In recent months, President Donald Trump’s assertive foreign policy has borne many fruits. His tough stance on burden sharing among NATO allies has led to dramatic increases in their military spending and financial support for Ukraine. His surgical attack on Iran, coupled with tough sanctions, has provoked massive people power protests there. His strong backing of Israel has contributed to a severely weakened and defanged Hamas. And his surgical extraction of Venezuelan tyrant Nicolás Maduro, coupled with the interdiction of Venezuelan oil exports, has forced initial concessions from the proto-communist regime there. By contrast, a year of intense diplomatic effort has yielded little real progress on one of Trump’s top foreign policy priorities — brokering an end to Russia’s brutal war on Ukraine. More and more, Russian participation in negotiations with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff appear to be an effort to string along the White House. Indeed, Vladimir Putin recently declared that his ultimate aim now is the unconditional and total surrender of all Ukrainian territory in the Donbas as well as in Zaporizhzhya and Kherson in the country’s south. Kremlin officials have also consistently rejected Western plans to provide Ukraine with ironclad security guarantees and to ensure it possesses a powerful, well-equipped military. Recently, Putin’s favorite propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, made clear Russia’s plans for Ukraine and Eastern Europe: “[I]n our sphere of interests we will tolerate a government … as long as it is pro-Russian. Enough pitying the enemy, it has to be destroyed.” The Kremlin’s de facto rejection of Trump’s peace efforts has been accompanied by a devastating, monthslong bombing campaign targeting civilians that has cut off heat, water, and electricity in major Ukrainian cities, leaving the elderly and infirm to cope with inhuman conditions in harsh subzero winter temperatures. Russia’s intransigence is no accident. Like Hamas, the Ayatollahs, and Venezuela’s chavistas, Vladimir Putin responds only to power. That’s why President Trump’s focus on persuasion, not coercion, has come up empty. Nevertheless, today Trump has a better chance than ever to press the Kremlin into a peace settlement. Current Russian bravado masks the reality that Russia today is far weaker and more susceptible to U.S. pressure than at any time since it launched its all-out attack on Ukraine nearly four years ago. Putin’s war of aggression has reached a de facto stalemate. Over the last two years, Russia has lost 200,000 dead and many more times severely wounded, but has taken only 3,000 square miles from Ukraine. At that pace, Russia would need five years to take the remaining territory it demands Ukraine surrender voluntarily, and it would take Russia around 120 years to conquer the remainder of Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine’s major military and technological achievements in drone warfare have meant that the country is suffering far fewer combat fatalities than before. Indeed, Russia’s vicious new attacks on civilian targets far from the front are an acknowledgement of battleground failure and nothing more than a desperate effort to win the war by breaking the morale of the Ukrainian people — a folly given the strong spirit of that nation. Moreover, Russia’s effort to erode support for Ukraine in Europe has failed. Across the political spectrum — including among such conservative nationalist leaders as Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki, France’s Marine Le Pen, Britain’s Nigel Farage, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni — there is strong support for Ukraine. And Ukraine’s budgetary and military needs appear secure for the coming years, financed largely by Europe — and with $250 billion in frozen Russian assets available for future deployment. Finally, perhaps most significantly, Russia is in the midst of a period of prolonged economic stagnation. In 2025, the Russian economy “grew” 0.8 percent. As 2025 ended, Russian state media were awash with stark appraisals of the bleak future of Russia’s sputtering economy, with estimates for 2026 standing at less than one percent. The headline in the year-end review of the economy in the pro-government Nezavisimaya Gazeta read “Russia is headed toward stagnation, economists suggest.” Among the problems the article pointed to were abnormally high interest rates, a slowdown in investment, and falling production in non-military industries. The article noted that in addition to a weak economy, the economic future looks bleak as “Russia has growing problems in moving towards technological and economic independence.” The war has led to a massive brain drain with hundreds of thousands of skilled programmers, scientists, and entrepreneurs relocating to such countries as Serbia and the United Arab Emirates to seek opportunity and avoid deadly combat. Citing a leading Russian economist, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported, “Russia will not even be able to produce technological prototypes, much less competitive sequential production.” In addition, Russia’s main statistical agency suggests the population may fall from 146 million today to around 130 million by 2046 — a consequence