Russell Brand has announced his “intention” to run to be Mayor of London. Speaking on the US conservative commentator Tucker Carlson’s podcast Brand confirmed that he planned “to run for mayor of London in 2028”. [...] The post Russell Brand Is Planning To Run For London Mayor appeared first on The People's Voice.

The Swedish government announced on Thursday that fuel rationing could soon become necessary, citing the war in Iran as having a “significant impact” on the country’s economy. At a press conference, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson [...] The post Sweden Prepares To Bring In Fuel Rationing appeared first on The People's Voice.

Marillion are expected to release their twenty-first studio album later this year

This California four-piece were once viewed as an Incubus clone, then they discovered how to write a power ballad with strings

Jimmy Failla falls to sleep each night watching “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson. Yes, the late-night legend signed off in 1992, but YouTube and streaming services let fans relive his classic interviews. “There’s a warmth to it … it’s exactly what I’m trying to bring back to late-night,” Failla says. And, so far, it’s working. “Fox News Saturday Night,” Failla’s foray into the late-night market, just enjoyed its best ratings numbers to date after two-plus years on the air — nearly 1.8 million and 156,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo for the April 18 episode. That topped CNN’s airing of “Real Time with Bill Maher” in that 10 p.m. ET time slot. The latter, according to Fox News, drew 1,081,000 viewers and 97,000 in the 25-54 demo. Failla doesn’t hide his right-leaning views, but he’s a far cry from Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and their liberal late-night peers. You won’t see Failla bawling during his monologues, for starters. He’ll also take shots at President Donald Trump and other GOP darlings should their behavior warrant it. The focus is on laughs, not talking points. “We’re playing ‘Steakhouse or Gay Bar’ and keg party crisis management skills [on ‘Fox News Saturday Night’]” he says, bits that don’t have a partisan bent. Failla adds, “The growth of the show is reflective of that.” And while Colbert and Kimmel avoid right-leaning guests, Failla welcomes people across the political spectrum to the show, like Fox News pundit Jessica Tarlov, Democratic strategist Kevin Walling, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Viewers may see more of them soon. It’s a continuation of a mission he started with the “Everybody Calm Down” podcast, which wrapped in 2019. “At my core, I am a comedian. My reverence is for comedy, to be a source for centrist fun,” Failla says. He refuses to demean liberals or insist on ideological purity. Jimmy Kimmel once told a reporter about his right-leaning fans, “not good riddance but riddance.” Not Failla. He calls himself an “In-activist” and wants no part of the culture wars. “You shouldn’t have to vote a certain way to like the song … I was beating that drum before there was a major market for it,” he says, an approach that “gives you a shot at a much broader target.” Failla calls the current late-night landscape “purposeful” comedy, with jokes designed to prop up a narrative or deflect from news that could damage Democrats. Chevy Chase made a career out of portraying President Gerald Ford as a bumbling fool, Failla notes, based on a clip of the world leader stumbling down a stairwell. President Joe Biden, by contrast, stumbled up one repeatedly and late-night hosts either played it down or ignored it. The hosts, Failla suggests, asked themselves how that material could help or hurt their party’s cause. “The cause should always be … funny,” he says. Failla’s red-meat-free approach sometimes comes back to bite him. He recalls one late-night monologue that singed President Trump, and it generated fan blowback. “I’m never watching you again … I didn’t know you were a liberal … RINO!” read a smattering of responses Failla saw on social media. He was heartened by one viewer’s response, though. President Donald Trump praised the segment, calling him a “very funny guy.” “When it comes to comedy, he’s the most adult person in the room,” Failla says. This weekend, Failla is taking his “can’t we all get along” approach to Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner gala in Washington, D.C. for live coverage from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET. on Fox News. He previously attended what’s comically dubbed “nerd prom” and yukked it up with the folks from the liberal “Daily Show” and NBC’s “Today.” “My show is the ‘play nice in the sandbox’ show,” he says, adding Fox News will add a live text option so viewers can weigh in during the telecast. “People are very receptive to that idea.” The live-text feature is one way he’s shaking up the staid late-night format. “I’m trying to give the people at home the highest security clearance they can get and make them feel like they’re at the event,” he says. Now, with his show’s ratings on the rise, Failla wants to expand on his bipartisan approach. “We’ve established that we don’t need to be a viciously partisan show to draw a sizable audience,” he says. “That allows us to bring on more people you wouldn’t expect to see on the show.” If that means California Governor Gavin Newsom drops by, so be it — even if Failla thinks the presidential hopeful is a “sociopath.” Prove me wrong, he says. “Fox News Saturday Night” is hardly Failla’s only gig. He hosts the three-hour “Fox Across America” radio show, syndicated nationally, and he has a bustling stand-up career, too. The former New York City cab driver has found a system to juggle his gigs without dropping a single ball. “It’s consistency of schedule,” he explains. “I’m a 48-year-old man who plays video games. I’m not the model.” There’s still a method to his hard-work madness. He doesn’t inject “drama” into processes that don’t impact the finished product. Plus, he embraces a “production model that makes the same things happen every day at the same time. You don’t feel the weight of doing them.” That “weight” includes writing his own “Saturday Night” monologues, a task done by more than a dozen scribes in other late-night shows. He has some unsolicited advice for his fellow late-night talkers. He suggests Jimmy Fallon pen his own monologues for “The Tonight Show,” leaning into his authentic, goofy self. Colbert’s final show is May 21, but Failla does share a tip for the host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “Quit,” he cracks. *** Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. He’s also the host of The Hollywood in Toto Podcast. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto. 

