Author: Brick Tungsten

Brick Tungsten was forged in a Ford F-150 during a Toby Keith guitar solo and baptized in the smoke of a backyard BBQ. A former bass fisherman, amateur theologian, and full-time enemy of tofu, Brick believes America peaked somewhere between the invention of the Budweiser tallboy and Reagan’s first cold stare into the Soviet soul. He doesn’t write columns. He delivers freedom sermons. Each one is a bugle-blast of righteousness straight from the front lines of the culture war—where gender is a science, guns are gospel, and facts are best when cooked medium rare. Brick doesn’t trust the government, but he does trust his gut, his Glock, and the guy who sold him raw milk out of a barn in 2014. He quotes the Constitution like Scripture, Scripture like prophecy, and anything on AM radio like it was beamed straight from Sinai. Every week, he unleashes verbal roundhouse kicks on WOYJO.com—targeting liberal elites, soy-sympathizers, woke kindergarten teachers, and anyone who thinks freedom is optional. His motto? “Live free, grill hard, and don’t apologize.” He has six American flags, one wife (Betsy), two kids named Liberty and Buckshot, and zero regrets.

  • Fine Arts Gives Trump’s Triumphal Arch a Green Light

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The air in Washington is full of “look, don’t touch” paper-pusher energy, and today that energy got stepped on. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts voted to approve the concept design for the Triumphal Arch that President Donald Trump wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital. AP reports the commissioners, appointed by Trump, will review an updated version later before a final vote at a future meeting.

    Concept approval: what’s on the table

    The commission’s concept-stage thumbs-up is not the finish line, but it is the starting pistol. AP says the arch would be about 250 feet tall, gilded from top to bottom. A Lady Liberty-like figure would hold a torch aloft, two eagles would sit on top, and four lions would guard the base.

    On either side, the monument would carry gold lettering for “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All.” And the site matters for the optics. AP says the arch would be built on a human-made island managed by the National Park Service on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, at the end of Memorial Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial, near Memorial Circle, aimed squarely at the memorial axis.

    Inside the CFA: disagreements already showing

    AP also notes internal disagreements. One commissioner suggested changes, including dropping the Lady Liberty-like statue and the pair of eagles sitting on top. The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said he preferred the arch without that figure and the eagles, and he also objected to the lions at the base. So even with approval, the design could evolve before any final vote.

    Pushback is on the calendar too

    Concept approval does not end the fight. AP reports that a group of veterans and a historian sued in federal court to block construction, arguing the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons. That kind of lawsuit signals this is not a small local tweak.

    For America, the core issue is bigger than steel. This is a monument play, built around symbolism, scale, and messaging. According to CFA project materials, the concept ties to a memorial-axis site plan around Memorial Circle and the Potomac corridor, with the structure shown at 250 feet and mapped to its planned placement near the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington area. That documentation is not vibes. It is a roadmap.

    So if concept approval is just step one, why are delay merchants treating it like the whole nation has already lost the argument? What’s the real beef, and who benefits when major projects stay trapped in endless process?

  • Task Force BBQ: Democrats Try Anti-Corruption Fireworks on Trump

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The grill is hissing, smoke curling up like a prayer, and the TV is yelling that old familiar headline smell: ethics, reform, corruption. House Democrats just lit another anti-corruption campfire and want you to taste justice, not the grease from the same swamp pan.

    House Democrats will try anti-corruption message to gain traction against Trump

    The Associated Press reports that, days after Hungary ousted Viktor Orbán with an opposition campaign that emphasized anti-corruption, Democrats want to borrow that storyline to hit President Donald Trump before the midterms. AP describes this as a messaging push, aimed at overhauling ethics rules and protecting access to the ballot, then turning those themes into a central part of Democrats’ fight for Congress.

    And when you are losing the scoreboard, you look for the loudest flavor in the buffet. Corruption is a spice. Ethics are the hot sauce. But the hot sauce comes with the usual cast of paper-pushers who only remember the Constitution when it helps them win.

