It's been almost a full week since the shooting involving an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and the story shows no signs of going away. Also here to stay for the foreseeable future is the left-wing media narrative that ICE is breaking the law, and the protesters that confront ICE agents with automobiles, bottles, rocks and more, are just innocent, average law abiding, concerned citizens looking to make a stand against brutality. That kind of argument didn't go over well on Tuesday's edition of The Five on the Fox News Channel.  During their segment on the continuing protests in Minneapolis, Dana Perino addressed the lone liberal on the panel, Jessica Tarlov, about the women who are dominating the opposition to ICE. PERINO: There is a New York Post article today about some of the women who have decided to go and one of them said that she drove all the way there because she wanted to feel the energy... I don't know if you had a chance to see it but Kat Rosenfield at at the Free Press today said this is not a movie. People imagine, oh, like this will happen and then it will be fine and then you will be like talking about it at dinner that night. But that's not what happens when there is interference like that. Tarlov began her response with a common sense observation, but in the next breath she  was giving us all what we might have expected from her.  TARLOV: It definitely has very dangerous consequences, so it's an R-rated movie if that's the analogy... But I think that talking about the thousands of people that have been out protesting across the country, as all blue haired, wine-mom kooks is completely misguided and makes you look a little bit blind. If you look at the people who are standing outside of Somali-owned businesses, for instance, or if you listen to Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota, the Trump administration trampling on the Constitution... you can not conclude that this is just about a bunch of people radicalized online so they can be part of this group and 'feel the energy.'  Quoting Jesse Ventura as a distinguished public servant might be viewed as a bit desperate, but Tarlov continued on her two minute plus rant. TARLOV: Americans are seeing these videos. They're seeing one of the images we just showed, a woman being pulled out of her car. She was on her way to the doctor's appointment. 82% of Americans have seen Officer Ross's video of what happened with Renee Good there, and 53% think that he should face criminal charges... But at this point, we have a story that Rene Good is a domestic terrorist ( Of course the New York Post reported Renee Good was indeed a member of ICE Watch) and Officer Ross is allowed to do whatever he wants, and all of these ICE Agents. If you can't see there are people behaving badly here that they are using teargas on them, that  they are pulling people out of their cars, pulling kids out of their jobs at Target. At this point Tarlov's fellow panelist Greg Gutfeld had heard enough, but Tarlov refused to go quietly. GUTFELD: You create the environment and then you complain about the consequences. When you kick over a beehive don't complain when the bees come after you. When you poke a bear don't say I can't believe the bear's chasing me. TARLOV: You have a right to stand there and yell at officers. GUTFELD: ..You guys are deliberately creating an environment so that there is chaos, and when there is chaos, you go, oh, my G-d, someone gets hurt. What do you expect in chaos? TARLOV: You don't think they (ICE) are trying to create chaos? GUTFELD: These organizations desire chaos. How naive are you? TARLOV: There are Americans who were pulled out of their cars. Americans! Now it was Jesse Watters turn to respond to Tarlov's nonsense. "They are getting in the way. Why do you think she got pulled out?" Tarlov then claimed that the woman who was pulled out of her car in Minneapolis earlier that day, was on her way to a doctor's appointment, and Watters said that was a hoax. WATTERS: Watch the videos, Jessica. It's mostly women. You can't deny it's mostly women... It's mostly women, crazy-looking women, trans women, and then the guys are like the Trantifa guys.... Benny Johnson said last night on my show, something very interesting, very interesting theory. A lot of these women are single and so you have this instinctive motherhood that's really not been able to be expressed, so they're are trying to wrap their arms around the immigrant community and protect them. And it's very, very dangerous, Jessica. And sometimes women have to be protected, whether they like it or not...We will protect you, but we're not going to protect the killers who came in from Mexico, sorry. Tarlov's rant and views were outlandish, but Fox News allows an opposing view to be heard, unlike MS NOW or PBS. Then that opposing view faces the forceful challenge that liberals don't get on other channels. 