Spirit Airlines is running out of runway. That is bad news for travelers who depend on cheap fares. But it is no excuse for Washington to turn taxpayers into unwilling owners of a failing airline. Yet that is reportedly on the table: a federal rescue that could leave Uncle Sam owning as much as 90% of Spirit. That would be economic folly. Americans do not want a boarding pass on Government Airlines. They want safe flights, low fares, and real competition. They do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding which carriers survive and which corporate losses get dumped on taxpayers. The irony is rich. Spirit’s current trouble was made worse by the same interventionist thinking now being offered as the cure. Three years ago, Spirit had a private-sector lifeline. JetBlue wanted to buy it. The deal would have given Spirit a credible path to survival and stability. But the Biden Justice Department, cheered on by Pete Buttigieg’s Transportation Department, killed it. The Department of Transportation broke with decades of precedent by helping sink the merger. The excuse was consumer protection. Regulators insisted Spirit’s ultra-low-cost model was too important to lose. Without Spirit, they warned, fares would rise, seats would disappear, and competition would suffer. That was the theory. Reality has now landed. Hard. Spirit was left alone in a brutal industry of high labor costs, expensive aircraft, volatile fuel prices, and relentless competition. The airline Washington claimed it was saving is bankrupt and may vanish altogether. So what is Washington’s answer? Humility? Restraint? An admission that bureaucrats are poor substitutes for markets? Hardly. The new idea is more intervention: block the private-sector solution first, then put taxpayers on the hook when the company crashes. This is how bad policy becomes permanent policy. The 2008 TARP bailout should have taught Washington a lesson. Emergency rescues create dangerous precedents. They tell executives and investors that risk is negotiable. Make good bets and keep the gains. Make bad bets and call Washington. That’s not capitalism. It’s corporate welfare. A Spirit bailout would bring that same poison to the airline industry. Worse, it would distort the very competition regulators claim to cherish. A government-backed Spirit could absorb losses, undercut rivals, and keep flying with advantages no private carrier can match. That’s not competition. That’s subsidized sabotage. And subsidized sabotage does not produce cheaper travel in the long run. It produces higher costs, weaker companies, and fewer choices as efficient private operators are forced to compete not against other private airlines, but against the federal treasury. Markets are not painless. But they have one indispensable virtue: discipline. Companies that fail must restructure, find buyers, sell assets, or exit. Their planes do not disappear. Their gates do not disappear. Their routes do not disappear. In a functioning market, those assets move to stronger operators that can serve consumers better. That is what bankruptcy is for. It allows companies to renegotiate debts, attract new capital, reorganize, or sell viable pieces of the business. It is unpleasant. It is also far better than putting a failed airline on the federal balance sheet. The real issue is larger than Spirit. Does America still believe in markets, risk, and accountability? Or does every politically visible company now get a federal parachute? Washington can block a merger in the name of competition, watch the company crumble, then rescue it with taxpayer money. The message is disastrous. Politics, not performance, will decide winners. Executives can gamble on bailouts. Taxpayers will be handed the bill. The right answer is simple: let the market work. Spirit should restructure, find private capital, sell assets, merge where legally appropriate or exit in an orderly fashion. What it should not become is another monument to Washington’s belief that it can run the economy better than the people who actually invest, build, and compete. Low fares matter. Competition matters. Consumers matter. But none of them is served by putting bureaucrats and the Washington politicians in the cockpit. Washington helped block Spirit’s safest landing. It should not now force Americans to pay for the wreckage. Steve Forbes is Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media. 