of declining birth rates, wartime deaths, and outmigration. With much of the world in the midst of an AI and robotics revolution, Russian technological backwardness and its declining population are likely to further erode its ability to remain a major regional power. It was the economic decline of the imperialist Soviet Union triggered by President Ronald Reagan’s policies of increased defense spending and long-term sanctions that curbed Soviet adventurism and eventually forced its leaders to withdraw from East Germany and stand aside as the peoples of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria — and later Ukrainians, the Balts, Armenians, and other non-Russians — chose their own sovereign path. This is another such moment to return to the Reagan playbook and force imperialist Russia to stand down and take the path of peace. The first step in that direction would be for the president to press Congress to quickly pass the Sanctioning Russia Act, introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham and co-sponsored by 84 senators. Pressure on Russia should also include the Europe-financed sale of long-range missiles to Ukraine, which could reach critical military infrastructure and command centers in Moscow and could deter Russia from attacks on civilian targets, which have resulted in a 30 percent increase in deaths among noncombatants in the last year. This, in the final analysis, is the realistic path to pressing Putin into a fair settlement and securing for the president his longstanding aim of ending Russia’s war on Ukraine. Adrian Karatnycky, former president of Freedom House, is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council and author of Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the War with Russia (Yale). Image licensed under CC BY 4.0.

For nearly two weeks, the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of TODAY co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, has consumed cable news. CNN, MS NOW, and Fox News have offered wall-to-wall coverage. Chyrons pulse with breaking news updates that only amount to speculation from news anchors and former FBI agents. Grainy footage from a Ring doorbell camera loops endlessly in a quadrant on screen, showing a masked figure wearing gloves and a backpack. That is, unless these major networks decide to replay video of Savannah and her siblings sitting somberly as they deliver a message to an assumed “kidnapper.” Social media users fill in the blanks as the story advances in fragments, from one man’s detention and release to multiple ransom demands to media outlets.  Meanwhile, the world turns.  The Federal Aviation Agency closes airspace in El Paso, Texas, for 10 days. President Donald Trump, who weighed in on Nancy Guthrie’s case himself days prior, meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House as talk of U.S. military action against Iran escalates. Congress barrels toward another funding deadline, threatening another government shutdown. Inflation and jobs data flicker with mixed signals for American families still stretched thin. Yet the dominant story on America’s cable news networks is a single, tragic disappearance of a TV personality’s mom. While this is undeniably heartbreaking, it barely impacts a nation of 340 million people more than emotionally.  The saturation of media coverage reveals more about the media and its audience than the case itself.  There is no question that Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance is a human tragedy. An elderly woman vanishing under suspicious circumstances would be news in any community. However, it is impossible to ignore that this story has received an extraordinary level of national attention because of who her daughter is. When a prominent TV personality becomes personally entwined in a crime story, the press corps circles instinctively like vultures. Professional distance dissolves as the industry turns the camera on itself.  In theory, journalists are trained to avoid conflicts of interest and to guard against the appearance of favoritism in their coverage. In practice, the gravitational pull of celebrity and proximity proves too strong. Media outlets insist they are merely covering a major story with public safety implications, yet thousands of families experience missing-person cases every year without a fraction of this airtime. Most do not get primetime panels of legal analysts parsing doorbell footage frame by frame.  Today’s media ecosystem thrives on spectacle, especially on cable news. The format demands constant content, and a slow-moving investigation offers fertile ground for conjecture. When hard facts are scarce, assumptions fill the void. You will see a former FBI profiler speak about behavioral theories, or a legal analyst explain hypothetical charges, or an anchor lean forward gravely, promising “new developments” after talking about how great of a colleague Savannah Guthrie is. The same 12 seconds of surveillance footage will reappear as if their repetition might solve the mystery.  This is the true crime effect. When an unfolding investigation is transformed into a serialized drama, it becomes entertainment. Viewers are invited to play detective from their living rooms. Social media amplifies the frenzy, circulating unverified claims at warp speed. In the absence of concrete information, narratives take shape anyway, often untethered from reality.  