    Meet the task force: ethics talk, ballot access, and election-year theater

    Rep. Joe Morelle is spearheading the effort, with co-chairs Kevin Mullin, Delia Ramirez, and Nikema Williams. The task force is described as a mix of progressive and moderate members, a coalition so nobody can claim it was just one wing cooking the plan. Democrats frame it as a way to root out corruption inside the federal process and improve elections, including guardrails meant to increase access to the ballot.

    AP adds that Morelle floated ideas like a ban on stock trading for members of the executive branch, Congress, and federal courts. He also raised concepts such as a code of ethics and term limits for Supreme Court justices. Those are not tiny tweaks. They would matter if they turned into real results instead of rhetoric.

    Who’s the villain and what’s the incentive?

    This story quietly points to the incentive: power and narrative management. Democrats want to highlight what they call Trump’s business dealings and changes to the federal government. Even the press language leans hard on urgency and accountability, because it keeps the political heat aimed where Democrats want it aimed.

    Ethics do matter. But the pattern matters too. Too often, ethics becomes a match Democrats strike when it helps them, then gets ignored when it does not. If you are serious, you do the work. Pass what you claim, not just the headlines.

    The counter-smoke: White House denial and the foreign deals question

    AP also lays out the White House response. It says spokesperson Anna Kelly denies conflicts of interest, arguing Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children. The reporting notes the Trump Organization has conducted deals in eight foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Vietnam, and that those deals are described as complying with a self-imposed rule not to do business directly with foreign governments.

    What it means for America: heat is fine, slogans are not

    For America, the midterms are shaping up like a cook-off where everyone claims they brought the cleanest ingredients. Democrats think anti-corruption messaging can cut through attention cycles, and they cite watchdog and strategist voices saying the pitch needs to be loud and engaging.

    But an F-150 is not fixed by yelling at the engine. Messaging can be part of the job, but it cannot replace the work. Voters deserve policy outcomes that change what happens in agencies and in Congress, not just more smoke drifting through the same political landscape.

    Bottom line: when Democrats unveil anti-corruption task forces inspired by foreign election messaging, are they cleaning the pantry, or selling a new recipe while keeping the same grift-chef staff?

  • Brick Tungsten: When AI Fear Turns Into Arson, Freedom Gets a Black Eye

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The grill is still smoking, the garage door still rattles, and now the AI fear panic is in the mix. Suddenly the country is arguing about freedom like it is a tailgate debate.

    Man accused in Molotov cocktail attack on OpenAI CEO’s home

    Charges, alleged motive, and the court record

    Authorities say Daniel Moreno-Gama is the man accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s home. The reporting also describes Moreno-Gama writing about AI’s supposed risk to humanity, then traveling from Texas to San Francisco with the intent to kill Altman, according to officials and court documents described in the story.

    In San Francisco state court, the man is facing charges including two counts of attempted murder and attempted arson. Federal prosecutors have also brought additional charges, including possession of an unregistered firearm and damage and destruction of property by means of explosives.

    Defense says mental health crisis. Courts will sort it out.

    A public defender described Moreno-Gama as being in the midst of a mental health crisis and argued prosecutors were pursuing charges higher than what the defense says fits the moment. That is a claim by the defense, not a verdict. Due process matters, even when sympathy is real.

    But even if the motive is tangled, the action is still dangerous. Arson is not a protest, and gasoline fingers are not free speech.

    Who benefits when the AI argument turns into a fear market?

    Let me speak plain: when this kind of alleged violence happens around a hot AI debate, it gives everyone a shortcut to their own agenda.

    Big Tech benefits because the conversation can drift from product and speech fights into security posture and emergency responses. Politicians and regulators benefit too, because fear is a coupon for control. And the anti-AI extremist ecosystem benefits because outrage turns into attention.

    Freedom sermon: protect speech, not threats

    If you want to protect free speech, protect speech, debate AI ethics and transparency, and challenge companies for censorship games or shady incentives. But when someone allegedly intends to kill a public figure with an incendiary device, the response is to prosecute the crime, keep the process fair, and refuse to let fear write the rulebook.

