When I clicked on the website of The American Spectator Saturday morning and began to read Matthew Omolesky’s lament for the end of the American empire, I thought for a moment that I mistakenly accessed the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs or The Economist, which specialize in Trump-bashing and genuflecting at the so-called “rules-based international order.” Then, a friend sent me Fareed Zakaria’s latest column in the Washington Post about Trump making America “small” again. President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy, which prioritizes U.S. national security interests and seeks to get America out of the protectorate business, has upset the Wilsonians and neoconservatives among us who weep for the end of U.S. global hegemony. Trump has replaced the Reagan NSS’s goals of “world freedom, peace and prosperity” with the goals of American freedom, American prosperity, and American peace. Omolesky, a human rights lawyer who apparently longs for a return to the foreign policies of Jimmy Carter or Woodrow Wilson, calls the NSS a “declaration of geopolitical contraction, if not outright retreat, presaging the end of the global American empire.” He mourns the loss of America bestriding the globe as a benevolent hegemon enforcing universal “rights” and protecting the weak against the strong. For Omolesky, as for Zakaria, a U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes U.S. interests is too parochial, too selfish, too 19th century, too isolationist. They are reminiscent of British imperialists who shouted “Rule Britannia” as British soldiers died to maintain Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden.” Perhaps Omolesky and Zakaria miss being part of great crusades to save the world from this or that dictator. It’s so much more exciting to confront the evil Putin, even though Ukraine has never — never — been considered a vital interest of the United States. Perhaps they forget that toppling Saddam Hussein didn’t make the world a better or safer place. Multipolarity in international relations is the norm, yet Omolesky and Zakaria don’t want its return. They appear to want American global hegemony to last forever, but that is not how the world works. Ironically, Omolesky notes the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran — weaknesses and vulnerabilities that, he writes, should not “put an end to our global ambitions.” But what are America’s “global ambitions”? Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy. Franklin Roosevelt wanted to universalize “freedom from want.” Jimmy Carter wanted to spread human rights. George W. Bush wanted to end tyranny throughout the world. All of those imperial projects failed. None made America more secure. The 2025 NSS is not isolationist and does not make America small. Instead, it seeks, in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s words, to make the U.S. once again a “normal country.” Normal countries prioritize their national interests. Normal countries don’t “go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” in the memorable phrase of John Quincy Adams. Normal countries don’t go on crusades to fulfill their “global ambitions.” Omolesky invokes President Reagan’s 1987 NSS as a guide for U.S. foreign policy today. But what President John F. Kennedy called the “long twilight struggle” of the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago. Trump has replaced the Reagan NSS’s goals of “world freedom, peace and prosperity” with the goals of American freedom, American prosperity, and American peace — those are our “global ambitions” in the 2025 NSS. They might not be hefty enough to satisfy the imperial longings of Omolesky and Zakaria, but they’re plenty hefty for normal Americans who don’t dream of empire and who want their leaders to always put America first. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Sam Tanenhaus Puts Most Liberals to Shame Please Don’t Bring Back the Neocons Trump’s Post-Globalist ‘Flexible Realism’    

When U.S. forces conducted a second strike on the survivors of an alleged drug smuggling boat destroyed off Venezuela last September, the resulting controversy regarding the incident caused me to rethink an incident I was involved in back in 1993. At the time, I was a temporary loan officer serving as the military advisor to the U.S. ambassador running the U.S. Liaison Office (USLNO) to the United Nations Mission in Somalia (UNISOM). The mission was headed by the ambassador who has acted as the senior senior U.S. official in that failed nation-state. I was on loan to the mission from the Marine Corps University teaching  a class on Operations Other Than War. The school was on summer break and I sought permission to do a case study on the ongoing UN humanitarian mission in Somalia. The ambassador said that he didn’t need another “colonel in sunglasses” wandering around Mogadishu, but if I was willing to do some real work, I was was welcome to come. I obviously disagree with Admiral Brady’s decision to make a second strike on the drug boat