News organizations have finite airtime and finite attention spans. When they devote hours upon hours to one story without adding much exclusive information, especially when that story involves a public figure, the media inevitably crowds out other critical stories. The FAA’s unusual 10-day airspace closure in El Paso barely registers on the chyron crawl. Policy debates that will threaten millions of Americans are reduced to brief segments sandwiched between extensive commentary on the case.  This exemplifies the pull between audience interest and public interest. The former asks what citizens need to know to function in their country. The latter asks what keeps viewers from changing the channel.  None of this diminishes the anguish of the Guthrie family. Their grief is real and ideally should remain private as law enforcement officials investigate their mother’s disappearance. But cable news is not a family support group. They will exploit any story to capture your eyes.  When coverage becomes wall-to-wall, it is all you will see. The disappearance of Nancy Guthrie was not picked up by the media because of the scale of the event but because of the status of those involved. Cable news executives know that name recognition, tragedy, and uncertainty are the main ingredients of a media product that keeps viewers engaged. As cable news continues to fixate on this open investigation, there is one question Americans should ask: What other stories are obscured by these walls of one-track coverage?  Julianna Frieman is a writer who covers culture, technology, and civilization. She has an M.A. in Communications (Digital Strategy) from the University of Florida and a B.A. in Political Science from UNC Charlotte. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman. Find her on Substack at juliannafrieman.substack.com

Your representatives may finally grab the feared “third rail” of U.S. politics. When the Social Security and Medicare trust funds run out in the early 2030s, the law is clear: Benefits must be slashed. That would mean a roughly 24 percent cut to Social Security checks and an 11 percent cut to Medicare benefits. But Congress almost certainly won’t let that happen. The easy, though irresponsible, political path may seem obvious: Change the law, keep benefits whole, and pay by borrowing the money. This way legislators won’t have to cast unpopular votes for spending cuts or tax hikes. This makes sense only if the consequences won’t become clear until much later, after voters have forgotten all about it. What most people are missing is that this time, the consequences may show up quickly. Inflation may not wait for debt to pile up. It can arrive the moment Congress commits to that debt-ridden path. Unfortunately, this part may not be so obvious to legislators looking at projections. According to the Congressional Budget Office, borrowing to cover Social Security and Medicare shortfalls would push federal debt to about 156 percent of GDP by 2055. These shortfalls account for roughly $116 trillion, including interest, over those 30 years. In spite of all this debt, the projections assume inflation stays low for decades and interest rates only go up very slowly. That calm outlook is misleading. Think of government debt like shares in a company, which have value based on what investors believe they will earn in the future. Government debt works the same way: Its value depends on whether those who buy it believe future primary surpluses — revenue minus spending, excluding interest — will be sufficient to pay for that government’s promises and obligations. When the belief weakens, markets don’t just sit around and wait for the reckoning. They adjust immediately. And in the United States, that adjustment usually shows up as inflation. We saw this happen just a few years ago, between 2020 and 2022, when Congress approved about $5 trillion in debt-financed spending with no clear payment plan. Households received pandemic stimulus checks, spent them quickly and saw no reason to expect higher taxes or fewer services. They were right. The post-pandemic era didn’t bring austerity. Inflation followed, and not simply because the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply. People realized the new debt lacked a credible plan behind it. The dollar’s buying power weakened until the real value of government debt fell back in line with the expected future primary surpluses available to back it. By the time inflation peaked at 9 percent in 2022, federal debt equaling about 10 percent of GDP had effectively been erased through higher prices. Voters hated the inflation, and they made that clear at the ballot box in 2024. The entitlement deadline could trigger an even stronger reaction. Senators elected this year will be tempted to borrow everything needed to preserve benefits. But without serious reform, new revenue and spending restraint, investors may not wait to see whether some future Congress eventually finds a way to pay. If they reprice U.S. debt right away, prices could rise much faster than official forecasts suggest — perhaps almost immediately. Not because the debt is huge (that’s already true), but because