Wednesday’s edition of The View featured an exercise in being unable to temper expectations to confirm with the reality and over reacting for political points. America was almost a full year into President Trump’s second term in office and the ABC co-hosts were still stuck in 2016 in terms of gripes about Trump - the man who’s crassness helped get him elected - being ‘unpresidential.’ What did he do this time? Well, he flipped off a union autoworker who flung an insult at him. In the soundbite shared by Behar, someone could be heard allegedly calling him a “pedophile protector” and Trump reacting by initially pointing his index finger at the man before a blurred out hand appears. “And Trump flipped him the bird a couple of times and used the "F" word on him. That is not what I call presidential!” Behar exclaimed. “In my lifetime, and that goes back to Jefferson, I have never heard a president use the ‘F’ word or flip the bird on an American citizen, a person, a person!” she howled in disgust. Behar would later add that what she saw was “We've never seen anything like this! It's so obnoxious! Horrible!”   Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin have a collective meltdown over Trump flipping the bird to a heckler. pic.twitter.com/XkZLhMGVxd — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 14, 2026   Chronically racially aggrieved co-host Sunny Hostin chimed in to inject from racial juxtaposition by invoking former President Barack Obama: HOSTIN: Can you imagine if President Obama did that?! BEHAR: Oh, they’d have him in jail! HOSTIN: He got flack for wearing a beige suit, for wearing a tan suit. Can you imagine if President Obama did that? This is the least-presidential person to hold office in our lifetimes! Of course, they were both engaging in some revisionist history since other president had flipped people the bird for various reasons. President George W. Bush had his one-finger victory salute he gave to a camera before an interview. And Obama was accused of giving the gesture to Hillary Clinton during a public engagement on the campaign trail in 2008. The View was clutching their pearls over Trump flipping the bird to an autoworker, but back in 2020 they didn’t have anything to say about then-candidate Biden threaten to physically attack an autoworker who confronted the him over his Second Amendment rights. “Don't tell me that, pal, or I'm going to go out and slap you in the face,” Biden said.     Biden also told the autoworker that he was “full of shit” and “a horse’s ass.” Back on Wednesday’s show, moderator Whoopi Goldberg interrupted Behar and Hostin to go to a commercial break but did so with an ominous declaration: “And it is our responsibility to make the change. That's all we have to know. It is our responsibility to make the change. We know what he is. We know what he was.” Trump was not up for reelection, so what did she mean by saying we needed “to make the change?” The View has been using a lot of inciting rhetoric lately. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View January 14, 2026 11:09:58 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: I saw this tape of – or what ever it was – of Trump talking to The Washington Post and this auto -- United Autoworkers line worker. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yes. BEHAR: Said to him, yelled out, called him a pedo – um – SARA HAINES: Protector. BEHAR: Protector. Do you have the video? There it is. [Cuts to video] [TMZ video of President Trump being heckled and flipping off someone off camera] [Cuts back to live] BEHAR: And Trump flipped him the bird a couple of times and used the "F" word on him. That is not what I call presidential! In my lifetime, and that goes back to Jefferson, I have never heard a president use the "F" word or flip the bird on an American citizen, a person, a person. SUNNY HOSTIN: Can you imagine if President Obama did that?! BEHAR: Oh, they’d have him in jail! HOSTIN: He got flack for wearing a beige suit, for wearing a tan suit. Can you imagine if President Obama did that? This is the least-presidential person to hold office in our lifetimes! BEHAR: We've never seen anything like this! It's so obnoxious! Horrible! [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: I want to end this. BEHAR: Oh, she has to -- go ahead. GOLDBERG: I just have to end it for now. We'll be back. It is what it is. BEHAR: Oh. GOLDBERG: And it is our responsibility to make the change. That's all we have to know. It is our responsibility to make the change. We know what he is. We know what he was. People are coming into stuff plate and come into it early. Doesn't matter. We are where we are and we know what we need to do. And I know what I need to do right now and so we'll be right back. (…)

