As nearly 150 young festival-goers in France report syringe attacks with no clear answers, the story raises hard questions about safety, media spin, and how governments handle panics that target women and undermine basic freedoms. Story Snapshot About 145 people, mostly young women, say they were pricked with syringes during France’s Fête de la Musique street festival. French authorities detained between 12 and 14 suspects, yet no toxicology proof of drug injection has been shared with the public. Experts say needle “spiking” is extremely rare and past scares almost always show negative test results, fueling talk of social panic. The clash between victim claims and missing hard evidence shows how mass fear, social media, and state power can mix in dangerous ways. What French Police Say Happened At The Festival French interior ministry officials say about 145 people across the country reported being pricked with syringes during the annual Fête de la Musique street music festival.[1] Most reports came from young women out celebrating in crowded city centers.[2] Police in Paris confirmed at least 13 cases inside the capital, including a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old man who felt unwell after the incident.[1] Authorities opened investigations and ordered toxicology tests, calling the situation serious and “deeply worrying.”[1] News outlets and social media posts spread the story quickly, painting a picture of a coordinated wave of syringe attacks at music events across France.[2] Some local officials spoke about “syringe attackers” and warned of calls circulating on social platforms encouraging people to prick others, even mentioning fears of contaminated needles.[12] National coverage stressed that nearly 150 people may have been targeted, with girls as young as 14 among the victims.[3] This fueled public anger and fear, especially among parents and women who already feel unsafe in public spaces.[4] Arrests, Missing Evidence, And Talk Of A ‘Needle Panic’ Reports on arrests are not fully consistent, but they show a broad police response. France’s interior ministry and major outlets like Le Monde and NBC say 12 suspects were detained in connection with the syringe reports.[4] ABC News and other sources, citing a police video on X, say 14 suspects were arrested as the investigation grew.[2][5] Despite these arrests, authorities have not presented evidence that any victim was actually injected with drugs such as Rohypnol or GHB, which are commonly linked to “date-rape” attacks.[1][4] Officials ordered toxicology tests for some victims, yet no confirmed positive results have been made public.[1][2] Past needle-spiking scares in Europe show a similar pattern: many reports, intense media coverage, but blood tests that come back negative for those powerful drugs.[8] Psychology Today, reviewing the French case, notes that authorities investigated 145 alleged attacks, but “not a single spiking was ever confirmed” and suspects were later released for lack of evidence.[8] Experts say these events carry the hallmarks of social panic, where fear spreads faster than facts and small incidents are magnified by rumor and media attention.[8] Women, Festivals, And How Fear Gets Weaponized French officials and researchers admit that crowded music festivals are high-risk places for harassment, assault, and heavy drug use, especially targeting women.[4][16] Studies of drug patterns at European festivals show high levels of substances like MDMA and highlight real safety issues in these environments.[16] In France, earlier years of the same festival saw hundreds of arrests and serious physical injuries, including knife wounds.[1] So there is a real backdrop of disorder and crime that makes any new threat, like syringes, easier to believe and harder to calmly assess. For American readers, the pattern looks familiar. Claims of mass “spiking” at clubs or concerts trigger intense reaction, but solid proof is often thin, and panic can justify more surveillance and police power.[8] In France, more than a thousand needle-spiking reports have been investigated since 2022, yet authorities have not secured a single conviction.[8] That track record raises questions about how governments and media handle such scares. Are they protecting women and festival-goers, or feeding fear that allows more control over public life without fixing the deeper problems of crime, border failures, and cultural breakdown? What This Means For Freedom, Truth, And Public Safety The French syringe story matters beyond Europe because it shows how quickly a mix of real risk, social media rumor, and weak evidence can reshape policy and public debate. On one side, young people and especially women deserve protection from predators who use drugs and crowds to target them. On the other side, basic fairness demands proof before suspects are branded as guilty or new laws restrict individual freedoms. When 12 or 14 people are arrested and later released without charges, that should prompt hard questions about state power and media responsibility.