Former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Scott Ritter recently posted about what is going on concerning President Donald Trump’s lawless international actions, and warns about what it will result in if it is not stopped.  After the recent attack on Venezuela and capturing its president, Trump seized a Russia-flag ship, as well. Ritter warns …

Another stellar outing from the country/folk phenomenon. It seems like just yesterday, Zach Bryan was the buzzy independent country artist flying out of the ultra-talented Oklahoman country scene after releasing his stellar, independent debut album, DeAnn, back in 2019. Inspired by the likes of Turnpike Troubadours and Tyler Childers, you always got the feeling that Bryan was going to be a superstar. However, no one could have predicted just how otherworldly successful he has become over the past seven years. To put it plainly, Bryan has reached international superstar status. Over the past 12 months, Bryan has seen some of the highest highs of his career, primarily selling his catalog for a staggering $350 million dollars, becoming the eighth highest-selling country artist of all time according to the RIAA and, most notably, setting the record for highest-attended concert in U.S. history when he performed to a crowd of 112,408 at Michigan Stadium. With that being said, however, Bryan has also experienced arguably the lowest lows of his career as well. Even ignoring all of the aftereffects of his messy, public breakup with Barstool’s Brianna Chickenfry from last year, Bryan managed to find himself in the crosshairs of plenty throughout 2025. Beyond stirring up criticism after telling a 14-year-old fan to “GOMD” (get off my d*ck) after failing to meet with fans after his second of three nights at MetLife Stadium, he would also attempt to fight Gavin Adcock at Born & Raised Festival after months of prodding from the “Never Call Again” singer. And finally, he found himself at odds with the White House itself after teasing his highly-controversial song taking aim at ICE, “Bad News” (which appears here on With Heaven On Top). Long story short, it’s been a year full of ups and downs for Bryan, especially in the public eye. On top of all that, Bryan also recently got married to Samantha Leonard in San Sebastian, Spain, over New Year’s. Ultimately, With Heaven On Top comes at a fascinating time in Bryan’s career. There’s absolutely no doubt that the numbers and dedicated fans are there. However, with the growing divide between his most dedicated listeners and some folks who have grown tired of the controversy, this album feels like it carries a huge weight in terms of Bryan’s future, especially given the fact that it was announced all the way back in July. View this post on Instagram So what’s the verdict with With Heaven On Top? Right off the bat, this is an album you’re automatically going to love if you’re a fan of the “Something in the Orange” singer. In particular, if you’ve been a fan of his venture into a more Springsteen-inspired, horn-instrument-heavy sonic style as of late, there’s a lot to love here. Tracks such as “Appetite,” “Santa Fe,” “Anyways” and the highly-anticipated “Dry Desserts” sound lovely and inject the project with a tangible amount of energy throughout, thanks to the production choices. In case you thought that Bryan had lost the ability to deliver some absolute gut-punches, he delivers them early and often here on With Heaven On Top. In what feels like a call back to his early work, “DeAnn’s Denim” is yet another touching tribute to his late mother, which not only serves as a remembrance of her but also as a reflection on his newfound sobriety and his family’s history of addiction. “Skin,” in particular, is easily one of Bryan’s best songs to date. While he’s never been one to shy away from dark themes, highlighted best on tracks like “Anita Pt.2,” “Half Grown” and murder ballads such as “Birmingham” and “Crooked Teeth,” “Skin” ups the ante. Being one of the most visceral breakup songs I’ve heard in quite a while, the 29-year-old singer/songwriter brutally depicts the aftermath of a breakup. Using tattoos as a metaphor for all the past memories with his former lover, Bryan, quite morbidly, states how he’s taking a blade to remove his very own tattoos — and by extension, all the pain she left him with. “I’m taking a blade to my old tattoos I’m draining the blood between me and you I’m taking a blade to my own skin And I ain’t never touching yours again” I feel like it would simply be remiss not to mention the giant elephant in the room (or album, if you will) that is “Bad News.” As mentioned previously, this song caused nothing short of a media firestorm, receiving backlash from both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the White House itself, upon being teased since Bryan sings, “ICE is gonna come, bust down your door” in the first verse. Regardless of your political beliefs or thoughts on