survivors, but that is a commander’s call. By the time I arrived in Mogadishu, the humanitarian operation that I set out to study had degenerated into  full-scale urban combat between UNISOM and militias that objected to the way the UN failed to rebuild that failed state. The Air Force officer I was temporarily replacing was on home leave for the summer due to a family emergency. As a colonel, I had overall supervision of a Marine Corps  platoon sized Fleet Anti-Terrorist Security Team (FAST) assigned to protect the USLNO. We were located on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy on which UNISOM was headquartered, and we were being mortared and shot at regularly by Somali militias. One day in late August of 1993, the commander of the U.S. logistics unit supporting UNISOM approached me with a problem. His outfit was being sniped at from a former fruit factory facility overlooking the UNISOM compound. They weren’t very good shots. But the law of averages indicated that, if not dealt with, some American would eventually get hurt or killed. As a support unit, he had no effective counter-sniper capability. He knew the FAST had counter-snipers and was asking our help. I explained that the FAST was under control of the State Department and that I would have to get the ambassador’s approval, but would bring it up at the Country Team meeting that afternoon. The ambassador had been a WWII combat infantryman and there was no way that he was going to refuse help save the lives of American soldiers. He authorized the support. I gave the captain who was the FAST commander a mission order to eliminate the snipers. He had been one of my company commanders when I had commanded a battalion and I had absolute confidence in his abilities. I attended his mission brief and accompanied him on his site selection for the snipers. Then, I went to bed telling him to call if he needed me. He did not need a full bull colonel overseeing a platoon operation. The next morning there were 16 or 17 carcasses at the fruit factory, I can’t recall the exact number.  Marine snipers used to be very good, but the Scout-Sniper School has since been closed; I don’t know their current state of proficiency. Not one of the dead militiamen was probably over 17 years of age, but all were armed with rifles. To my knowledge it was the first offensive military operation directed by the Department of State since Tripoli in 1804. I have never lost a night of sleep over the incident, nor probably have any members of the FAST. It had been years since I gave any thought to the incident, but the Venezuelan double tap incident reminded me of it. What if the search and exploitation team had found several of the militiamen injured but alive? I would have been notified and asked what to do. I like to think that I would have asked for the army to send medics to to recover them and let UNISOM figure out their final disposition. I cannot think of any situation where I would have ordered them to be “double tapped.” I obviously disagree with Admiral Brady’s decision to make a second strike on the drug boat survivors, but that is a commander’s call. The bigger question is what was a four star flag officer doing directing a platoon-size operation? READ MORE from Gary Anderson: Celebrating Marines While Questioning Their Future The Marine Corps Could Not Fight Fallujah Today The Best Birthday Present for the Marine Corps Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps officer    

Imagine going to visit a relative in another country and discovering they had things that your own country did not. Not only were goods available for sale, but varieties of food were offered at fair and reasonable prices. People seemed happier in their jobs, and there was a certain vibrancy throughout all strata of society as they enjoyed more autonomy and freedom of movement. Government was less intrusive and more in the background. Law enforcement was more partner than adversary. This missed opportunity led to greater despotism and created an acceptance of autocracy as a proper governing regime. Imagine further returning home after this experience and recognizing the striking differences between countries. The distinctions would prompt many people to examine the reasons and encourage them to find ways to better reflect the freedoms and buoyancy of the other nation. Two hundred years ago, this was precisely the experience in Russia. Army officers, diplomats, and their retinue left Russia to fight Napoleon and saw the dynamic communities of Europe. Upon their return, many of these junior officers and nobility compared notes on how they might create a similar community in Russia. Inspired by the revolutions in both America and France, they formed numerous clubs and secret societies to move Russia away from the autocracy of the czar and toward a broader, more representative government. Initially, Czar Alexander seemed open to some reforms. In fact, he had taken steps to liberalize his country by opening educational opportunities, reforming his cabinet, and improving the legal system