kill survivors. []
Which, of course, doesn’t really make it any better.
With Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton saying:
“The idea that wreckage from one small boat in a vast ocean is a hazard to marine traffic is patently absurd, and killing survivors is blatantly illegal” – adding:
“Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder.”
We’ve also seen some more measured Republican pushback – with Reps Mike Turner and Don Bacon agreeing that if events went down as reported it would have been illegal but also questioning whether it really happened that way
And then the GOP-led Senate and House Armed Services Committees have said they’re launching inquiries into the matter.
As far as Hegseth, you’ve had him writing on social media:
“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”
But with that, he didn’t respond specifically to the allegations, and he actually affirmed that these strikes are “specifically intended to be ‘lethal…”
Also claiming without providing evidence that “Every trafficker [killed] is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization”;
Insisting that “current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law”;
And finally, adding in a separate post: “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”
You also had Trump saying yesterday he believed Hegseth "100%” but also that his administration "will look into" the matter and claiming that he “wouldn't have wanted” a second strike.
But as we learn more about what has already happened, what might happen next is what’s got a lot of people on edge – especially as Maduro may have lost his last chance to negotiate.
Right, Trump confirmed yesterday that he’d had a call with Maduro a couple weeks ago.
And while he didn’t give details, you’ve had the Miami Herald reporting that he gave the Venezuelan president an ultimatum – saying something along the lines:
“You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now.” []
And with that, according to anonymous sources, the administration offered safe passage out of the country for Maduro, his wife, and his son – but only if he agreed to resign right away. []
But Maduro? He reportedly refused.
Instead he asked for global amnesty for any crimes he and his associates had committed – which the White House rejected.
And he also asked to keep control of the armed forces in return for giving up political control and allowing free elections to take place – which the White House also rejected. []
And not long after that, Trump said in a Thanksgiving address on Thursday that the US would soon be taking action against alleged drug trafficking networks in Venezuela on land.
With him then warning on social media on Saturday that “THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA” should be considered “BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY!”
With this being seen as a sign that strikes could be imminent.
And while we wait to see if that actually happens, it’s worth noting that Trump has only continued to undermine his administration’s own claims that all this has anything to do with fighting drug trafficking.
Right, to start with, Venezuela plays only a small part in the drug trade in America according to experts as well as the government’s own assessments
But also, on Friday, Trump announced that he would be granting a “full and complete” pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández:
The former president of Honduras who was convicted last year on drug trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
And notably, just listing the charges doesn’t really do this guy justice.
Right, according to prosecutors, he ran a massive trafficking network that brought in millions for cartels while keeping Honduras one of Central America’s poorest, most violent and most corrupt countries.[]
And overall, they said, the scheme lasted more than 20 years and brought more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States.[]
But Hernández has claimed to be a victim of political persecution – which has apparently appealed to something in Trump.
Who you had writing in his post announcing his intention to issue the pardon that Hernandez “has been, according to many people that I greatly respect, treated very harshly and unfairly.”
But ultimately, that’s where we’re at right now and we’ll see where all this leads next.
-
Did this instructor have an anti-Christian bias or did this student just write a really bad paper?
That is the debate being had at the University of Oklahoma right now after a grad student instructor was placed on leave for failing a student, and it points to much larger conversations regarding religion and education.
The student in question here is Samantha Fulnecky, who is studying psychology.
And in one of her psych classes, she was tasked with writing a reaction paper regarding societal perceptions of gender.[]
And Samantha’s paper heavily referenced God and the Bible to make a case for why traditional gender roles are important.
But out of a possible 25 points, Samantha got a zero,
With the instructor writing that:
“I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting points for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.”[]
“Using your own personal beliefs to argue against the findings of not only this article, but the findings of countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology, etc, is not best practice.”
A second instructor for the course also backed that grade up, but Samantha was not happy with this and argued that her free speech rights were violated.
So she reportedly filed a discrimination complaint and grade appeal, telling The Oklahoman:
"To be what I think is clearly discriminated against for my beliefs and using freedom of speech, and especially for my religious beliefs, I think that's just absurd.”
And this story really took off when the school’s Turning Point USA chapter posted about it, claiming that the instructor who gave the grade was trans, and writing:[]
“We at Turning Point OU stand with Samantha. We should not be letting mentally ill professors around students. Clearly this professor lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside and take grading seriously. Professors like this are the very reason conservatives can't voice their beliefs in the classroom.”
But not everyone is on her side, because both Turning Point and The Oklahoman published Samantha’s essay, and so now you have some thinking the paper never deserved a very strong grade to begin with.
As it starts by saying:
“This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society…God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what He makes, and I believe trying to change that would only do more harm…Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts.”[]
And it then goes on to say that:
“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.”