[8] The Fête de la Musique France's annual celebration of live music, street performances, and supposedly "communal joy" turned into a rolling nightmare across multiple cities on the night of June 21st, with stabbings, rapes and women being attacked with syringes containing… — Dick Payne Reviews News (@DPRDEEPERNEWS) June 23, 2026 Experts warn that repeating unproven claims of drug injections can drown out real cases of assault and abuse that do have evidence.[8] It can also train citizens to accept fast, emotion-driven crackdowns instead of careful investigations grounded in facts. For conservatives in America, this French episode is a reminder to demand clear proof, honest reporting, and policies that target actual criminals, not vague panics. Protecting women, families, and festival-goers is vital, but it must rest on truth, not fear, and must always respect due process and basic rights. Sources: [1] Web – 240 suspects arrested after women INJECTED with mystery substance, … [2] YouTube – France’s Biggest Summer Festival Spirals Into Scandal After Syringe … [3] Web – Wave of syringe attacks mar France’s music street festival – Le Monde [4] Web – 14 arrested after music festival syringe attack in France – ABC News [5] Web – About 145 people, mostly young women, reported they were pricked … [8] Web – French police have arrested 12 suspects following a wave of syringe … [12] Web – Police in France say that 14 people have been arrested after 145 … [16] YouTube – 12 arrested in syringe attacks during street festival in France

Trump’s new $17.5 billion nuclear loan program could finally give America the baseload power it needs to crush woke energy fantasies and keep our lights on in the AI era. Story Snapshot Trump’s Energy Department is offering $17.5 billion in low-cost loans to support 10 large nuclear reactors using the Westinghouse AP1000 design.[5] The loans focus on long‑lead parts like reactor vessels and steam generators to cut construction timelines by up to three years.[5] Seven utilities have quietly signed letters of intent, but none have gone public yet, feeding media skepticism.[2][6] The program backs Trump’s push to roughly quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050 as part of his energy dominance agenda.[7][8] Trump Bets Big on Nuclear to Power the AI Era The Trump administration’s Energy Department has launched a $17.5 billion loan program aimed at jump‑starting construction of up to ten new large nuclear reactors across the country.[5] These reactors would use the proven Westinghouse AP1000 design, each unit capable of generating over a gigawatt of steady, carbon‑free electricity.[5] The goal is simple and bold: give American families and businesses reliable power while massive data centers, factories, and reshoring efforts drive demand higher every year.[1][5] Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the department will make five loans, each tied to a two‑reactor project, focused on buying long‑lead equipment like reactor vessels and steam generators.[5] These parts take years to build and have often delayed past projects, so ordering them early in bulk is meant to cut construction schedules by as much as three years and lower total costs.[5] For a country tired of blackouts, high bills, and fragile grids pushed by green activists, that kind of planning marks a serious shift toward energy security. How the Loan Structure Works — And Why Media Call It “Risky” Under the plan, each two‑reactor project will be jointly owned by Westinghouse and a utility or energy company, with Westinghouse putting in major equity up front.[2][5] For each project, Westinghouse is expected to commit around $500 million of its own capital, matched by its partner, before accessing federal loans that can approach several billion dollars per site.[2] The Energy Department’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing, the successor to the old Loan Programs Office, now has authority for roughly $100 billion in construction guarantees, giving the program real financial muscle.[3][8] Critics in legacy media immediately warned about taxpayer “risk” and repeated talking points that nuclear power is too expensive and too slow compared to wind and solar.[9] Yet those same outlets largely ignore the cost of unreliable energy, rolling blackouts, and sky‑high power prices pushed by aggressive renewable mandates.[1] Wright counters that backing proven reactor designs with low‑interest loans, firm equity from developers, and bulk ordering of parts keeps default risk “very, very low” for taxpayers while finally building the long‑missing nuclear supply chain America needs.[6] Seven Utilities Interested — But Silence Feeds Doubts The Energy Department reports that seven utilities and energy companies have signed formal letters of intent that identify proposed reactor sites.[3][6] The agency plans to select five locations, each hosting two AP1000 reactors, with the goal of having all ten under construction by around 2030 and producing power in the mid‑2030s.[3][6] So far, though, none of the utilities have stepped forward publicly to confirm their participation, a gap that mainstream reporters use to paint the program as “uncertain” or “speculative.”[2] That silence is not shocking to anyone who remembers how past nuclear projects were attacked, delayed, and litigated for years by environmental groups and some state regulators.