with a supreme court. He had plans to create a parliament and sign a constitution, but for various reasons, these initial reforms never matured into the constitutional monarchy the reformers wanted. One key issue needing reform was the treatment and liberation of serfs. The entire idea of a serf harkened back to feudal times when laborers were basically slaves to the lands of the nobility. They were limited in what they could do and were wholly at the mercy of the Lord of the Manor. Owning property, profiting from their labors, and traveling were strictly prohibited. Even marrying required the approval of the Lord. The officers who fought in the Napoleonic Wars realized that for Russia to progress, the system of serfdom needed to be reformed and eventually abolished. Peasants were limited with no incentive to do anything other than subsistence farming. The serf system, as practiced by Russia, was not sustainable and could not accelerate the economy for growth. Most importantly, if Russia were to compete in Europe, it needed a growing middle class to expand its economy. Serfdom was in direct conflict with a vibrant economy, for only in granting more freedom and mobility to the serfs could Russia succeed. But Czar Alexander had no desire to become more European. He saw no benefit in any of the reforms. Rather than look to Europe and its enlightened ideas of government, the Czar embraced a Russian nationalism. He realized that any of the liberal reforms were a direct threat to his rule. Unlike George Washington, he was not interested in relinquishing power, but wanted to maintain his authority which meant limiting, if not discarding, all reforms. There was a tension then between the reformists with their clubs and societies and the Czar. This tension flared up on a few occasions with minor revolts and mutinies, but these were limited and the Czar could suppress any dissent with his army. The reformists continued to plot and scheme waiting for an opportune moment. Two hundred years ago their moment came when the Czar died. Alexander’s death was not expected; he died from typhus on a trip to Southern Russia. The Czar had no children so the Empire would pass to his brother, Konstantin. Or so everyone thought. Once news of the Czar’s death reached St. Peterburg, military officers and other officials took a loyalty oath to Konstantin. As the Viceroy of Poland, Konstantin was known for his Western tendencies and on several occasions had openly disputed his brother’s totalitarianism. The possibility that Konstantin would become Czar excited the reformed minded Russians. But, unbeknown to them, Konstantin had renounced the throne to marry a Polish Princess once his divorce was finalized. Since information did not travel fast, there was a critical lull in the news from word of Czar Alexander’s death to Konstantin’s abdication for the woman he loved. This uncertainty created an opportunity as there was no government without a Czar. Taking full advantage of this instability, the clubs and secret societies rallied and occupied St. Peterburg square on December 26, 1825. The “revolutionaries” advocated for a constitutional monarchy and other reforms which included liberating the serfs. But, the new Czar, Nicholas, the younger brother of both Alexander and Konstantin, would have none of it. He moved decisively to put down the revolt and restore order. With no experience in liberty and with some of the revolutionaries unwilling to take up arms against the Czar, the revolt was easily crushed. The main leaders were executed, and others were exiled to Siberia. The revolt was referred to as the Decemberist Revolt and would become a touchstone for future revolutionary movements in Russia. Its leaders would become martyrs, and the Soviets would lionize them as a key to an historic past. The revolt initially deterred Czar Nicholas from thinking about any reform. He continued to behave as an autocrat, but over time came to accept some changes, especially as it related to the serfs. Like his brother, he would oppose anything that would bring Russia closer to Europe and would emphasize Russia’s role as uniting the Slavic people. In many ways this too became part of the justification for the Soviet Union: a gathering of Slavic countries to oppose the West in general and democracy in particular. Two Hundred Years ago, the Decemberist Revolt marked a chance for Russia to embrace Western values with a constitutional monarch extending freedoms for its people. This missed opportunity led to greater despotism and created an acceptance of autocracy as a proper governing regime. Some things never change! READ MORE from Will Sellers: Heinz Rises From Bankruptcy to an American Icon Ford and the Making of Democracy’s Arsenal Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com