“I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.”
And some were just not impressed with this paper, thinking that it did not meet the standards for a college-level psychology class, and sided with the professor's grade and justification for it. [][][]
Arguing that “Right-wing cancel culture has gone off the rails.”[]
Some even thinking she wrote a bad paper on purpose to get the attention of TPUSA and turn this into a culture war. []
But still, Samantha had a ton of people in her corner, with the situation even getting the attention of the Governor of Oklahoma, who wrote:
“The 1st Amendment is foundational to our freedom & inseparable from a well rounded education. The situation at OU is deeply concerning. I’m calling on the OU regents to review the results of the investigation & ensure other students aren’t unfairly penalized for their beliefs.”[]
And yesterday, the school released a statement saying the instructor in question has been placed on leave.
Right, while the school did not name Samantha or anyone involved, it said it takes first amendment rights seriously and began a full review of a student’s complaint. []
Saying the school has been in constant communication with her over her grade appeal,
Adding that “the process resulted in steps to ensure no academic harm to the student from the graded assignments.”
And then, regarding the discrimination claim, the school said that:
“OU has a clear process for reviewing such claims and it has been activated. The graduate student instructor has been placed on administrative leave pending the finalization of this process…a full-time professor is serving as the course instructor for the remainder of the semester.”
“OU remains firmly committed to fairness, respect and protecting every student's right to express sincerely held religious beliefs.”
And so this opened up more backlash from people who thought the instructor was totally fair, that the paper did deserve a bad grade.
And it has opened up to a larger conversation about politics, religion, and education and how these ideas have really been clashing lately.
Right, some writing things like:
“One of many problems Charlie Kirk made significantly worse was convincing some of the least intelligent/thoughtful/qualified students that they could just say "well the bible says" -- then proceed to misquote or not even cite the bible -- and get out of doing their homework.”[]
And that Kirk comparison is important here, not just because of how involved TPUSA is in this situation, but also because a ton of these educational clashes became more prominent following his death.
Right, tons of people were fired or faced some form of disciplinary action over comments they made about him, and educators were especially impacted by this.
And in recent weeks, there have just been tons of headlines about teachers taking legal action and suing because of these firings.
So it just shows the conversations here are just starting, right, as these cases continue to play out, there will only be more discourse based on where things land.
Others have also pointed to the fact that TPUSA has a professor watch list to "unmask radical professors.”
With one of the professors on that list previously telling NBC News:
“When you step in the classroom, you might as well be in the studio. People are going to record what you’re saying, they may publish it, they may take it out of context, they may share it with your enemies — anything can happen now and it frequently does.”[]
But this impact also goes further than just the cancel culture element, too.
In Ohio, the house passed the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, which:
“works to preserve the ability for educators to discuss the positive impact of religion on American history.”
Which critics see as legislators using Kirk’s death to insert Christianity into the classroom.
And this is not to say all this can be pinned on Charlie Kirk or TPUSA because that is not the case, right, there have long been attempts to intervene in classrooms, especially from the right.
But this case out of Oklahoma kind of highlights the latest wave of it here, and I would love to know your thoughts, if you think the professor was fair, is this a “free speech” violation, anything at all.
SeatGeek: SeatGeek use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first order. “DEFRANCO” for $10 on returning buyers.
-
Trump is using this National Guard shooting to further his immigration crackdown to the point of insanity.
Right, we managed to sneak a short segment into our last show before the holiday when the shooting itself happened.
But in case you missed that, here’s a quick recap - on Wednesday afternoon, two members of the National Guard were shot at close range near Farragut Square in downtown Washington DC.
The two troops were Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe and Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, both from West Virginia and deployed to DC as a part of Trump’s crime crackdown.
So they’d both been in the city since August.
After the shooting, both victims were taken to the hospital - where Beckstrom died and Wolfe remains in critical condition. []
So one of the two is still alive despite some conflicting reporting when everything first went down.
Regardless, since the shooting, we’ve seen West Virginia communities and officials honoring both victims.
With Governor Patrick Morrisey ordering a moment of silence and ordering the flags be flown at half mast in recognition of Beckstrom’s death. []
With Morrisey saying,
“These two West Virginia heroes were serving our country and protecting our nation’s capital when they were maliciously attacked. Their courage and commitment to duty represent the very best of our state.” []
The families of both victims have also been invited to the White House by Trump himself - who told reporters yesterday,
“I said, ‘When you’re ready, because that’s a tough thing, come to the White House. We’re going to honor Sarah. And likewise with Andrew, recover or not.” []
The shooter was later revealed to be Rahmanullah Lakanwal (Rahm-uh-loo-luh Lock-in-wall) - an Afghan man who worked with the CIA in what was known as a Zero Unit in Afghanistan before the US withdrew from the country in 2021. []
We know that he was wounded during the shooting and was taken to the hospital although his exact condition isn’t clear at this point. []
And we also don’t know for sure why he did this - with the authorities still investigating motive.