[11] Utilities have every reason to wait until permits, financing, and political support are clearer before they invite protests to their front gates. Opponents already highlight missing power purchase agreements with big technology companies as proof the plan is weak.[2][9] Yet those same firms are scrambling to find massive baseload power for artificial intelligence data centers, and nuclear is one of the few realistic options. From “Woke” Green Dreams to Energy Dominance Trump’s nuclear push fits into a larger energy dominance agenda that breaks sharply from years of climate‑driven policy.[7][8] His executive orders call for adding roughly 300 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity by 2050, speeding Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing, and tying new reactors to AI facilities, military bases, and export markets.[8] The Energy Department itself has framed these moves as part of a deliberate “nuclear renaissance,” after only two major new reactors were built in the last three decades.[5][9] Trump administration launches $17.5B loan program to fund new U.S. nuclear reactor projects, targeting a domestic nuclear buildout as power demand from data centers accelerates. pic.twitter.com/6p96sbJSt7 — Capital Digest (@CaptialDigest) June 23, 2026 For conservatives, the stakes are clear. A strong nuclear fleet means fewer excuses for federal agencies to bully states with emergency orders, ration power, or push people into electric rationing schemes in the name of the climate. It means less dependence on foreign fuel, more high‑paying jobs in engineering and construction, and a grid that can support factories, homes, and digital infrastructure without constant crisis.[2][12] The challenge now is execution: turning letters of intent into signed contracts, turning loan authority into steel and concrete, and proving that America can still build big things on time. Sources: [1] Web – Trump Admin Kicks Off American Nuclear Renaissance With $17.5 Billion … [2] Web – Trump administration to loan $17.5B for nuclear power plants – The … [3] Web – Trump administration to loan $17 billion to build 10 nuclear reactors [5] Web – US announces $17.5 billion in loans for nuclear power supply chain [6] Web – [PDF] The DOE Loan Program Office’s Role in U.S. Nuclear Energy … [7] Web – The Trump administration will loan $17.5 billion out to try to speed … [8] Web – The Trump administration is providing $17.5 billion to speed the … [9] Web – Office of Energy Dominance Financing [11] Web – Trump Admin Extends $17.5B Loan Offer for Nuclear Newbuilds [12] Web – Trump says Iran deal will be ‘good and proper’ if one is made – The …

Two bullied teens opening fire on their classmates in a Philippine high school is a grim warning about what happens when school discipline, parenting, and moral foundations all collapse at once. Story Snapshot Two teenage students allegedly opened fire at a Philippine high school, killing three classmates and injuring seven more.[3] Police say the boys, ages 14 and 15, blamed bullying, and admitted it in early questioning.[3] Both suspects slipped handguns past a lone school guard, raising serious questions about security and parenting.[1] Philippine leaders call the shooting ‘rare,’ but global data shows youth school violence is rising worldwide.[8][12] What Happened Inside the Philippine High School Police in the central Philippines say two male students, just 14 and 15 years old, walked into San Jose National High School in Tacloban around mid-morning and opened fire on their classmates.[3] Officers say three students were killed and seven wounded before the attack stopped.[3][5] All the victims were minors, and all were students at the same school.[2] One suspect was caught on campus after the shooting, while the other ran to a nearby house where neighbors helped police track him down.[4] Investigators say both teens were close friends and brought handguns onto the campus before the attack.[3] Reports say police recovered at least two firearms, including a revolver and a 9-millimeter pistol, which were turned over for forensic testing.[5] Officers say they collected dozens of spent shell casings at the scene, showing how much gunfire the students unleashed inside the school.[2] Local police leaders described the event as shocking and rare for the country, and promised a full and fair investigation.[3][5] Bullying Motive, Missed Warnings, and Weak School Security Regional police chief Brigadier General Jason Capoy said the teen suspects told officers in early questioning that they had been bullied at school, and that this grievance helped drive the attack.[3] Other officials spoke of a personal feud or a “grudge” tied to bullying, though they stressed the probe is still ongoing.[2][5] At the same time, officers admitted they may have missed “red flags,” saying warning signs could have been overlooked and the tragedy might have been prevented with better action.[2] Police also conceded that simple security failures helped make the attack possible. Capoy said the boys were able to carry guns onto campus because there was only one security guard watching several entrances and exits.