“Ladies and gentlemen, from Los Angeles California, The Doors! Roadhouse Blues From L.A. No hope. The Doors were the anti-60’s group. When people preached peace and love, the Doors responded with sex and violence. They were off kilter but terribly in tune with the times. The Doors’ first two albums (“The Doors” and “Strange Days”) were brilliant. Everyone said so. The Doors Strange Days Their self-titled debut contained “Break On Through (To The Other Side)” and the #1 hit “Light My Fire.” “Strange Days” had the title track, “Love Me Two Times” and “People Are Strange.” Light My Fire Break On Through (To The Other Side Strange Days Love Me Two Times (Live) Critics endlessly analyzed the Doors’ mystique and Jim Morrison, the wayward poet turned Rock star. He was the focal point. As he went, they went. However, the Doors weren’t a one-man show. Guitarist Robby Krieger wrote both words and music (including most of “Light My Fire” the group’s first and biggest commercial success. Also, classically trained keyboardist Ray Manzarek (who created organ intro for “Light My Fire”) and jazz drummer John Densmore made significant contributions. Jim Morrison The third album “Waiting For The Sun” was written under the gun. It showed. The first two albums had nearly exhausted the group’s original material. “Waiting For The Sun” did contain the group’s huge single “Hello, I Love You” and the anti-war “The Unknown Soldier,” which was banned by several radio stations. Hello, I Love You The Unknown Soldier The Doors tried to expand their sound with strings and horns on “Soft Parade” (especially on the hit “Touch Me”) but again fell short. Then Morrison got busted, charged with indecent exposure at the infamous Miami concert. Morrison’s trial (he would be found guilty) kept The Doors largely inactive. Touch Me The trial’s fallout resulted in concert promoters banning the group. Maybe The Doors were finished. Once the Miami trial was over, Morrison’s lawyer filed an appeal and that nasty mess was behind them for a while. Morrison Hotel Re-grouping in L.A., The Doors recorded the intense “Morrison Hotel/Hard Rock Cafe.” While the album, unlike every one of its predecessors, did not yield a pop hit, it was a classic with the raw sound of “Roadhouse Blues,” the L.A. madness of “Peace Frog” and road warrior “Queen Of The Highway.” The cover photo was taken by Henry Diltz at the Morrison Hotel in downtown L.A.  The band were not given permission to photograph, so they did it while the clerk was called away from the desk.  Roadhouse Blues (Studio Version) Peace Frog “Absolutely Live” was released in part to restore The Doors’ reputation as a credible concert draw. Typically, no “hits” were regurgitated on this collection. Rather, The Doors performed favored album tracks and versions of their “theatre” or extended pieces including “Celebration Of The Lizard” which was left off “Waiting For The Sun.” The Doors showed themselves to be a hard-edged Blues-Rock outfit covering Willie Dixon twice (including “Close To You” with Ray handling vocals) and Bo Diddley’s (“Who Do You Love”). Close To You With the completion of the Jazz influenced “L.A. Woman” which contained the title track, “Riders On The Storm” and the forgettable pop hit “Love Her Madly,” Morrison was off to Paris to write poetry. Ray, Robby and John began work on new material that might or might not include Morrison. “Not include” became the final answer with Morrison’s death – 7/3/71. The death certificate listed the cause as a heart attack. Given Morrison’slifestyle that sounded plausible but still highly unlikely. Who Do You Love L.A. Woman All sorts of rumors flew about in the wake of his passing and for many years thereafter. Did Morrison fake his death to escape fame? Or did he actually die from an OD? There were even alleged Morrison sightings. In ’07, Sam Bernett, the former manager of a Parisian nightclub Morrison frequented during his final days, published “The End – Jim Morrison.” In the book he claimed that The Doors frontman died of a “massive” heroin overdose (after acquiring the drug from dealers), and not natural causes. He further stated that Morrison was found dead in the bathroom of his venue, and that two drug dealers moved the singer’s body to his apartment where a death certificate was filled out before Morrison’s body was quickly sealed in a casket. One of the dealers’ other clients was said to be Jim’s significant other, Pam Morrison. The surviving Doors mourned briefly before deciding to continue as a trio. This line-up produced two so-so albums. From “Other Voices,” “Eye Of The Sun” came closest to capturing the “old” Doors vibe while “Tightrope Ride” was an ode to Morrison. Manzarek did his best Jerry Lee impersonation on “Full Circle’s” “Good Rockin’ Tonight.” “American Prayer,” with the surviving Doors providing instrumental backing to Morrison’s spoken-word poetry, wrapped up the trio’s output. ’03 saw Krieger and Manzarek revive the Doors with former Police drummer Stewart Copeland and Cult vocalist Ian Astbury. The new line-up’s debut was in Vegas and a tour followed. Due to a dispute with Densmore and the Morrison estate over the use of The Doors’ name, the group became “The Doors of the 21st Century.” That band eventually disappeared with hardly a trace. ### The post The Doors appeared first on RockinTown.