    So here is the question: when the smoke clears, are we going to demand policy debates on the merits, or keep letting terror-adjacent claims smuggle censorship through the back door?

  • Smoke in the Ninth Circuit: Kalshi, Nevada, and the Licensing Grift

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The smoke in my brain is the good kind, the hickory kind. Tonight, the AM-radio dial crackles with one question: can states keep yanking at the steering wheel of sports and prediction markets, or does federal law finally put the car in the lane?

    Ninth Circuit oral argument on April 16, 2026 in the Nevada case

    This is not an abstract law-school exercise. It is a licensing fight with real money on the passenger seat and regulators gripping the map like it is theirs by birthright. The Nevada Gaming Control Board took swings at Kalshi after Kalshi offered event contracts to Nevada users without a Nevada gaming license.

    In a federal filing, the court noted the Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument for April 16, 2026, in Kalshi’s appeal. It is the same case where a preliminary injunction was granted and later dissolved.

    The villain is the patchwork, and it wants your handle

    Here is the heat: when regulators treat CFTC-registered derivatives like backyard betting on a card table, confusion wins and everyone pays. State agencies want control, they want turf, and they want the tax receipts that come with licensed sportsbooks and familiar vendors.

    Kalshi argues its products sit inside the federal derivatives lane because it operates a CFTC-registered designated contracts market. The Nevada Board says no, not in Nevada, not without a gaming license.

    April 16, 2026 is the day the smoke clears, or the smoke gets thicker.

    Who benefits if the states win?

    If the states prevail, you do not get a tidy system. You get a patchwork quilt stitched state by state, with different incentives and different rules.

    Incumbent sportsbook operators benefit because they already have the licensing paperwork, compliance teams, and marketing playbooks. New competitors trying to offer contracts tied to events get slowed down, blocked, or forced into costly workarounds just to offer basic consumer choice.

    And while the states posture, the federal government is not quiet. The Trump administration has sued multiple states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Connecticut, arguing that CFTC-regulated prediction markets are derivatives, not state gambling.

    What it means for America

    Americans do not mind rules. Americans mind nonsense. A fair market framework should not require playing whack-a-mole with every state agency as if liberty were a pinball machine.

    Even CFTC Chairman Mike Selig is in the spotlight, with House testimony set for Thursday, April 16, 2026, as scrutiny of prediction markets continues.

    So watch the meta-story: April 16 is not just a calendar date. It is a referendum on whether the federal lane means anything, or whether state turf wars get to write the rules for everybody. Tell me, are you team F-150 freedom, or team clipboard comedy?

  • NIH Kicks NOFOs to Grants.gov, Bureaucrats Call It Streamlining, and I Smell Smoke and Mirrors

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The grill is hissing, the smoke is curling up like a sermon, and now NIH popped the hood and changed where scientists are supposed to look for funding notices. It is not progress. It is paperwork inflation with a fresh coat of “modernization.”

    NIH points NOFO seekers to Grants.gov as the single official source

    Here is the verified hook: NIH says that in fiscal year 2026, it stopped posting Notices of Funding Opportunities in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. Instead, NIH recognized Grants.gov as the single official source for those grant and cooperative agreement opportunity notices. NIH also says the NIH Guide will keep serving policy and informational notices, not the hunt for the actual funding calls.

    NIH laid out the change in its official notice, NOT-OD-25-143. The update page spells out the practical fallout: the NOFOs are no longer accessible from the NIH Guide, but they stay searchable on Grants.gov. Even the weekly table-of-contents email is affected, because apparently “ease” is optional now.

    Why it feels like a switch at the gas pump

    Moving the official trail to a federal portal does not just shuffle information. It reshuffles power. The bureaucrats, and the gatekeepers around them, get to influence timing, visibility, and administrative burden. In other words, it is not just “streamlining.” It is leverage dressed up as a feature.