[1] Reports say both suspects had no criminal record, yet somehow gained access to at least two working firearms.[1][5] In another twist, one gun was reportedly registered to a policewoman related to one suspect, raising hard questions about how weapons are stored in law enforcement homes and who can reach them.[2][5] These details shift part of the blame from the school alone to weak gun security and lax oversight. How This Fits a Global Pattern of Youth School Violence Philippine authorities called the shooting “rare,” and compared to the United States, it is.[4][12] But research shows school shootings are now a global problem. A study of public mass shootings found that while the United States still has far more such attacks than any other developed country, nations like the Philippines, Russia, and Brazil also appear on the list of countries with notable numbers of mass shootings.[12] In other words, the sickness of youth violence in schools does not stop at America’s borders, even if rates differ. Data from American school shooting databases shows how fast this crisis grew in recent decades. One analysis found there were up to 233 shootings at kindergarten through twelfth grade schools in 2025 alone, plus 64 more at colleges.[8] Since 2013, at least 507 people have been killed and more than 1,100 injured in school shootings in the United States, with around 390,000 students exposed to gunfire on campus since the Columbine attack in 1999.[8][11] Most shooters are young males, often current or former students, mirroring what police describe in the Philippine case.[8][9] Accountability, Family Values, and Lessons for American Parents In nearly every school shooting, officials first frame the story around individual motive, like bullying, instead of deeper failures in families, schools, and culture.[9][12] Blaming bullying can be accurate, but it can also be a way for institutions to say “this was just two bad kids” and move on. In Tacloban, police are still building the full record, yet the bullying explanation is already shaping the debate.[1][2] That pattern should sound familiar to Americans who have watched officials dodge hard questions after tragedies at home. 2 students in custody after shooting at high school in Philippines kills 3 Horrific pic.twitter.com/U3kFYGix5g — Britain's rights (@Britains_rights) June 22, 2026 For conservative readers, the Philippine case underlines truths we already know. When discipline breaks down, when fathers are absent, when moral teaching is weak, and when authority looks the other way at warning signs, violence finds an opening. Police admitted that red flags may have been ignored.[2] A gun kept in a relative’s home may have been stored so poorly that a teenager could take it.[2] A school relied on a single guard to protect more than 1,500 students.[1][3] That is not security; that is wishful thinking. Sources: [1] YouTube – Students seen crying after shooting at a high school in the … [2] Web – Three killed and seven injured in Philippine school shooting – CNA [3] Web – Three dead in Philippines high school shooting over bullying ‘grudge’ [4] Web – 2 students in custody after shooting at high school in Philippines … [5] Web – Two suspects in custody after shooting at high school in Philippines … [8] Web – Ateneo de Manila University shooting – Wikipedia [9] Web – At least three students were killed and five others wounded on … [11] Web – 2 students in custody after shooting at high school in Philippines … [12] Web – Two students arrested after three killed in Philippines school …

Months of revolt inside Britain’s left-wing Labour Party have finally toppled Prime Minister Keir Starmer, exposing deep cracks in the globalist project that once claimed it could “manage” ordinary voters from above. Story Snapshot Starmer’s resignation caps months of internal Labour rebellion, ministerial walkouts, and collapsing public support. More than 80 Labour lawmakers pushed him to set a departure date after brutal local election losses and policy failures. Andy Burnham’s Makerfield by-election win and fast-track back to Parliament turned private grumbling into open revolt. Labour’s civil war comes as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK capitalizes on voter fury over immigration, living costs, and energy. Starmer’s fall shows how long the revolt has been brewing Keir Starmer did not fall in a single day; his resignation was the end of a slow-motion collapse inside Labour that had been building for months. After taking power in 2024 on a huge majority, he burned through political capital at record speed as the United Kingdom economy stalled, the cost of living crisis dragged on, and voters saw little real change from the technocratic, pro-Brussels status quo. Media in India described his exit as Britain’s sixth “premature” prime ministerial departure in a decade, stressing that Labour’s popularity had slid sharply since he took office.[3] Local and regional elections earlier this year turned that discontent into open rebellion. Labour lost swathes of council seats across England and suffered humiliating results in Wales and Scotland, dropping to third place in key areas and losing control of the Welsh parliament for the first time.