But they have started piecing together his life - especially since coming to the US from Afghanistan.
According to interviews with his family, Lock-in-wall struggled with PTSD stemming from his time fighting overseas and he was really struggling to assimilate to the US - saying he was having trouble finding a job and feeding his family. []
And those problems were further exacerbated by the death of a commander that Lock-in-wall is said to have thought highly of. []
We also saw Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem saying that he was radicalized after coming into the US and pointing the finger at the Biden administration.
Saying they failed to properly vet Lock-in-wall - though it is worth noting that his asylum application was approved by the Trump administration earlier this year. []
Anyway, this is still a developing situation but we do know that Lock-in-wall is facing one count of first-degree murder and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. []
And there notably hasn’t been any specific evidence tying Lock-in-wall to a terrorist organization and there haven’t been any terror charges brought into the conversation as of now. []
And that’s despite Trump’s assertions that this attack was, quote, “an act of terror.” []
But this attack has now prompted Team Trump to ramp the immigration crackdown up a couple notches.
Specifically, the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced, quote,
“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. The safety of the American people always comes first.” []
And that came just hours after Trump promised to, quote, “permanently pause” all immigration from what he called “third world countries.” []
Saying on Truth Social on Thanksgiving that this was necessary to, quote,
“... allow the U.S. system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen, and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States.” []
Now, there’s not a whole hell of a lot of details here.
Right, we don’t know what countries will be included - though DHS has pointed to a travel ban list from back in June that mostly included countries in the Middle East and Africa. []
And Trump went on to say that his government will deport any foreign national who is, quote, “non-compatible with Western Civilization.”
Adding,
“Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation.”
And that’s not a new idea, even for Team Trump - earlier this year, the State Department floated the idea of creating an office of “remigration.”
With the idea being that American society can be saved only by the departure of certain migrants, illegal or otherwise.
And we’ve already seen some action on that front - with the government promising to re-examine the status of green card holders from 19 countries “of concern,” including Afghanistan, after Wednesday’s shooting.
But, as you can imagine, every aspect of this response has sparked backlash.
To kick things off, you had two UN agencies quickly jumping in to urge that the US continue accepting asylum-seekers.
With the UN refugee agency spokesperson saying in a statement,
“When people who need protection arrive in their territory, they have to have a due process of asylum. And then they have to have access to territory,” []
And she added that the vast majority of refugees are law-abiding citizens.
Which was echoed by the UN agency human rights office spokesperson - with him adding,
“They are entitled to protection under international law, and that should be given due process.” []
From there, we saw the criticism and concern spread - including from those worried about Afghan residents being targeted in this newest crackdown wave.
With the Council on American-Islamic Relations saying in a statement,
“Using this horrific attack as an excuse to smear and punish every Afghan, every refugee, or every immigrant rips at something very basic in our Constitution and many faiths: the idea that guilt is personal, not inherited or collective.” []
But for now, we’re just going to have to wait and see how this plays out.
Any legislation or executive order to back up these threats will likely be met with legal challenges.
So this is absolutely just the beginning.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts about this whole thing - the shooting, the response.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
And then there's more we're gonna dive into in just a minute.
But first, a quick self-promotion, self sponsorship.
It's Cyber Monday. I'm going to extend this through the week.
But right now if you go to beautiful master.com,
You can get pretty much everything 60% off.
This sale is on our premium beautiful bastard gear.
Are the great custom cotton spandex blend.
The premium hoodies.
It's all there.
And what we're going to be doing a sale
Anyway, we're switching warehouses, the whole thing.
And so rather than pave to move stuff and, like, just lose money that way, rather
You guys just save a bunch of money, take advantage of it, and we.
And empty out stock that way.
Yeah. Grab what you want while you can. I mean, there's, like, $15 t shirts.
It's stupid. yeah. Limited stock. So grab what you want while you can.
-
The Oxford University Press has spoken! 2025’s word of the year is …
[Clip, 00:10 - 00:12] Caption: “Rage bait.”
[Clip, 00:01 - 00:02] Caption: “Rage bait.”
[Clip, 00:14 - 00:15] Caption: “Rage bait.”
Rage bait is, taken literally, a compound of a violent outburst of anger and an attractive morsel of food. [Quote, find “morsel”]
But as Oxford really defines it, rage bait is “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media account.” [Quote]
Now actually, the first recorded use of the term is from 2002, when it referred to a particular type of driver reaction to being flashed at by another driver requesting to pass them. [Quote, find “2002”]
But then in the 2010s, it evolved into internet slang for viral tweets, and since then it’s become a mainstream term for content in general. [Quote same link, find “viral tweets”]
With it even generating spinoffs like “rage-farming,” a more consistent use of rage bait to manipulate reactions and build engagement over time. [Same quote]
Though apparently rage isn’t the only thing people are farming, because one of the runner-ups for word of the year was “aura farming.”