from The Mel K Show: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from The Conservative Treehouse: According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, 14 Medicaid services currently under audit and deemed “high risk” have cost the state $18 billion since 2018. “I don’t make these generalizations in a hasty way,” he said. “When I say significant amount, I’m talking on the order of half or more. But […]

A video circulating on social media reportedly shows former Nickelodeon child star Tylor Chase homeless on the streets of Riverside, California. Chase, 36, played Martin Qwerly on “Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide” from 2004 to 2007. The viral footage was originally shared in September. In the video, the individual behind the camera asked Chase if he was on Disney Channel. Chase clarified he was on Nickelodeon and appeared in “Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide.” Watch below: Tylor Chase, who portrayed "Martin" in Nickelodeon show “Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide,” spotted living homeless in California pic.twitter.com/W8OzYfWErN — Kollege Kidd (@KollegeKidd) December 21, 2025 More from the New York Post: The video of Chase sparked widespread concern on social media. “This actually breaks my heart,” one fan tweeted in response to the troubling clip. ‘This made me so sad,” someone else said. Another person wrote, “The Hollywood industry is sick.” Other fans criticized the person who filmed Chase. “Why would you record him unless it’s to try and get him help? Shame on you,” an X user tweeted. “Smh how you just gonna record him like that at his worst he probably didnt even wanna be seen like that no heart,” a different person wrote. Someone else added, “He’s still human & doesn’t deserve to have his most difficult moments shared like this.” Former Nickelodeon star Tylor Chase found homeless in heartbreaking viral video https://t.co/4n7T6UReLz pic.twitter.com/VzjLInsB7Z — New York Post (@nypost) December 21, 2025 According to the Daily Mail, Chase’s former co-stars expressed their shock and concern once they learned about the viral footage. “Following the viral video, a GoFundMe campaign was launched by social media influencer Citlalli Wilson (known as @lethallalli), which raised $1,207 before being shut down,” Wikipedia states. “According to Wilson, Chase’s mother contacted her expressing that Chase ‘needs medical help instead of money.’ Chase has reportedly struggled with bipolar disorder,” it continued. A GoFundMe created after the video went viral was later deleted at the request of Chase’s family. His mother said cash donations weren’t the solution and urged medical intervention instead.https://t.co/oPrUqeZsYo — grizzy (@Furbeti) December 21, 2025 Daily Mail shared: Devon Werkheiser, Daniel Curtis Lee, and Lindsey Shaw, addressed the news on Ned’s Declassified Podcast Survival Guide on September 24. ‘There was some bad news that I received earlier this week about our dear friend Tylor Chase. It was a lot to process for me,’ Lee said, describing the video as ‘scary’. ‘When I first saw, I was angry, because I was like, why put a camera on someone’s face in hard times? ‘But then I was upset with myself because I feel powerless because there’s not much that I felt I could do.’ ‘I didn’t want to believe it at first, I was like, oh they just caught him at a bad time,’ Lee added. ‘But then I saw some other videos, and it looks like a brother is going through some stuff. ‘I fully believe that he can recover, but that’s also wishful thinking from me. ‘I gotta go and see him, and want to get through this fight, and try to connect with him somehow, but I also don’t want to waste my time and put him on the spot.’ Shaw agreed that she was ‘in the same boat’ as Lee and wanted to go see Chase in person. ‘You can’t do much, but I would love to go speak with him and just love on him and look him in the eye,’ she said. ‘I miss Tylor, I love Tylor so, so much.’ ‘It’s a lot to see… and even begin to have an idea of what to do about it,’ Werkheiser added.