ICE and their current tactics as of late, you cannot deny that discussions surrounding both the organization and, on a larger scale, the current state of the country, are ripe for both debate and further commentary through art. And given the current situation unfolding in Minneapolis right now, Despite many labeling the song as an anti-American anthem, “Bad News” is far from it. In fact, I’d go as far as to say it reflects how many of us are feeling right now. In many ways, the country feels far from what many imagine it to be as of late — and Bryan depicts this perfectly here. The second verse, in particular, brilliantly captures the current state of division and violence we’re currently experiencing while also touching on the feeling of rejection, given that he’s a former member of the Navy. “Well, he said, she said, mirrors and smoke Horizon’s turned red and let’s all hope I got some bad news I woke up missing you My friends are all degenerates, but they’re all I’ve got Everyday on the news someone else is shot I got some bad news The fading of the red, white and blue I served eight years just to be told That nobody cares and land’s all sold I got some bad news I woke up missing you” Ultimately, With Heaven On Top is yet another stellar effort from Bryan. You can love or hate everything surrounding him as an artist and person these days; however, his knack for capturing a moment in time so beautifully is something that simply cannot be denied. Like nearly all of his projects since signing to Warner, you can argue the album is a bit too long, but that’s what you’re going to get with the Oklahoma native. Like real life, it’s a bit messy. However, it’s authentic and most importantly, relatable. The jury’s still out on the album as a whole, given that it just released today. With that being said, I see this album having a lot of staying power. It most likely won’t reach the mammoth heights of American Heartbreak, but I see it being ranked among his best projects after the dust settles. Before you go, fire up some early standouts. “Plastic Cigarette” “Say Why” “Skin” Zach Bryan Tour Dates March 7 – St. Louis, Missouri – The Dome at America’s Super Center – Caamp & J.R. Carroll March 14 – Tampa, Florida – Raymond James Stadium – Caamp & J.R. Carroll March 21 – San Antonio, Texas – The Alamodome – Caamp & J.R. Carroll March 28 – Baton Rouge, Louisiana – Tiger Stadium – Caamp & J.R. Carroll April 3 – Tulsa, Oklahoma – H.A. Chapman Stadium – Trampled By Turtles & J.R. Carroll April 4 – Tulsa, Oklahoma – H.A. Chapman Stadium – Trampled By Turtles & J.R. Carroll April 11 – Louisville, Kentucky – L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium – Kings of Leon & J.R. Carroll April 18 – Charlotte, North Carolina – Bank of America Stadium – Caamp & J.R. Carroll April 25 – Lincoln, Nebraska – Memorial Stadium – Kings of Leon & J.R. Carroll May 2 – Starkville, Mississippi – Davis Wade Stadium – Dijon & J.R. Carroll May 9 – Cleveland, Ohio – Huntington Bank Field – Dijon & J.R. Carroll May 27 – San Sebastian, Spain – Donostia Arena- Ben Howard & Keenan O’Meara May 31 – Berlin, Germany – Waldbühne – Ben Howard & Keenan O’Meara June 3 – Oslo, Norway – Unity Arena – Ben Howard & Keenan O’Meara June 6 – Copenhagen, Denmark – Parken – Ben Howard & Keenan O’Meara June 9 – Eindhoven, Netherlands – Philips Stadium – Ben Howard & Keenan O’Meara June 12 – Liverpool, United Kingdom – Anfield Stadium – Dijon & Fey Fili June 14 – Edinburgh, United Kingdom – Scottish Gas Murrayfield – Dijon & Fey Fili June 16 – London, United Kingdom – Tottenham Hotspur Stadium – Dijon & Fey Fili June 17 – London, United Kingdom – Tottenham Hotspur Stadium – Dijon & Fey Fili June 20 – Cork, Ireland – Páirc Úi Chaoimh – Dijon & Fey Fili June 21 – Cork, Ireland – Páirc Úi Chaoimh – Dijon & Fey Fili June 23 – Belfast, Northern Ireland – Boucher Playing Fields – Dijon & Fey Fili June 24 – Belfast, Northern Ireland – Boucher Playing Fields – Dijon & Fey Fili July 24 – Eugene, Oregon – Autzen Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili  July 31 – San Diego, California – Snapdragon Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili August 1 – San Diego, California – Snapdragon Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili August 7 – Salt Lake City, Utah – Rice-Eccles Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili August 13 – Denver, Colorado – Empower Field at Mile High – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili August 14 – Denver, Colorado – Empower Field at Mile High – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili August 22 – Arlington, Texas – AT&T Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili September 5 – Glendale, Arizona – State Farm Stadium – MJ Lenderman & Fey Fili September 18 – Dover, Delaware – The Woodlands – Kings of Leon, Fey Fili & Gabriella Rose September 19 – Dover, Delaware – The Woodlands – Alabama Shakes, Fey Fili & Gabriella Rose September 21 – Toronto, Ontario – Rogers Center – Trampled By Turtles & Gabriella Rose September 22 – Toronto, Ontario – Rogers Center – Trampled By Turtles & Gabriella Rose October 2 – Foxborough, Massachusetts – Gillette Stadium – Gregory Alan Isakov & Gabriella Rose October 3 – Foxborough, Massachusetts – Gillette Stadium – Gregory Alan Isakov & Gabriella Rose October 10 – Auburn, Alabama – Jordan-Hare Stadium – Gregory Alan Iskov & Gabriella RoseThe post Zach Bryan Delivers Another Stellar Effort With His Sprawling, 25-Track Record, “With Heaven On Top” first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