Simona Foltyn, a Middle East-based “special correspondent” for the PBS News Hour, conducted a shamefully soft interview of a senior official of the Iran-backed anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah for Tuesday, after previously fawning over the terrorist group while interviewing figures less directly related to Hezbollah.   Foltyn worked for the Arab news network Al-Jazeera English from 2019 to 2021 (on the Iraq beat) and maintains a virulently anti-Israel X feed. Hezbollah PR knew what they were doing when they agreed to let Foltyn, an expert at peddling anti-Israel propaganda, meet secretly with Wafiq Safa, a senior official in Hezbollah`s political wing. Anchor Amna Nawaz teased “….in a rare interview, a top Hezbollah official tells special correspondent Simona Foltyn they will never give up all of their weapons.” SIMONA FOLTYN: We are at an undisclosed location in Beirut's southern suburbs, a residential area where Hezbollah enjoys widespread support. Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration's ability to restrain Israel. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t believe that there are any guarantees with the Israelis, but for the weapons that we possess. SIMONA FOLTYN: It`s a lesson learned from the previous U.S.-backed cease-fire that was supposed to end the 2024 war. Israel had reserved a right to strike what it said were Hezbollah targets, violating the agreement more than 10,000 times in 15 months. Hezbollah held back until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran….   PBS's Simona Foltyn in Beirut: "Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. [Hezbollah's Wafic] Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration`s ability to restrain Israel." pic.twitter.com/x2GbQQ8s2u — Clay Waters (@claywaters44) April 23, 2026 Her idea of a challenging question came off sounding like a well-meaning ally in Hezbollah’s war against Israel: SIMONA FOLTYN: On March 2, Hezbollah fired six rockets into Northern Israel. In response, Israel sharply escalated its attacks, killing more than 2,000 Lebanese. But if Israel was preparing for another war, why attack first and give them the justification on a silver platter for what you knew would be a disproportionate response that would claim a many civilian lives? SAFA: The Israelis don't need a pretext. The six rockets that we fired, why didn't they speak to the cease-fire monitoring mechanism? They bypassed the mechanism and they went straight to the war they had been threatening us. Foltyn hit the left-wing talking points of Israel as a colonial occupier, not a small country trying to establish some security in a region out for their blood. FOLTYN: Israel says it now wants to take care of Hezbollah itself. Its troops have pushed several miles into Southern Lebanon, establishing a yellow line similar to Gaza in what looks like an annexation of land. Hezbollah has vowed to resist the occupation. …. FOLTYN: Israel says its so-called buffer zone is necessary to protect residents in the north. At least 35 Israelis have been killed by Iranian and Hezbollah missiles, though Safa denies that the group is deliberately targeting civilians. Did Foltyn provide Israel the same understanding? She certainly didn’t challenge Safa’s bizarre claim that Hezbollah doesn’t kill civilians. SAFA: Let us be clear and honest. Hezbollah's ethics and religion prohibits it from killing civilians. But what happens when we fire at soldiers, there may be what is called collateral damage…. She strove to make the anti-Israel terrorist group the sane party next to Israel. You’ll hear nothing here about Hezbollah running roughshod over Lebanon’s official government through threats of violence, a fact even the anti-Israel New York Times concedes. FOLTYN: Hezbollah’s demands are clear. SAFA: We want complete and permanent adherence to the cease-fire, withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory, the release of the prisoners, and the return of the displaced. In November 2023, Foltyn questioned Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, a former Lebanese intelligence official with close ties to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group designated as a terrorist group by the United States. In February 2025 Foltyn reported from a funeral service celebrating Hassan Nasrallah, who led Hezbollah. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour April 21, 2026 7:28:25 p.m. AMNA NAWAZ: The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah attacked an Israeli army position in Northern Israel today, saying it was in response to several Israeli cease-fire violations. It's the first time the Iran-backed group has claimed responsibility for an attack during the tenuous truce that started last week. Representatives from the government of Lebanon and Israel will meet again this Thursday in Washington for peace talks. Hezbollah is not involved. The full disarmament of the group is a central part of the discussions. But, in a rare interview, a top Hezbollah official tells special correspondent Simona Foltyn they will never give up all of their weapons. SIMONA FOLTYN: We're about to meet a high-ranking Hezbollah official to understand the group's position on the cease-fire. He is one of the few senior leaders to have survived Israel's relentless assassination campaign, and he`s still considered a high-value target. Wafiq Safa is a senior official in Hezbollah's political wing. He narrowly escaped a targeted Israeli strike in 2024. This is his first interview on American television. There have already been several violations in the first days of the cease- fire. Is Hezbollah committed to abiding by it? WAFIQ SAFA, Senior Member, Hezbollah Political Council (through translator): Hezbollah is committed to the cease-fire, but we have seen during the last two days that the Israelis have continuously violated it, be it the destruction and bulldozing of houses or the bombardment of villages or even the killing of civilians. There can`t be a one-sided cease-fire from Hezbollah only. So Hezbollah will respond to these attacks, but in a way that we deem appropriate. SIMONA FOLTYN: We are at an undisclosed location in Beirut`s southern suburbs, a residential area where Hezbollah enjoys widespread support. Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration`s ability to restrain Israel. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t believe that there are any guarantees with the Israelis, but for the weapons that we possess. SIMONA FOLTYN: It`s a lesson learned from the previous U.S.-backed cease- fire that was supposed to end the 2024 war. Israel had reserved a right to strike what it said were Hezbollah targets, violating the agreement more than 10,000 times in 15 months. Hezbollah held back until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. It reentered the war to avenge the killing of Iran`s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Many Lebanese blamed Hezbollah for this decision to drag Lebanon back into a war, and it looked as though you were defending Iran`s interests and not Lebanon`s interests. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): In reality, there`s a delusion. And this delusion stems from the fact that Israel never stopped the war. Diplomacy was tried, and it failed. Therefore, it was necessary to take the right decision under the right circumstances and at the right time to defend Lebanon and to defend the Lebanese people, to deter Israel and to force it to stop the attacks. SIMONA FOLTYN: The decision to reenter this war, was that an Iranian decision or a Lebanese decision? WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We chose the right time, when the Israeli enemy was busy with its war on Iran. We benefited from the ongoing war. And we don`t deny that Iran also benefited from this war that we took to the Israeli enemy. We are in a permanent alliance with the Islamic Republic, and it`s natural that we support each other. Israel was preparing for another war on us, and Hezbollah made the first move. SIMONA FOLTYN: On March 2, Hezbollah fired six rockets into Northern Israel. In response, Israel sharply escalated its attacks, killing more than 2,000 Lebanese. But if Israel was preparing for another war, why attack first and give them the justification on a silver platter for what you knew would be a disproportionate response that would claim a many civilian lives? WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): The Israelis don`t need a pretext. The six rockets that we fired, why didn`t they speak to the cease-fire monitoring mechanism? They bypassed the mechanism and they went straight to the war they had been threatening us. SIMONA FOLTYN: But Safa admits that Hezbollah too was preparing for another war, even as it appeared to collaborate with the Lebanese state to hand over some of its weapons. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): During these 15 months, Hezbollah was trying to rehabilitate its military, organizational, political, and social capabilities. And Hezbollah succeeded in that. SIMONA FOLTYN: As part of a U.S. and Israel-backed Lebanese government decree, Hezbollah was supposed to have disarmed south of the Litani River, which runs up to 18 miles north of Israel`s borders. The process was declared completed at the end of December 2025. We saw with our own eyes how the Lebanese army confiscated some of your weapons. But in the past weeks, we have seen Hezbollah fighters once again battling Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon. So it seems that you were not disarmed. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): The Lebanese army did seize a number of weapons, but the Lebanese army didn`t know how many weapons Hezbollah had to begin with. We helped the Lebanese army so that the south of the Litani is free of weapons. When this war started, we fired from the north of the Litani to the north of the river, and it`s our right to do so. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israel says it now wants to take care of Hezbollah itself. Its troops have pushed several miles into Southern Lebanon, establishing a yellow line similar to Gaza in what looks like an annexation of land. Hezbollah has vowed to resist the occupation. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t accept any Israeli presence, not on our land, not in our skies, not even in our waters. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israel says its so-called buffer zone is necessary to protect residents in the north. At least 35 Israelis have been killed by Iranian and Hezbollah missiles, though Safa denies that the group is deliberately targeting civilians. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): Let us be clear and honest. Hezbollah`s ethics and religion prohibits it from killing civilians. But what happens when we fire at soldiers, there may be what is called collateral damage. If Hezbollah wanted to target civilians, you would have seen large numbers of civilians killed and injured. SIMONA FOLTYN: Following this latest war, Hezbollah appears to have hardened its position, boosted by Iran`s insistence that Israel must cease attacks on Lebanon if the Strait of Hormuz is to remain open. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): As far as Hezbollah`s weapons are concerned, it`s out of discussion. SIMONA FOLTYN: Hezbollah`s demands are clear. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We want complete and permanent adherence to the cease-fire, withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory, the release of the prisoners, and the return of the displaced. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israeli and Lebanese officials will meet again on Thursday in Washington. For now, this tenuous truth is barely holding. And, this time, Hezbollah says it will fight back if it fails. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Simona Foltyn in Beirut.