    And the broader trend lines up with that concern. The American Association for Cancer Research reported that NIH agency-directed funding calls have dropped dramatically: NOFO counts averaged about 780 each year from 2016 to 2024, then fell to about 73 after Trump took office in 2025, and ended up at fewer than a dozen in early 2026. AACR frames this as part of a larger pivot away from agency-directed science toward more investigator-initiated work, with NIH saying this is meant to streamline things and focus on what it calls meritorious science.

    What it means for transparency, integrity, and who gets heard

    This is where I get loud: a research agency should fund the best ideas and protect scientific integrity. The Nature coverage of the pivot notes it sparked debate, including worries that some areas of science could be under-studied if the system leans too hard toward investigator choice. That is the argument we should be having: which safeguards keep the pipeline honest, and which safeguards prevent favoritism-by-process.

    NIH says the official NOFOs are now on Grants.gov and are searchable there. Good. But the American people deserve more than a redirect. When policy shifts move from clear agency direction to centralized portals and investigator-initiated submissions, the process becomes harder to audit and easier to politicize in practice.

    Bottom line: stop mystification, start accountability

    NIH is telling scientists where to look, and it wants you to accept the new map. I am for modernization. I am not for mystification. If the goal is a smoother highway for innovation, then do not build a detour road with hidden toll booths.

    So tell me, fellow freedom-chasers: when you hear bureaucrats call this streamlining, are you smelling steak, or are you smelling another layer of administrative grease?

  • Measure A Smoke: LA County Trims Outreach While Calling It Progress

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The air around this story feels like grill smoke that never quite clears. Hot money. Cold answers. And a paper trail thick enough to hide what’s really happening on the ground. When LA County talks about funding homelessness while trimming outreach, the message sounds suspiciously like the same old AM-radio tune: smoke, mirrors, and paperwork passing the plate.

    LA County Ties Homeless Budget to Measure A, Cuts Outreach

    FOX 11 reports LA County is proposing a homelessness budget tied to Measure A around $843 million, while outreach capacity is being cut by roughly half. At the same time, the county’s own Measure A spending plan documents describe shifts in how outreach is staffed, including changes to multidisciplinary teams and the elimination of some public-space outreach teams.

    Reductions in Teams, Re-sorting the Work

    Here is what the staffing numbers say, without the confetti. In the county document, outreach staffing in the countywide multidisciplinary teams changes from 36 MDTs down to 28 MDTs. It also describes eliminating eight public-space generalist teams. The plan further says eight part-time weekend MDTs are converted into eight part-time weekend generalist teams, and that eight MDTs outside the City of Los Angeles are being eliminated, returning to staffing levels pre-September 2023.

    That is not a victory lap. It is a rationing decision, and the public should be able to look straight at the tradeoff: fewer outreach teams alongside a big headline number for funding.

    Which Total Are We Supposed to Believe?

    One more issue the public cannot ignore. FOX 11 frames the plan at about $843 million. But the county spending plan materials describe an FY 2026-27 HSH spending plan allocation of $821.51 million that includes Measure A and other funding streams like carryover and additional programs. So the exact total shifts depending on what bucket is being used, and that confusion matters.

    Why This Matters for America

    Homelessness is not a memo. It is people. Outreach is the point where people connect to housing and services. If outreach capacity is reduced through staffing changes, then the “progress” claim needs to survive contact with reality.

    So the question stays loud and simple: are we funding outcomes, or funding administration that looks good in a briefing while outreach gets trimmed?

  • Soot Court Circus: Greens Sue the EPA and the Left Cashes Checks

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The air is warm, the grill is hissing, and the loudest clapping in Washington is paperwork closing like a trap door. Right now, the country is spending more time in court than on cleanup, and the same crowd keeps showing up: bureaucrats with clipboards and grifters with billable hours.

    Greens sue the EPA to force implementation of the 2024 national soot standard

    On Monday evening, a coalition of seventeen health, community, and environmental groups filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Environmental Protection Agency. They accuse EPA of failing to implement the strengthened 2024 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter, commonly known as soot. They also seek summary judgment, pushing for a court-ordered clock instead of more waiting.

    The coalition argues the EPA is missing legally required steps under the Clean Air Act, including designating areas that violate the standard as nonattainment so states can build compliance plans.