[18] Those results terrified Labour lawmakers who suddenly saw their own seats at risk, and they began blaming Starmer’s leadership, policies, and scandal-hit appointments for the party’s collapse.[18] That fear set the stage for an organized push to drive him out. MP revolt, ministerial resignations, and a party turning on its own leader By May, the rebellion had moved from whispers to a full-scale revolt inside the parliamentary Labour Party. Reports from major outlets counted around 70 to 90 Labour members of Parliament either demanding Starmer resign or insisting he at least set a clear timetable for his departure, a huge bloc inside a governing party.[8][6] Several junior ministers and aides quit in protest, saying in public that he was not the man to lead Labour into the next general election, and urging a leadership contest that could drag on for weeks or months.[3] Starmer tried to project defiance, saying he would “get on with governing” and insisting it was “no time for a leadership contest.”[14][6] Around 100 Labour lawmakers even signed a statement backing him, arguing a leadership fight would cause chaos while the party was already under fire.[6][14] But that support masked a deeper split. Other ministers, including senior figures such as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, privately pressed him to outline an exit plan, according to reporting cited by multiple outlets.[10][11] The message from much of his own team was clear: the experiment with technocratic centrism had failed, and someone else had to take over. Makerfield by-election turns Andy Burnham into the heir-in-waiting The real tipping point came from a small patch of northern England called Makerfield. Labour insiders had already worked out a route to bring Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham back to Westminster via a by-election, after years of blocking him from standing elsewhere.[1][18] When Labour strategist Josh Simons resigned his Makerfield seat, Burnham was allowed to run as the Labour candidate, a sign that the party machine had accepted he might soon be more than just a mayor.[1] Burnham then won the Makerfield by-election on June 18 with 54.8 percent of the vote, more than all other parties combined.[4] That landslide, in a contest watched closely across the country, instantly made him the frontrunner to replace Starmer. Coverage of the crisis notes that many Labour members already preferred Burnham as leader, with one survey showing nearly half ranking him as their first choice compared with about a third for Starmer.[17] Within days of Starmer’s resignation, Burnham confirmed he would run for the Labour leadership, turning months of speculation into a formal bid.[4] From mounting pressure to an “orderly” resignation Facing heavy pressure from more than 80 Labour lawmakers, multiple ministerial resignations, and a party split over his future, Starmer finally bowed to reality and announced his resignation outside 10 Downing Street.[4][4] In his speech he said he had informed King Charles that he would step down as prime minister and Labour leader, and asked the party’s National Executive Committee to open leadership nominations on July 9.[2][1] He promised to stay on only as a caretaker until a successor is chosen, calling it an “orderly” transition, but even supporters admit the move came after intense internal revolt. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation outside 10 Downing Street following intense internal pressure from the ruling Labour Party. Watch #ThePrintUncut: https://t.co/FhvHGJixSx pic.twitter.com/lAHYySeTSV — ThePrintIndia (@ThePrintIndia) June 22, 2026 Reports describe how Starmer’s position was weakened not just by poor elections and economic drift, but by scandals around high-profile allies such as Peter Mandelson, whose ties and appointments drew public criticism and fed a narrative of elitist, out-of-touch government.[16][4] One analysis bluntly said Labour was “reeling from electoral collapse,” with hundreds of lawmakers now fearing for their seats and thousands of local councillors already gone.[16] That panic, combined with the rapid rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK on a platform of border control and economic relief, made Starmer’s fall feel, to many insiders, not only possible but inevitable.[18][3] Sources: [1] YouTube – UK PM Starmer’s resignation has been building for ‘months’ [2] Web – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign, will stay on until … … [3] YouTube – Sir Keir Starmer resigns as prime minister | Speech in full [4] Web – Keir Starmer resigns, as Andy Burnham confirms he will run to … – … [6] Web – “The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to … [8] Web – How do Labour Party leadership contests work? [10] Web – Keir Starmer announces he’ll resign as UK prime minister, kicking off … [11] Web – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on … [14] Web – Pressure growing on UK PM Keir Starmer as over 70 MPs … [16] Web – British Premier Starmer faces mounting pressure as 70 Labour MPs call … [17] YouTube – Senior Labour Figures Demand Resignation of Keir Starmer After … [18] Web – Keir Starmer says he is ‘not prepared to walk away’ after call for …