Americans who remember how an incident in Minneapolis six years ago plunged the whole country into a summer of rioting — then years of elevated criminal violence — should think carefully about where the protests over the death of Renee Good are leading. Like the killing of George Floyd, Good’s tragedy is being exploited for a political purpose, with the radical activists who then called for defunding the police now demanding an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement — not only the agency, ICE, but the enforcement of the nation’s democratically enacted immigration laws. It’s the protesters’ veto, an assertion by activists of a right to cancel laws they don’t like. And it’s already cost lives, including Renee Good’s. She was shot and killed by an ICE officer when she drove her car toward him. Why was she having any interaction with ICE at all? She wasn’t a bystander-she and her wife were activists trying to prevent ICE from doing its job. “We had whistles, they had guns,” Good’s widow said in a statement that reveals more than she intended. Law-enforcement officers are supposed to have guns, after all — they risk their lives when they confront criminals. But the whistles? Their purpose is to alert the criminals that law enforcement is approaching. The Goods had whistles to help illegal immigrants evade officers of the law. According to ICE spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, the Goods were “stalking” ICE. Leftist organizations train activists like the Goods to harass and interfere with law enforcement in a variety of ways, including by using vehicles to block their movements. This “activism” is not only in support of illegal activity, it creates dangerous situations for law-enforcement officers, bystanders and the activists themselves, as Renee Good sadly discovered. The organizations that train activists to thwart law-enforcement know the risks — in fact, they’re part of the plan. If ICE agents get killed as a result of interference, that’s a win in the eyes of those who brand law enforcement as “fascists.” And if bystanders or anti-ICE activists get killed as a result of the activists’ meddling, that’s a win, too, since it serves to embarrass law enforcement and hurt the agency politically. Groups that teach people like the Goods how to endanger themselves and others know they can count on sympathetic coverage from much of the media whenever something violent occurs — it’s a publicity windfall. So why would they stop promoting these tactics, even if they get people killed? If one Renee Good can close schools and conjure up protests against hotels said to be housing ICE agents in Minneapolis, imagine what three or four more martyrs will accomplish. The only obstacle is the victims have to be sympathetic: On Jan. 8, an ICE agent in Portland, Oregon, shot two people in a car that tried to run him over — yet inconveniently for anti-ICE activists, the injured duo were illegal immigrants with ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. Portland Police Chief Bob Day nonetheless broke down crying at a press conference describing the incident, bemoaning “historic injustice of victim blaming.” He knows that in a city as progressive as his, it’s politically smarter to side with lawbreakers than with other officers of the law. Cities like Portland and Minneapolis are hostages to the whims of progressive activists. The result is a situation that’s been called “anarcho-tyranny” — freewheeling anarchy for activists and criminals, tyranny for ordinary citizens who have to pay taxes even though they receive little protection from society’s predators. The political movement that gained momentum from George Floyd’s death in 2020 didn’t make America safer for people who looked like Floyd. It only weakened police and subjected Americans of all colors to more violence. Voters nationwide had several opportunities to register their feelings about that, culminating in the 2024 presidential election, which put Donald Trump back in office with a mandate to enforce the law, especially immigration law. But what’s the use of an election if activists can negate laws simply by hassling and endangering those charged with enforcing them? For all the liberals’ talk about dangers to democracy and the rule of law, they’re remarkably complacent about this danger, not only to the law and the democratic process but to people’s very lives. Not police but criminals are obviously the greatest threat to Americans’ well-being. Yet a small number of unelected activists have mastered tactics and publicity techniques that demonize law enforcement while letting illegal immigrants and hoodlums with rap sheets as long as their arms run free. Activism that abets law-breaking is the moral equivalent of racketeering, and it might meet the legal definition, too. The only way to prevent more deaths like Renee Good’s — and more mayhem like that unleashed by the exploitation of George Floyd’s killing — is to stop giving in to activists who think they have a right to resist and obstruct law enforcement. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com.