    Health benefits on paper. Control and deadlines in practice

    Soot is not something you debate like a philosophy hobby. It is tiny particles that can lodge deep in lungs and is tied to serious health harm. The coalition and EPA estimates say the strengthened soot limit would prevent up to thousands of premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of asthma-related illness cases annually once fully implemented.

    But lawsuits are also tools for leverage. The incentive is power and control, the kind you get when you can shove deadlines onto an agency and force policy decisions through litigation. The nation turns into a courtroom, and the American people become the evidence.

    EPA, for its part, missed a key February deadline tied to identifying areas where soot pollution levels are higher than the new acceptable limit, which is the specific beat the groups point to.

    What this means for energy independence and real-world compliance

    The strengthened 2024 soot limit reduced the annual average from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter, according to reporting on the lawsuit. Tighter targets mean more costs, more compliance planning, and more friction.

    Meanwhile, EPA has asked a federal court to strike down the updated soot standard, but the standard remains in effect while that case is pending. So one hand says enforce the rule. The other hand says the rule should be tossed. That is administrative whiplash for states, workers, and energy operators.

    Who benefits?

    The legal industry and the political ecosystem around it. When groups sue, they do not just seek compliance. They seek influence, headlines, and a battleground where every energy decision is hostage to a docket schedule.

    Bottom line: we can respect clean air and still demand energy policy that is stable, enforceable, and not hostage to endless courtroom fireworks.

  • Tax Day Brisket: 53 Million Already Took Trump’s Cuts

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The grill is hissing, the air smells like hickory smoke and warm paperbacks, and Tax Day math is the loudest thing in the yard. According to the Department of the Treasury, millions of Americans have already grabbed Trump’s new tax breaks. And when that many people are filing and claiming, the paperwork crowd does not get to pretend the relief is imaginary.

    Treasury: Over 53 Million Filers Claimed Before the Deadline

    Here’s the verified headline: as of April 14, 2026, more than 53 million filers claimed at least one of President Trump’s signature new tax cuts. The average refund this filing season is over $3,400, up 11 percent. The average tax cut for filers benefiting from one of the signature provisions is over $800. In other words, these are not just talking points, they are numbers.

    Treasury also broke out the biggest buckets: over 6 million filers claimed No Tax on Tips, with an average deduction of over $7,100. Over 25 million claimed No Tax on Overtime, with an average deduction of over $3,100. Over 30 million seniors claimed the Enhanced Deduction for Seniors, with an average deduction of over $7,500. And for people buying American vehicles instead of leasing, over 1 million filers deducted No Tax on Car Loan Interest, with an average deduction of over $1,800.

    Who benefits, and who hates receipts

    On top of that, Treasury says 5 million Trump Accounts have been opened, with 1.2 million eligible for the $1,000 pilot program contribution. Over 34 million families claimed the enhanced Child Tax Credit, which is permanently doubled and expanded by the Working Families Tax Cuts. And over 105 million filers claimed the permanently doubled standard deduction, meaning fewer forms and fewer chances for gatekeepers to slow-walk relief.

    Now, I love America and working people. But when relief shows up for tips, overtime, seniors, and car interest, that means fewer dollars get shoved into the administrative maw. And when fewer dollars flow through their choke points, the swamp loses leverage, so the usual chorus of lobbyists, bureaucrats, and media grifters gets loud about “receipts” being the problem.

    So what does it mean?

    Higher take-home pay isn’t just personal. Treasury says refunds average over $3,400, and that cash can stretch to the basics and keep small businesses and neighborhoods moving. The standard deduction doubling matters too, because Treasury says over 105 million filers claimed it, which cuts down the hassle and makes the system simpler.

    So here’s the AM radio salute to the Working Families Tax Cuts. Fire up the liberty cosplay, keep the cold one close, and let the receipts do the arguing. If your tips or overtime finally got a break, why are the grifters still acting like the problem is “the receipts”?