people no longer trust the plan behind all that future debt. At that point, the Fed would be in a terrible position. Raising interest rates to fight inflation would also immediately drive up government borrowing costs on debt that must be rolled over quickly. Paying higher-interest bills with even more debt would be like paying off one credit card with another. The Fed would be forced to choose between tolerating inflation or triggering a deeper fiscal crisis. Either way, the costs would be severe. Inflation is a silent, unvoted-on tax. It eats away at savings, pensions, and fixed incomes. It hurts retirees who did everything right and relied on safe assets. It squeezes workers whose paychecks don’t keep up with rising prices. It pushes families to spend more on groceries, rent, energy, and health care. And it distorts the entire economy by rewarding speculation over productive investment. No one escapes. Not the poor. Not the middle class. Not even the wealthy. It’s the most painful way to finance government promises. Legislators know this, but reform is hard. The temptation is to borrow, avoid conflict, and let others clean up the mess when political prospects are better. But this time, inflation could break out on the same legislature’s watch. The reckoning will not be postponed, and neither will accountability. As in 2021, voters will pay first, and then they will assign blame. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

Minecraft updated its Education Edition with free, downloadable content that places its players inside a simulated Black Lives Matter protest, prompting backlash from critics who argue the game is linking historical struggles against segregation to modern leftist activism. The DLC, titled “Lessons in Good Trouble,” is designed to have students “walk with civil rights leaders” through a guided, story-driven experience. Promoted with the John Lewis-inspired slogan “Make Good Trouble,” players encounter figures such as Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks alongside civil rights history lessons. According to a Minecraft Education blog post, the lesson structure begins in contemporary America, where players are introduced to a “peaceful Black Lives Matter protest.” After visiting moments from civil rights history, including the Greensboro lunch counter sit-ins and encounters with figures such as Malala Yousafzai and Mahatma Gandhi, the experience concludes at “Black Lives Matter Plaza.” There, John Lewis asks players to reflect and “become a catalyst for ‘good trouble’ in their own communities.”  Critics argue that incorporating Black Lives Matter into a children’s game is ideological grooming, given the movement’s anti-police messaging and leftist activism. One critic who played “Lessons in Good Trouble” claims, “[I]t’s just genuine propaganda.” By beginning in the “modern day” at a BLM protest, the critic argues, past civil rights events are utilized to frame contemporary BLM activism as “good trouble.” Another critic of the Minecraft DLC puts it plainly: “I’ve been under the assumption that Minecraft was a thing people played for escapist reasons, looking to forget the burdens of this world by forging their own one in a crazy fantasy world.”         One supporter says the backlash is overblown, arguing, “This is for Education and for teachers to use in class to make learning fun.” The supporter also insisted, “[T]his is just history, this isn’t the ‘woke agenda.’” This controversy lands as Mojang Studios and Microsoft announce a new “Minecraft Safety Council” aimed at regulating speech and behavior in-game. The council includes “industry experts” who “discuss Player Safety best practices, exchange insights, and look at new approaches” for the game, with the aim “to foster safer and thriving multiplayer experiences.”     Similar concerns have surfaced around other youth-focused games, including Roblox, where child safety advocate Ryan Montgomery warned that grooming networks such as the “764” group operate through in-game systems and that user-created experiences include detailed reenactments of real-world political violence. Minecraft’s player base is made up of more than 212 million monthly active players, with roughly 43 percent between the ages of 15 and 21 and another 20.6 percent under the age of 15. Minecraft, a game overwhelmingly played by minors, is increasingly positioning itself as a vehicle for delivering left-wing messaging to the youth. READ MORE from Dylan Kresak: Anti-ICE Activists Block Minneapolis Roads ‘ICE OUT’: Celebrities Hit ICE at the Grammys Feminism: The ‘Shadow Church’ Replacing Christianity