Back in 2020, National “Public” Radio promoted a nasty little book called In Defense of Looting. NPR summarized the “Marxist-informed” author Vicki Osterweil in the wake of the “racial justice” rioting in cities: “She argues that looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.” It’s interesting to imagine how they would feel if someone stole all their lame Nina Totenberg tote bags, or some transgressive activist broke in and emptied out the designer fashions in NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s residence. They are striking an anti-capitalist pose, and let’s guess it’s not the same if you commit property crimes against socialists. Now it is The New York Times that is platforming the advocacy of petty theft from the Left. On their podcast “The Opinions,” they brought on another Marxist-informed dilettante named Hasan Piker, best known as a live-streaming personality on Twitch, popular with video gamers. This was their online headline:  The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?  Why petty theft might be the new political protest Piker said "I’m pro-stealing from big corporations, because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers." He claimed it was interesting “that a kind of harm committed by the individual, strangely, continually draws more ire than the same harm being committed by a structure. And so, I mean, and so I kind of am inclined towards this. It’s like, everyone try it! See what happens!” But don’t break into Piker’s house and steal his stuff. He’d probably beat you to a pulp. A year ago, The Times wrote a gushy article about Piker and his muscle-bound physique under the headline “A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’” As a Marxist, Piker prefers government-operated stores, matching the plans of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. “I’m in favor of fast and free buses and also government-owned storefronts. And two of those policies the mayor of this beautiful city is currently working on.” He wouldn’t steal from those.   But it’s not just theft, it’s also the advocacy of assassination. As they talked about “an outpouring of glee” over Luigi Mangione shooting down an insurance executive in the street, Piker brought out one of his communist heroes. “Friedrich Engels wrote about the concept of social murder, and Brian Thompson, as the UnitedHealthcare C.E.O., was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder.” Social murder? That’s a fancy Marxist term to describe capitalism as “systematized violence.” Refusing to pay for someone’s health-care costs is “social murder,” so the execution of a health insurance CEO is justified.   Piker complained that “Americans are very draconian about crime and punishment. They’re very black and white on this issue. And yet, because of the pervasive pain that the private health system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place.” The leftists routinely scream about how “normalizing” President Trump is creating a permission structure for fascism. Hasan Piker’s ideological embrace of violence and theft has been normalized, and the permission structure for communism is obvious in America’s most celebrated newspaper.  Just as it was in New York Times columnist Ezra Klein’s article titled "Hasan Piker Is Not the Enemy” – which The Times then changed to “This Is Why There’s No Liberal Joe Rogan.” Piker is now endorsing and appearing at campaign events with Democrat candidates for Congress. The Times clearly wants the Democrats to accept the message “Hasan Piker Is Your Friend.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) remain neck and neck in the Republican Senate runoff despite a massive spending disparity between the two campaigns. Cornyn's incumbent advantage is further boosted by the $8 million his campaign ended with in the first quarter compared to Paxton's $2.6 million cash on hand. Despite Cornyn's financial advantage, Paxton has maintained his lead over the sitting senator. Talarico also boasts a major spending advantage over both Republican candidates.Polling still gives Paxton a slight edge.As of this writing, Paxton is averaging a 3.4-point lead over Cornyn, according to RealClearPolling. A recent poll from nonpartisan Texas Public Opinion Research even put Paxton at an eight-point lead over Cornyn just weeks from the GOP runoff on May 26. Although the candidates remain within striking distance of each other, President Donald Trump has notably refrained from endorsing either Paxton or Cornyn.RELATED: Jasmine Crockett claims voters were 'disenfranchised' following crushing defeat in key Texas primary Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty ImagesAlthough Paxton appears to be more popular with the Republican base, Cornyn polls better against the Democrat nominee, James Talarico. According to polling averages calculated by 270 to Win, Paxton polls just one percentage point ahead of Talarico, while Cornyn leads by two percentage points. Talarico, who defeated Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democrat primary, also boasts a major spending advantage over both Republican candidates. Last quarter, Talarico raised $27 million and ended with just under $10 million in the bank. The runoff will be held on May 26, and whoever wins the Republican nominee will face off against Talarico on November 3. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!