Rest in peace, good boy. Kelsea Ballerini took to Instagram on January 8 to share the heartbreaking news that her soul dog, Dibs, passed away. Over the last two years, Ballerini has worn her heart on her sleeve when it comes to her dog, as he was diagnosed with inoperable heart cancer. Dibs is a fluffy cream goldendoodle, and he’s like her child. She is constantly posting pictures of Dibs, and he goes everywhere with Ballerini. In August of 2024, Ballerini asked fans for their thoughts and prayers as she shared that he was diagnosed with heart cancer. “The last few days we have discovered that Dibby has inoperable cancer in his heart. He’s not in pain, and luckily, it hasn’t spread further.” When Dibs was diagnosed, Ballerini was preparing for the release show for her Patterns album at New York’s Madison Square Garden. At the time, Ballerini was under the impression that Dibs would only have a few final weeks with her, leading to a very emotional performance of “Penthouse” during the concert. In the tune, there is a line where she acknowledges the future she wants to have with Dibs by her side. “I bought the house with a fence Enough room for some kids, a backyard for Dibs.” When she got to that line of the song, the audience screamed it alongside her, knowing how much Dibs meant to her. Feeling the love from her fans but also the hurt in her heart that she’s losing her heart dog, Ballerini breaks down. She stepped away from the mic and asked the audience to help her out while she composed herself. “I’m going to need you to take this chorus for me.” She tearfully said into the microphone, but her emotions took over, and she had trouble making it through the song—rightfully so. @monsterstargaga “A backyard for dibs.” @Kelsea Ballerini performing “Penthouse” at her SOLD OUT show at The Garden. #thegarden #penthouse #kelseaballerini #msg #patterns #rutwm ♬ original sound – monsterstargaga Ballerini was blessed to have more time with Dibs. In September of 2025, Ballerini shared with fans that Dibs had to undergo an unexpected surgery, but she did not elaborate on what the procedure was for. The timing of this post was during her brief split with Chase Rice, furthering the point that Dibs has been with Ballerini through so many tough chapters of life and is truly her built-in support system. Sadly, cancer eventually took Dibs from this earth, and Ballerini is going to be left with a hole in her heart. Yesterday, Ballerini shared that Dibs went to doggy heaven on January 7, sharing a heartfelt love note to her beloved dog along with a collection of images throughout his life. “My sweet dibs went to doggy heaven yesterday. He spent his last few days in his backyard looking at the sunshine and surrounded by his forever people. There are no words to articulate his role in my life, but I couldn’t have done the last ten years without him, and he will always be my soul dog…and I pray and believe we’ll find each other in every life. His love and reach can’t be captured in an Instagram photo dump, or in a caption, but here’s a look at some happy from dibs. Thank you for loving him so loudly with me. i feel like the luckiest girl in the world that i got to be his dog mom, greatest gift of my life.” View this post on Instagram Ballerini also shared on Dibs’ Instagram that although he might have crossed the rainbow bridge, his legacy will live on through his social media page, where videos and photos of him and the life he lived will still be shared. “I’m cancer free now, and my last days were so happy. My mom and my aunts and dad and grandma are going to show you a lot of my life on this page because I have so many pictures and videos that we all wanna share. Also, love you and thank you.” Rest in peace Dibs. View this post on Instagram The post Kelsea Ballerini Mourns The Loss Of Her Soul Dog, Dibs: “Greatest Gift Of My Life” first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

President Trump announced overnight that he’s canceled the ‘second wave of attacks’ on Venezuela, which he said was previously expected but now are not needed because of their cooperation. Here’s what he . . .

The White House reportedly believes that Marjorie Taylor Greene tipped off Code Pink to President Trump’s location last year when he went to visit a DC restaurant. He arrived at Joe’s Seafood . . .