State Dept. Pauses Visa Processing From Countries Whose Migrants Take Welfare at ‘Unacceptable Rates'

Danish Officials Now Betting on U.S. Cooperation Over Greenland

You don't need a $2,000 setup to hear your music properly. We found 5 audiophile "shortcuts" under $100 that will make your phone and speakers sound like studio

The Victoria Cross stands as one of the most revered and instantly recognizable military decorations in the world. Awarded "for most conspicuous bravery … in the presence of the enemy," it has come to symbolize the highest ideal of personal courage across the British and Commonwealth armed forces. Yet its creation was not inevitable. The medal was born out of a moment of national self-reflection, forged during a war that exposed the deficiencies of Britain's honors system and the heroism of ordinary soldiers in equal measure. Its conception, minting, and enduring legacy form one of the most compelling stories in military history.Terry Bailey explains. The front and back of Edward James Gibson Holland's Victoria Cross. Source: Royal Canadian Dragoons Archives and Collection, available here.The Crimean War of 1853–1856 fundamentally reshaped Britain's approach to honoring gallantry. Prior to this conflict, no universal British award existed to recognize personal bravery on the battlefield. Instead, recognition tended to be tied to rank or social position, leaving countless acts of courage by common soldiers formally unacknowledged. The Crimean War changed this. Journalists, for the first time reporting directly from the front lines, brought stories of extraordinary heroism into Victorian homes. Reports of the Charge of the Light Brigade, the defense of the Alma, and the brutal conditions at Sevastopol stirred the public and embarrassed the government, highlighting the lack of a decoration that transcended class.The idea for a new medal quickly took hold. Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, became one of the strongest advocates for the creation of a simple, egalitarian award. He envisioned a decoration that could be bestowed upon any serviceman—private or general—solely based on merit and bravery. Queen Victoria herself approved his vision, favoring a design that was dignified yet unpretentious. The result was a Royal Warrant issued on the 29th of January 1856, instituting a new honor: the Victoria Cross. It would be awarded sparingly and only for the most exceptional acts of valor performed in the presence of the enemy, making it a truly rare and exceptional distinction.The first Victoria Crosses were minted in 1856, and the story of their material origin has become a key part of the medal's mystique. Tradition holds that they were made from the bronze of two Russian cannon captured during the Siege of Sevastopol. These heavy guns, relics of one of the fiercest battles of the war were transported to Woolwich, where they were broken down and melted to provide the raw material for the decoration. While later metallurgical examinations have raised questions about whether all the metal truly came from Russian guns, the symbolism of forging gallantry from captured weaponry has endured. The bronze was cast into small ingots, each used to create the distinctive cross pattée that has become synonymous with supreme bravery.The raw material for the Victoria Cross remains a subject of fascination. A small supply of bronze, approximately 358 kilograms, has been safeguarded for more than a century and a half at the Ministry of Defence's base at Donnington. This stock is used exclusively for the casting of new medals, ensuring that each Victoria Cross shares a tangible connection to its Crimean War origins. Only a few ounces of bronze are needed for each medal, meaning the reserve is expected to last for many more generations of awards. The process of casting, finishing, and engraving each medal remains highly specialized and is carried out with deep respect for its historical lineage, preserving the continuity of tradition that began in the 1850s.One particularly unusual feature of the first Victoria Crosses lies in their retrospective nature. Although the medal was formally instituted in 1856, the first awards recognized acts of bravery performed as far back as 1854. This meant that the earliest medals minted were created to honor deeds predating the very existence of the decoration. The inaugural investiture took place on the 26th of June 1857 in London's Hyde Park. Before a crowd of thousands, Queen Victoria herself presented sixty-two medals, many of which commemorated actions that had already become legendary in popular imagination. These first recipients set the tone for a decoration defined by humility, sacrifice, and the recognition of courage wherever it was found.Throughout its history, the Victoria Cross has been awarded a total of 1,358 times since the medal's inception in 1856. This includes 1,355 individual recipients and three bars (second awards) for an additional act of valor. These three men, were Arthur Martin-Leake, Noel Chavasse, and Charles Upham, who all received the medal twice, earning a rare Bar for a second act of extraordinary valor. Their stories represent the pinnacle of human courage, each a testament to unwavering resolve in the face of overwhelming danger. From the trenches of the First World War, to the skies