Why would we spend a dime, let alone $60 billion "to take Gaza residents from tents to penthouses"? The post U.S. to Spend $60B Turning Gaza into ‘High-Tech Metropolis’ appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

If you’ve ever tried to become more disciplined by sheer force of will, you already know it’s exhausting. All of the habit trackers, early alarms, self-help podcasts can be overwhelming. And, honestly, kind of joyless. But what if there were a sneakier, more satisfying way to become that disciplined version of yourself… without having to micromanage your every move? Enter: hobbies. Yes, hobbies. Those fun little side quests that light you up and—surprise!—actually help you grow in the background. “Self-improvement doesn’t always have to be a front-and-center project,” as Alice Boyes, Ph.D., author of The Anxiety Toolkit, and the The Healthy Mind Toolkit, points out. Sometimes the most powerful personal growth happens indirectly, while you’re just out there doing your thing. Let’s explore five types of hobbies that quietly build self-discipline without making your life feel like bootcamp. What makes a hobby secretly productive? Not all hobbies are created equal when it comes to building discipline. The ones that truly work their magic usually do one (or more) of the following: Crowd out unhelpful behaviors Create routines and structure Demand responsibility and safety Build resilience through exertion Help shape a more disciplined identity The best part os that you don’t have to adopt a monastic lifestyle or wake up at 5 a.m. for this to work. These hobbies meet you where you are and gradually nudge you forward. 1. The kind that crowds out bad habits One of the easiest ways a hobby helps you level up is by giving you a reason to say no to stuff that doesn’t serve you. Let’s imagine a woman named Maya. Maya signs up for a Sunday morning pottery class she loves. Suddenly, her Saturday nights shift. Instead of staying up doomscrolling until 2 a.m., she’s in bed by 11 because she wants steady hands for the wheel. No “I should really sleep more” pep talks needed, she just ends up reprioritising things naturally.  Or consider someone who picks up an expensive but rewarding hobby like photography or scuba diving. Suddenly, budgeting becomes less of a drag and more of a strategy to afford what really matters. You’re not forcing good behavior; your interests are reshaping your choices. 2. The kind that builds routines (sneakily) Hobbies can also bring rhythm to your life, especially if they involve consistent times, places, or rituals. Walking your dog every evening isn’t just good for the pup; it also gives your day an anchor. That kind of reliable structure can snowball into better sleep, healthier meals, or just a greater sense of calm. You didn’t try to be more disciplined, you simply had something to show up for. 3. The kind that demands responsibility If your hobby involves risk (think rock climbing, motorcycling, flying), it comes with procedures that have to be followed. These aren’t optional; they’re how you stay safe. This is where discipline starts to seep into other areas of life. When you’re used to checking gear, reviewing safety checklists, or leading a group, those habits of diligence and accountability don’t just switch off when you leave the activity. You start thinking more intentionally across the board. 4. The kind that builds a tolerance for effort Hard hobbies, physically demanding ones especially, teach you how to sit with discomfort. That breathless moment on a long run. The burn of a final set. The tangle of frustration when you’re learning a new skill. This kind of exertion trains your brain to differentiate between this is hard and this is bad. That’s huge for anyone (especially those with anxiety) who tend to avoid anything that feels even remotely uncomfortable. And research backs this up: people who engage in regular physical activity tend to show more follow-through in other areas like household chores, budgeting, and schoolwork. Turns out, sweat pays dividends. 5. The kind that shifts how you see yourself Here’s where things get really interesting. Hobbies can very sneakily reshape your identity. You’re not just someone who likes hiking; you become a hiker. Not just someone who helps out at community theater; you’re now a stage manager. That shift in how you see yourself can spark more responsibility, more confidence, and, yes, more discipline. The breathing room you actually need Quick PSA: if you’re going to start a hobby, don’t expect to wedge it in at the tail end of an already overflowing day. That’s a fast track to burnout. Starting something new of course takes some time, but just as importantly it takes up mental space. You’ll need a weekend morning, a no-guilt evening, or even just one day a week where you’re not chasing productivity for productivity’s sake. Once a hobby is part of your rhythm, it’s easier to maintain. But getting it off the ground will require giving yourself some room to breathe. Indirect > intense You don’t need to adopt a strict morning routine, download seven habit-tracking apps, or suddenly become “that disciplined person.” You just need something you love doing that naturally pulls you forward instead of pushing you around. As Boyes so wisely puts it: “Better self-discipline can be a byproduct of finding a hobby you love and allowing it to shape you.” That’s the kind of self-improvement that sticks: the kind that feels most like you becoming you.  The post Surprise: your hobbies might be building better self-discipline (and you didn’t even notice) first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.