  • Tax Day Bonfire: Treasury Says 53 Million+ Filers Claimed Trump’s Cuts

    ByBrick Tungsten

    The air smells like printer toner and backyard charcoal. Tax Day is supposed to be paperwork, but the Treasury release is doing something louder than filing season math. It is thumping the bar like a bass line at a country jam.

    Treasury: 53 Million+ Filers Claimed Signature Working Families Tax Cuts

    Treasury says that as of April 14, 2026, more than 53 million filers claimed at least one of President Trump’s signature Working Families Tax Cuts. It also says the average refund this filing season is over $3,400, up 11 percent from last season. And for filers who benefited from one of the signature provisions, the average tax cut is over $800. Not just done. Cooked.

    Who’s Seeing the Benefits: Tips, Overtime, and Seniors

    Treasury’s breakdown points to specific relief families claimed. Over 6 million filers claimed No Tax on Tips, with an average deduction over $7,100. Over 25 million claimed No Tax on Overtime, with an average deduction over $3,100. And over 30 million seniors claimed the Enhanced Deduction for Seniors, with an average deduction over $7,500.

    That is not some abstract talking point. It is cash getting hauled out of the smokehouse and into real life.

    Spreading Out Across Households: Credits and Standard Deduction

    Treasury also says 5 million Trump Accounts have been opened, with 1.2 million eligible for the $1,000 pilot program contribution. It adds that over 34 million families claimed the enhanced Child Tax Credit, and that over 105 million filers claimed the permanently doubled standard deduction. That is a wide spread of the meat, not a garnish for VIPs.

    What It Means: More Breathing Room, Louder Questions

    Look, inflation can be a stubborn pit boss. But if households are seeing bigger refunds and more deductions that lower taxes, then people are more likely to have breathing room for groceries, bills, and the basic cost of being alive in 2026.

    This Tax Day release is not just about refunds. It is about dignity, about the idea that policy should show up at the kitchen table.

    So tell me, fellow Patriots: are you feeling the difference in your own numbers, or are you still stuck on the old story where Washington always wins and you always lose?

  • Smoke, Paper, and a Gotcha Vote: The Gonzales Expulsion Shuffle

    ByBrick Tungsten

    Washington always smells like burnt paper when the cameras start spinning, and this one was no different. On April 13, Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas said he will retire from Congress after bipartisan calls for expulsion. And suddenly the House sounded like an AM radio arguing with itself, with both sides cooking up the same hot-button idea.

    What Gonzales said, and why the temperature rose

    Here is what remains consistent in the record. Gonzales announced he would step away from office when Congress returns, and he had already dropped his reelection bid. The expulsion talk did not come out of nowhere.

    Gonzales admitted to an affair with a staff member who later died by suicide. The House Ethics Committee initiated an investigation, and under House rules, members cannot engage in sexual relationships with employees they supervise.

    In other words, there is a line. And once the line is in the spotlight, the question becomes whether the institution enforces its standards the same way every time, not only when it is convenient for the storyline.

    Bipartisan fury: principle, or incentives?

    The story also points to a bigger pattern. Pressure built not only around Gonzales, but separately around Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, as scrutiny renewed. With a slim margin in play, some House members discussed expulsion talk through a trade-off lens, aiming to keep partisan numbers steady while still making a statement.

    The logic described is blunt: expelling members would require a two-thirds vote, and some reporting noted that even if both Gonzales and Swalwell were expelled, it would not change the balance in the House. So the incentive is obvious in this telling: protect the arithmetic, keep the brand clean enough for November, and let the issue burn loud and fast.

    Retirement as the escape hatch

    Gonzales and his allies chose retirement over a likely expulsion fight. Under the ethics framework referenced here, once a member leaves, the committee does not have jurisdiction over former members. The clock becomes politics, and the consequence becomes more about managing fallout than completing a process.

    So what should Americans take from this beyond the smoke? Enforcement has to be real. Accountability should not be selective. And when Congress treats ethics like a staged spectacle, trust pays the price. Tonight the grill is still hot, but the lesson is the same: rules are not optional, and power games should not get to hide behind procedure.

End of content

End of content