China Should Strategic Ambiguity Be Saved? Washington must decide whether its old Taiwan strategy can survive a new world order. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) Taiwan has begun distributing a new civil defense handbook to its citizens this year. It’s thin, bright orange, and full of cartoons depicting emergency kits, lines at relief stations, and a mother explaining war to her child, among other images. All things considered, it’s not overly dramatic. And yet, there has been a dramatic shift. Unlike previous public safety guides, this new booklet teaches citizens what to do if they come face to face with enemy soldiers. It states, “In the event of a military invasion of Taiwan, any claim that the government has surrendered or that the nation has been defeated is false.”  The Indo-Pacific is full of signals that the old balance is slipping. Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently came under fire for saying Japan would consider a military response to a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan. The minor revision of Japan’s policy of strategic ambiguity has caused a severe diplomatic row. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi says Takaichi “crossed a red line.” That’s a tame response in comparison to the Chinese consul general of Osaka’s remarks; in a now-deleted post on X, he asserted that Takaichi’s “filthy head” ought to be “cut off without a moment’s hesitation.” The U.S. itself also holds a policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, maintaining as an open question whether the United States would come to the island’s defense if China were to invade. In theory, this both deters Taiwan from declaring independence and China from invading. The recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) seems to reaffirm this policy, stating that the U.S. will  “maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”  The policy has existed since the United States replaced the American-Taiwanese mutual defense treaty with the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) in 1979, so that the U.S. could have formal relations with the People’s Republic of China. The TRA stipulates that the U.S. will provide defensive arms to Taiwan, but not that the U.S. would defend the island in the case of an invasion. While strategic ambiguity has so far withstood its trials and tribulations, the world is changing in ways that test its viability. The old assumptions and power dynamics that once ordered it are no longer certainties. China’s rapid military modernization and investment in “reunification,” Taiwan’s shifting national identity, and an evolving world order have all challenged the assumptions that originally made ambiguity workable. American politicians themselves have undermined it. During the last administration, President Joe Biden repeatedly said the U.S. would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion of the island, only for each statement to be walked back later by the White House. After Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house at the time, visited Taiwan in 2022, Beijing went so far as to launch ballistic missiles over the island. Reunification still remains a major theme for Beijing. In a recent phone call, Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly told President Donald Trump that Taiwan’s unification with China is “an integral part of the post-war international order” and that it is important for the leaders to “jointly safeguard the victory of WWII.”  Despite the policy’s erosion, American strategic ambiguity has survived to the current Trump administration, but whether it can—or should—continue to guide Washington’s approach is now a central and divisive matter. The overarching question has become, What posture toward Taiwan best serves American interests today? This can be broken into at least a few particular questions: whether Taiwan constitutes a vital U.S. interest, whether ambiguity or clarity better serve stability, and, if clarity is chosen, whether the United States should pledge to fight or not to fight in the event of a Chinese invasion.  It is not controversial to say that war over Taiwan would impose a negative cost on the United States. Bryan Burack, a senior policy advisor for China at the Heritage Foundation, told The American Conservative that, regardless of whether the U.S. were to become involved after a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, “it would almost certainly still have a global recessionary impact…. We’re talking literally store shelves being empty, manufacturing shutting down in the United States—the sorts of effects we didn’t feel from the War on Terror, for example.” More generally, Burack argues Taiwan is a vital interest because mainland control of the island would “dramatically worsen” America’s economic posture relative to China’s. He says the ​​United States has already been “brought to our knees by Chinese economic coercion… exacerbated by our own deindustrialization.” Taiwan’s production capacity, particularly in critical technology, is not transferable to another location within a reasonable timeframe, he says. Geography, too, weighs heavily in Burack’s assessment. “Being able to leverage Taiwan as an air base and a submarine base and a naval base would be incredibly useful for the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and would completely change the geography of the Asia-Pacific in a way that really hasn’t been the case since the conclusion of World War II.” Michael Swaine, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute’s East Asia Program, disagrees. While Swaine believes that deterring a Chinese attack is important, he told The American Conservative that Taiwan “is an important but not a vital interest justifying a full-fledged war with China.” In Swaine’s view, proponents of intervention “exaggerate Taiwan’s strategic value and China’s military threat to East Asia.” He maintains that possession of Taiwan “would not give China [the] capacity” for regional hegemony, and that Beijing views the issue primarily through a political lens, not an expansionary one.  