of the Second World War, to modern conflicts in the Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the medal has remained a constant, awarded sparingly to ensure its prestige and significance remain undiminished.Today, the Victoria Cross occupies a unique place in the military culture of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations. Its design has remained almost unchanged since the first medal was cast. The obverse features a lion standing on the royal crown, above a scroll bearing the simple yet powerful inscription "For Valour." The crimson ribbon was selected by Queen Victoria herself, and its deep color has become iconic in its own right. The reverse of each medal is engraved with the name, rank, and unit of the recipient, as well as the date of the action for which it was awarded, personalizing each decoration as a permanent reminder of individual sacrifice.The significance of the Victoria Cross extends far beyond its material form. It stands as a monument to the idea that bravery is not confined to rank, status, or background. Conceived at a time when society was rigidly hierarchical, the medal offered unprecedented recognition to ordinary soldiers whose courage would otherwise have gone unrecorded. Its survival into the twenty-first century speaks to the enduring relevance of its core principle: that exceptional valor deserves the highest honor a nation can bestow.In tracing the history and conception of the Victoria Cross, from the battlefields of Crimea to the secure vaults of Donnington, a story is uncovered, not only of military decoration but of evolving national values. The medal remains a powerful symbol of courage, integrity, and humanity. It is a reminder that in the most desperate moments of conflict, individuals continue to demonstrate a level of bravery that transcends time, forging their place in history and inspiring generations to come.The Victoria Cross endures because it represents far more than an award for bravery; it embodies a moral ideal that has remained remarkably constant despite profound changes in warfare, society, and the nature of conflict itself. From its origins in the aftermath of the Crimean War to its continued presence in modern campaigns, the medal has consistently affirmed that courage under fire is a universal human quality, worthy of the highest recognition regardless of rank, background, or circumstance. Its careful design, its symbolic material origins, and its deliberately restrictive criteria have ensured that the Victoria Cross has never been diminished by overuse or ceremony, but instead retains an almost sacred authority.What ultimately distinguishes the Victoria Cross is its unbroken continuity. Each new award draws a direct line back to the first acts of valor recognized in the mid-nineteenth century, both materially through the bronze from which it is cast and philosophically through the values it represents. In an age where military technology and doctrine have evolved beyond anything its founders could have imagined, the essence of the medal remains unchanged: the recognition of selfless courage in the face of mortal danger. This continuity reinforces the Victoria Cross not as a relic of imperial history, but as a living tradition that continues to define the very highest standard of service and sacrifice.In this sense, the Victoria Cross serves as a bridge between generations. It links the soldiers of Crimea with those of the world wars and the conflicts of the present day, uniting them in a shared narrative of extraordinary human resolve. Each recipient adds a new chapter to this story, yet none diminishes those that came before. Instead, the collective weight of these individual acts strengthens the medal's meaning, ensuring that it remains both a personal honor and a national symbol.As long as courage is demanded in the service of others, the Victoria Cross will continue to hold its unique place in history. It stands as a quiet yet enduring testament to the capacity for bravery under the most extreme conditions, reminding society that while the circumstances of war may change, the values of courage, sacrifice, and integrity remain timeless. The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.  Note:The ribbon of the Victoria Cross varies by service branch, with dark crimson traditionally used for the British Army and Royal Marines, (today Royal Marine Commandos, while a deep blue ribbon was originally designated for awards to the Royal Navy. In practice, the crimson ribbon has become standard across all branches since the First World War, reflecting the unification of service distinctions while preserving the medal's historic origins.

President Donald Trump said Greenland is essential to U.S. national security, arguing that American control of the Arctic territory is critical to deploying the Golden Dome missile defense system and countering growing threats from Russia and China.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sounded almost incredulous Wednesday, saying President Donald Trump's fondness for McDonald's, candy, and Diet Coke leaves him baffled that the 79-year-old is still standing.

The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a war powers resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to carry out further military action against Venezuela.