Trump-backed “El Tigre” edged out Colombia’s left, signaling a hard pivot to law-and-order and energy revival that could reshape U.S.-Colombia ties. Story Snapshot Abelardo de la Espriella won Colombia’s presidency by a razor-thin margin in the runoff. He ran on crime reduction, mega-prisons, and ending talks with rebels and criminal groups [5]. He pledged to boost oil and gas, cut taxes, and shrink the state while keeping some social hikes . Donald Trump endorsed him, highlighting a regional rightward shift and stronger U.S. alignment [5]. Runoff Result Shows Voters Chose a Hard Security Course Preliminary runoff results showed Abelardo de la Espriella leading with about 49.65% against Iván Cepeda’s 48.70%, one of the closest results in recent memory . First-round voting also put De la Espriella ahead, setting up a right-versus-left showdown [1][3]. International and domestic observers described the first round as orderly and transparent, adding procedural legitimacy to a tense race [3]. High participation underscored public demand for change, with more than 26 million voters engaged across the process . The margin was slim, which signals a polarized country rather than a blank check for sweeping changes . Reuters also reported approximately 426,000 blank ballots, a sign of protest or unease that the new administration must address with results, not rhetoric . Claims that the “socialist era” is over rest on political framing, not legal regime facts. The win interrupts leftward momentum, but it does not by itself prove a final break without policy follow-through. Law-and-Order Mandate Targets Gangs, Rebel Talks, and Prison Capacity De la Espriella campaigned on a clear law-and-order platform. He promised to stop talks with rebels and criminal groups that grew under the prior administration, and he committed to tougher policing and punishment. ABC News reported a pledge to build ten mega-prisons to hold the most violent offenders and restore control [5]. These promises match voter frustration with crime, but there is no post-election plan or implementation record in the material yet, so results remain to be proven [5]. The expectation is simple: secure streets, swift justice, and real consequences for gangs and cartels. Ending negotiations signals a tougher line, but it also raises practical questions. Congress is fragmented, and budgets are tight, which can slow prison expansion and enforcement surges. Supporters see a chance to choke criminal networks. Skeptics will watch for measurable drops in murders, extortion, and kidnappings before crediting success. Energy, Taxes, and the Size of Government Define the Economic Bet De la Espriella vowed to revive Colombia’s oil and gas sector, cut taxes to spur growth, and shrink the size of the state by up to 40%. These moves align with free-market reform and efforts to attract investment and jobs. Reuters also noted he plans to keep some popular social measures, including a large minimum wage increase, which complicates a full reset and will test fiscal math under high debt. Delivering both growth and social peace will require careful sequencing. Energy policy is central. Opening the sector could boost exports, strengthen the currency, and fund security needs. It would also rebalance away from green dogmas that ignored reliability and costs. The challenge is execution with a divided Congress and limited fiscal space. A clear timetable, licensing roadmap, and investor signals will matter. Voters will judge by lower energy prices, better jobs, and steady inflation, not talking points. Trump’s Backing and a Regional Rightward Drift Shape Geopolitics Donald Trump endorsed De la Espriella and framed the race as a choice for Colombia’s future and closer ties with the United States [5]. That support fits a broader rightward trend across Latin America, where voters are reacting to crime, weak growth, and fatigue with leftist experiments [7]. Closer alignment with Washington on security, extradition, and counter-drug efforts could tighten joint operations and intelligence sharing, if Colombia’s Congress cooperates. Abelardo de la Espriella won the Colombian presidency in one of the closest elections in recent decades. Gustavo Petro denounced alleged irregularities as the official vote count continues. https://t.co/0riEv3cTlr #Colombia #Elections2026 #News pic.twitter.com/j0cLEkflHf — Digital News in Usa (@DigitalNews750) June 22, 2026 Opponents will contest the narrative and may raise doubts about legitimacy or foreign influence. The narrow result also invites legal or rhetorical challenges, which can sap momentum even without hard evidence [5]. For conservatives, the test now is concrete action: seal off talks with armed groups, build prison capacity, restore deterrence, and unlock energy. If the new team posts early wins on safety and costs, the mandate grows. If not, gridlock returns fast. Sources: [1] Web – Trump-Backed “El Tigre” Wins Colombia Presidency As Socialist Era Ends [3] Web – Colombia right-wing candidate De La Espriella has lead in … – … [5] YouTube – LIVE: Abelardo de La Espriella Speaks After Polls Close [7] Web – Political outsider Abelardo de la Espriella holds a razor – Facebook