Notably, the NSS states that “deterring a conflict over Taiwan” is “a priority,” citing the importance of access to the South China Sea and the “Second Island Chain”: “Given that one-third of global shipping passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the U.S. economy,” the document says. Yet the NSS stops short of asserting that Taiwan is a preeminent interest. The disagreement over the strategic importance of Taiwan contributes directly to another division: whether Washington should even continue the nearly five-decade practice of strategic ambiguity or replace it with an explicit policy. Burack argues the policy still has value, but wants the type of ambiguity “that we’ve maintained for 40 years” to be placed within a consistent policy framework. Ambiguity becomes dangerous, he said, when mixed signals, looser rhetoric, walk-backs, or talk of mutual defense guarantees erode deterrence or invite miscalculation.  Others see strategic ambiguity as increasingly untenable, heightening the risk of misinterpretation between Washington and Beijing. In a crisis, this uncertainty could accelerate escalation by convincing each side that the other is preparing for conflict when it is not. Clarity, they argue, would diminish the space for miscalculation by giving all parties a better understanding of American intentions before a crisis. But even among advocates of clarity there is disagreement over what that explicit policy should signal. Advocates of strategic clarity to fight argue that ambiguity has become less stabilizing as China’s power has increased. They contend that a firm declaration, combined with the capabilities to make it credible, would convince Beijing that the cost of war would be catastrophic and the prospects of success uncertain. If the U.S. doesn’t take this firm stance, they argue, China will continue to chip away at Taiwan’s sovereignty through disinformation campaigns and military “microaggressions.” Based on war games conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S.-Taiwan-Japan alliance would defeat a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan, but at a very high cost for all parties. In light of this, a clear stance from the United States to fight would deter Beijing from invading, they say.  Others have suggested a more calibrated form of clarity. Charles Glaser, an international-relations theorist and author of the forthcoming book Retrench, Defend, Compete: Securing America’s Future Against a Rising China, has previously argued that the United States should pledge not to fight China over Taiwan while continuing to arm and train Taipei for its own self-defense. But in an interview with TAC, he floated the idea of conditional clarity: Washington would state that it will not defend Taiwan if Taipei provokes a conflict, but will “definitely” do so in the event of an unprovoked Chinese attack. In the interview with TAC, Glaser steelmanned the case for an unconditional clarity to fight, arguing that if the United States genuinely plans to come to Taiwan’s defense, ambiguity is dangerous. “The worst situation to be in would be to actually be planning to come to Taiwan’s defense, and then have China think otherwise, because we didn’t make that clear,” he said. Opponents of this kind of interventionist clarity argue that declaring an intention to fight if China invades could provoke the war it seeks to deter. They argue that such a policy risks convincing Beijing that its preferred resolution is slipping out of reach, increasing the incentive to act sooner rather than later. Analysts like Swaine have argued that Taiwan, while important, is not a vital U.S. interest that would justify a great-power war—one that could devastate the global economy and carry a nuclear escalation risk. In this view, after a strong deterrence groundwork is laid, a policy of explicit non-intervention should be announced. Advocates of this approach believe the U.S. can dissuade Beijing from rash action through diplomacy, economic measures, and incentivizing Taiwan to avoid declaring independence. For them, clarity toward restraint offers a path to stability, and American interests are best served by preventing a conflict, rather than promising to win if one were to arise. They note that, should a war break out, “the fate of Western democracy does not depend on the independence of Taiwan,” as international relations scholars Andrew Byers and Randall Schweller put it in this magazine. A wider recalibration is happening across the Indo-Pacific. The United States no doubt plays a role in the evolving regional dynamics, but other actors shape the trajectory of the Taiwan Strait in ways Washington cannot fully control. Glaser notes that the U.S. holds leverage over and is an “important player in the security calculus” of Taiwan and Japan, but ultimately, any American posture, ambiguous or clear, must contend with this more complicated reality. For now, it seems as though the status quo will hold. The NSS reaffirms strategic ambiguity, and statements by Trump suggest a preference for continuity over transformation. Still, Taiwan’s distribution of the new civil defense handbooks, Japan’s rhetoric under Takaichi, and Xi’s messaging all underscore new power dynamics and possibilities. As the world order evolves, the durability of ambiguity and whether it still serves American interests have become open questions. Going forward, the policy will need to contend with a world that looks increasingly different from the one it was born into. The post Should Strategic Ambiguity Be Saved? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Perfectly spaced circular holes on the ocean floor — biology, geology, or something else