Truthliness News

WASHINGTON — President Trump escalated tensions with Iran this week by warning the U.S. may attack Tehran if Iranian authorities continue killing protesters, describing the alleged crackdown as “barbaric,” “unthinkable,” and “the kind of thing only bad countries do.” The announcement came just days after a fatal incident in Minneapolis in which an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good , a woman whose death has sparked widespread protests and intense scrutiny of federal enforcement operations. When asked whether he saw any irony in threatening Iran over protester deaths while his own enforcement agency is at the center of a similar controversy, Trump reportedly stared at the reporter like they had just suggested gravity was a liberal hoax. “There’s a big difference,” Trump explained. “Iran kills protesters wrong. We do it right. We do it the best.” “Iran Protesters Deserve Freedom. Ours Deserve Consequences.” At the press conference, Trump again positioned himself as an international...

In an unexpected twist on America’s protest playbook, thousands of demonstrators outraged by recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics — including the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis — have decided the best way to fight ICE is to be ICE.  Yes, you read that right. Across major cities — from Seattle to Miami — protest organizers marched Friday, shouting “If they mask, we mask! If they brandish, we brandish!” as they embraced a strategy that political analysts are calling “performance art meets legal theory.” A Method to the Madness According to the newly minted National Protesters’ Tactics Handbook (Volume I: “If You Can’t Beat ‘Em… Dress Like ‘Em”) , any group protesting ICE must now: Wear tactical masks — a nod to federal agents’ penchant for anonymity. Open carry firearms where legal — because nothing says peaceful demonstration like walking into a rally with an AR-15 and a sharp sense of irony. Invoke “Stand Your Gr...

At a press conference marked by confidence, déjà vu, and a suspicious lack of charts, President Trump responded to questions about his long-stated promise to be a “peace president” by explaining that the recent U.S. attack on Venezuela did not count as a war because, technically speaking, it was already over and the United States had won. “Very fast. Incredible success,” Trump said. “Honestly, by the time you heard about it, we were already done. That’s peace. That’s what peace looks like now.” When pressed on how the operation squared with his repeated warnings against “forever wars,” the President reassured Americans that there would be no long-term costs because the United States would now, in his words, “run Venezuela,” and do so without spending “a single dime of taxpayer money.” “We’re not paying,” Trump explained. “Venezuela is paying. With oil. Lots of oil. Beautiful oil. Frankly, they should be thanking us.” A reporter gently noted that this sounded familiar—specifically, like...

In a bold new chapter of economic policy that experts are calling “legally adventurous” and “mostly vibes,” President Trump announced Tuesday that Americans could soon receive a “Venezuela Oil Dividend” check, assuming everything goes according to plan, the oil cooperates, and reality agrees to play along. Standing before a giant chart labeled OIL = CHECKS , the President teased that proceeds from a recent, extremely successful, very quiet raid on Venezuela would soon be “shared directly with the people,” much like stimulus checks, except oilier, more patriotic, and somehow already printed with his signature. “It’s a beautiful dividend. Tremendous oil. The best oil,” Trump said, explaining that Venezuela has “so much oil they don’t even miss it,” and that Americans deserve a cut because “we’re the ones who really discovered it by noticing it on a map.” According to administration officials, the proposed checks could range anywhere from $1,200 to “whatever number feels right at the tim...

At a joint press conference this week with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy , U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new theory of international relations, asserting that the Russian invasion of Ukraine would never have occurred if the 2020 U.S. presidential election had not been “stolen from him personally.” “This war,” Trump said, gesturing broadly toward Eastern Europe, “is really about me. Everybody knows it. If I were president, this would not have happened. Putin would have been too scared. Tremendously scared.” Standing beside him, Zelensky maintained a diplomatic expression usually reserved for situations involving translation errors or mild food poisoning. Trump continued, explaining that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not the result of decades of post-Cold War tension, NATO expansion debates, or Russian imperial ambition, but rather a direct consequence of Trump not being in the White House at the time. “Putin respects strength,” Trump said. “And by streng...