It’s not easy to be an Olympian. That’s kind of the point. These are the most physically talented men and women in the world — all 2,800 of them. They’ve spent years training to get to this spot, and now we all get to watch them do things most of us would never even attempt while trying to determine who among them is the best in the world. (READ MORE: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 190: The Female Olympian You Should Be Cheering Against) In our modern world, the Olympics strike as something of an anomaly: This isn’t the kind of event where everyone gets participation awards and goes home mildly annoyed that competition amounts to nothing these days. This isn’t some kind of global “kumbaya” where we erase our differences. No, this is where men and women patriotically do their best to represent the rest of us well (and to prove that all that money we sank into their training was worth it). The Olympic field is one where skill and expertise are rewarded; where countries are celebrated and patriotism is praised while the whole world watches. This is good old-fashioned competition and good old-fashioned national pride — sights you don’t see on the global stage every day. Of course, that’s not the world most of these athletes grew up in. Sure, they’ve been competitive (they wouldn’t be in Milan otherwise), but they’ve also spent their entire lives being indoctrinated in an ideology that believes national pride is a vice we should have all outgrown. Need proof? Newsweek has a list of all the U.S. athletes who have used their five minutes of fame to lambast their president. For instance, Rich Ruohonen, a lawyer turned athlete, told journalists in Milan that he believes there are constitutional issues with the way the federal government is trying to enforce its immigration law in his home state of Minnesota. Hunter Hess expressed his “mixed emotions” when it comes to representing the U.S. at the Olympics: “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t,” he said during a press conference. “I think for me it’s more I’m representing my, like, friends and family back home, the people that represented before me. All the things that I believe are good about the U.S. I just think if it aligns with my moral values, I feel like I’m representing it.” (READ MORE: The NFL Should Have Noticed What Japan Gets Right) President Donald Trump responded by calling Hess a “real Loser.” Then there’s Amber Glenn, a figure skater and self-identified pansexual, who decided to use her newfound platform to publicly criticize the treatment the LGBTQ “community” has experienced under the Trump administration. To be perfectly fair to these athletes, they’ve all clarified that they are actually quite proud to represent their country — even Hunter Hess. In fact, they usually begin any statement to the media on any contentious question (and the media, as always, has enjoyed asking quite a lot of those) with that very important disclaimer; they just generally follow it up with the word “but” followed by their favorite political pet peeve. The problem here isn’t that these athletes don’t like the policies of the current presidential administration. Patriotism — especially in America and the West more broadly — doesn’t require slavish adherence to a particular set of political beliefs (fortunately); it requires that we love our country. These men and women say that they do, and they likely mean it. Unfortunately, they’ve also been told that the best way to love that country is to air what they believe is her dirty laundry on the world stage. Doing so, they’ve been told, is an act of bravery — never mind that it betrays a total lack of decorum. There’s a time and a place to criticize a country’s political leaders: While you’re representing that country at the Olympics isn’t it. The way we love our country shouldn’t be all that different from the way we love our parents. Thomas Aquinas and most of the philosophers of antiquity saw a close relationship between filial devotion and patriotism — one that’s even reflected in the etymology. “Patriotism,” after all, comes from the Latin patria, which means “fatherland” and is closely related to “pater,” which itself means father. The logic is simple. Your country, like your parents, plays an integral role in shaping you and providing for you, therefore we owe it a similar kind of love. There’s a reason we all cringe when an American tells the entire world that “Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.” If you wouldn’t criticize your parents in front of the entire world while engaging in an exercise designed to make them proud of you, you shouldn’t criticize your country there either. Representing this country proudly is the only job American Olympic athletes have — and they’re failing at it. READ MORE by Aubrey Harris: Trump to Honor Columbus With Statue at the White House. Good. Image licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Hostile mob forms after Honduran illegal runs red lights, collides with multiple vehicles in St. Paul

Reforms driven by fears China has surpassed U.S. in AI, quantum computing and cyber-espionage.

by Evangelyn Rodriguez, Natural News: Red bell peppers contain nearly 3x more vitamin C than oranges, plus beta-carotene (converts to vitamin A), supporting healthy skin and mucous membrane defenses. Kiwi and strawberries are high in vitamin C, antioxidants (anthocyanins) and fiber, aiding immune cell function and reducing oxidative stress. Shellfish (oysters, crab and shrimp) are […]

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts: The so-called Ukrainian peace talks have puzzled me for sometime. For the conflict to be resolved requires Trump and Putin to work out an agreement between themselves, but this necessary meeting has not occurred. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants the issue resolved, but his terms have […]

from Jesse ON FIRE: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/