Right, “the cultivation of an impressive, attractive, or charismatic persona or public image by behaving or presenting oneself in a way intended subtly to convey an air of confidence, coolness, or mystique.” [Quote]
With that one emerging more recently a couple of years ago and surging in usage this year thanks to a viral video of this 11-year-old Indonesian kid looking effortlessly cool as he danced on a boat. [B roll]
You also had another contender, “biohack,” a verb meaning: “to attempt to improve or optimize one’s physical or mental performance, health, longevity, or wellbeing by altering one’s diet, exercise routine, or lifestyle, or by using other means such as drugs, supplements, or technological devices.” [Quote]
With Oxford attributing that to the growing attention toward rich dudes trying to reverse the aging process or turbocharge their mental and physical performance. [Quote same link, find “turbocharge”]
But in the end, rage bait took home the gold, reportedly after Oxford considered “a combination of votes, sentiment of public commentary, and analysis of lexical data.” [Post]
With the university announcing that usage of the term tripled over the last 12 months.” [Same post]
And yes, before y’all snarky motherfuckers comment something annoying, rage bait is technically two words, not one, but Oxford insists they’re not trying to rage bait us with that.
Instead, they explain that the word of the year can also be an expression, which their lexicographers think of as a single unit of meaning. [Quote, find “single unit”]
Also, we’ve gotta distinguish rage bait from a few similar concepts, like trolling, which is done more for amusement than financial gain or engagement.
It’s also not the same as click bait, which is done for financial gain or engagement, but not necessarily by provoking anger.
And of course there is some conceptual overlap between rage bait and “hot take,” but the latter doesn’t always have to provoke anger or seek money or engagement.
So rage bait seems perfectly sculpted to isolate one very specific phenomenon that’s turned social media into an awful place to be.
With one media studies professor explaining to CBS News: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:16 - 02:21, 02:29 - 02:44] Caption: “So this is the easiest emotion to attack because fear and anger are the easiest to approach. … Most of social media is a compulsion. We don’t have to post. It’s something that we do because we want to share our voices and the opportunity is there. But when somebody posts something that angers you, you almost feel like you have to right the wrong, and so that’s a tactic. It’s tactical media.”
But it’s not just rage bait; right, if you look at Oxford’s past several words of the year, you start to notice a pattern.
In 2024 it was “brain rot: the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging.” [Quote]
In 2022 it was “goblin mode: a type of behaviour which is unapologetically self-indulgent, lazy, slovenly, or greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms or expectations.” [Quote]
And in 2020, Oxford couldn’t pikc just one word, but some of the ones they highlighted included “doomscrolling,” “covidiots,” and “infodemic.” [Headline/quotes]
So when you put all these concepts together, it paints a pretty grim picture of the state of our culture.
Right, we’re all just lazy, selfish, raging, brain-rotted goblins wasting away our waking lives on algorithms that manipulate our emotions with an overwhelming torrent of factually questionable info.
But with that said, I should add that the increase in our usage of these terms doesn’t necessarily mean the phenomena they point to has also increased, though I’ll bet you it has.
Rather, as the president of Oxford Languages notes, their usage could also signal that we’re becoming more self-aware and developing specific terms to describe the ways that online media affects us. [Quote, find “aware”]
But for at least some of these words, their popularity does appear to stem from particular, real-world events.
Like for example, Cambridge Dictionary’s word of the year for 2025 is “parasocial,” a term that describes the one-way relationships people develop with celebrities they don’t personally know. [Headline]
And it’s believed to have taken off in large part thanks to the engagement of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. [Image]
But then you have others that just elude rational explanation, like “six-seven.”
Right, it’s Dictionary.com’s word for 2025, the Gen Alpha slang term whose meaning is kind of hard to pin down.
Some say it roughly translates to “so-so" or “maybe this, maybe that,” but as one expert points out, it also functions as a general exclamation that’s “part inside joke, part social signal and part performance.” [Quote]
Or in other words, “a burst of energy that spreads and connects people long before anyone agrees on what it actually means. [Same quote]
Yeah, so depending on your perspective, that’s either the beauty or the horror of human language.
Sometimes it makes you laugh, sometimes you shake your head; it can bring people together and split them apart; it can mean one extremely specific thing or absolutely nothing at all.
But as we’ve just seen, it can tell us a lot about not just how we’re feeling, but how we feel about how we’re feeling.
And right now, there seems to be a lot of lamentation and regret.