In an unexpected return to prime-time television, President Donald J. Trump delivered a 28-minute national address Wednesday night designed, according to his staff, to “clear up confusion about the economy.” The resulting speech instead raised questions about whether he had accidentally wandered onto the soundstage during a pharmaceutical infomercial. “Ladies and gentlemen, the American economy is the strongest, the bigliest, the most incredible it has ever been,” Trump announced, gripping the lectern as if it had personally wronged him. “If you can’t see that, well… maybe you’re just not very smart. Not everyone can be smart. I’m very smart. But most of you, frankly? Not so much.” Economic experts, who had spent the previous week offering cautious optimism mixed with concern about rising costs, were surprised to learn that the entire issue was simply a matter of insufficient national intelligence. “Normally we talk about inflation, interest rates, employment trends,” said economist Da...

An Advice Column for Those Who Have Made… Choices*** Dear Mall Madness, So I work(ed) at a CinnaBun in a perfectly average mall in Wisconsin—fluorescent lights, sticky floors, teenagers pretending not to stare at each other—you know, the classics. Anyway, the other day a customer ordered a Classic Roll, and somehow this activated something in me that turned the entire food court into a cable news panel. I went on a rant about “how Muslims shouldn’t be in America,” even though (1) this had nothing to do with pastries and (2) I have never once left the state of Wisconsin except for a school trip to the Dells. Then—because apparently I decided that Wrong Choices should come in combo meals—I hurled a racist insult at the woman. Yes, that word. The one that should never exist outside history books and documentaries narrated by Morgan Freeman. Shocking absolutely no one except myself at the time, another customer filmed the meltdown. TikTok got involved. It went viral faster than free sam...

Liberals Respond: “Yes… that actually tracks perfectly with what happened.” In a development that has stunned exactly zero behavioral scientists but has sent MAGA Twitter into a victory conga line, the FBI announced today the arrest of the long-mysterious January 6 pipe bomber. The suspect, to the collective delight of the Trump-sphere, is reportedly a Black man who openly disliked Donald Trump. Within minutes, MAGA influencers erupted online with jubilant posts celebrating what they called “proof that January 6 was a peaceful multicultural yoga retreat interrupted only by antifa.” Hashtags included #MAGAWasRight , #CaseClosed . One prominent poster declared: “Boom! He hated Trump! That means Trump supporters had NOTHING to do with January 6! Stop the witch hunt! (Except the one for Nancy Pelosi’s laptop.)” Another wrote: “Told you it was antifa. Or BLM. Or Obama. Or George Soros. Or maybe Beyoncé. We had so many theories.” Meanwhile, liberals responded with what experts are calli...

In a congressional hearing that observers have already described as “a cross between Dr. Strangelove and a frat house disciplinary board,” The Secretary of War and self-proclaimed wartime philosopher Pete Hegseth testified about the now-infamous incident in which a suspected drug boat was blown up in international waters twice —the second volley allegedly fired for the purpose of “ensuring no loose ends.” According to testimony, the admiral on scene turned to Hegseth and asked, “Would you like to take another shot?” A reasonable person might interpret this as: A) “Would you like to fire on the vessel again?” or B) “Would you like to partake in some celebratory destroyer-grade bourbon?” Hegseth went with B . “Look, c’mon,” he told lawmakers, leaning casually into the microphone as though delivering a podcast ad read. “Given my past, you really think I’ve ever turned down a second shot? Please. I didn’t even decline one before I got in that Uber that night.” Committee members paus...

In a shocking development that stunned absolutely no international legal scholars but somehow surprised several high-ranking U.S. officials, the government is now grappling with the revelation that blowing up suspected drug boats in international waters without warning … might— and this is a big maybe —constitute a criminal offense . For decades, U.S. leaders have reassured the public that international law is essentially “the speed limit sign you only obey when someone’s looking.” But recent events have forced a revision to this long-standing interpretation after multiple “suspected drug vessels” mysteriously transitioned from "targets of suspicion" to "rapidly expanding underwater museums." Officials defended the practice at first, insisting the explosions were simply “enhanced maritime decommissioning” or “oceanic compliance encouragement.” But experts countered that, legally speaking, a government cannot simply detonate anything that looks kind of sketchy on th...