Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an informative interview to Kommersant in mid-October.

Russian international media mostly focused on his remarks about ties with the US, concerns about its potential transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, and the special operation, but he also importantly exposed the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts.

Here’s exactly what he said, which will then be analyzed in terms of its practical relevance:

“[The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity] emphasizes that the protection of human rights, ensuring security, respect for the dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as tolerance and equal opportunities for all regions, are the keys to the sustainability of the agreement (this declaration). The declaration calls for the eradication of extremism and radicalism in all forms. Golden words. But for some reason, this applies to Palestinians and Israelis, but not to Russians in Ukraine.

More recently, regarding another part of the Middle East, Syria, US Special Representative for Syria (and also US Ambassador to Turkey) Thomas Barrack said that the Syrian Arab Republic needs a system close to a federation that would preserve the culture and language of all ethnic and religious groups in society. This is precisely what the Minsk agreements were about. For some reason, the West is ready to apply these principles everywhere, but in Ukraine, it is ‘not ready.’”

Beginning with the first part, Russia demands Ukraine’s denazification, which requires “the eradication of extremism and radicalism” in all forms there through hybrid kinetic-legal means. The kinetic ones are being advanced through attacks against fascist-inspired Ukrainian militiamen like the Azov Brigade while the legal ones are envisaged as part of the lasting political solution that Putin wants. A similarly symbolic multilateral call as Trump’s declaration could be the first step to that end amidst ongoing negotiations.

As for the second part, Russia won’t cede to Ukraine the disputed regions under its control after their people voted to join Russia in September 2022, but it could demand sub-federative cultural-linguistic rights for the Russians who remain in the Ukrainian-controlled parts if the frontline freezes.

To be clear, Russia officially insists that it’ll liberate the entirety of the disputed regions, but the aforesaid Minsk- and Syrian-inspired proposal could facilitate a grand compromise if all sides have the political will.

The relevance of exposing the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts therefore isn’t just to score soft power points, but to hint at creative ways in which the aforesaid US-endorsed Levantine solutions could be applied to Ukraine in the interests of consistency.

This assumes that the US is interested in policy consistency, but whether right or wrong, it doesn’t detract from Lavrov’s motives in bringing up the policy precedents that the US itself just established.

Realistically speaking, Trump doesn’t seem interested over half a year since the start of his talks with Putin in suddenly acceding to Russia’s proposals on Ukraine since he would have already pressured Zelensky if he was, not escalated his rhetoric and contemplated a military escalation too.

Nevertheless, Russia’s continued on-the-ground gains and the predictable failure of Ukraine’s next potential US-backed offensive might get him to reconsider, in which case Lavrov’s implied proposals would become relevant.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Even as headline inflation stabilizes, the cost of everyday items and services in the U.S. continues to shift unevenly across categories. For example, while beef has gotten more expensive, eggs have gotten cheaper.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu breaks down inflation by product type, revealing where Americans are seeing the biggest price changes.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), accessed via USAFacts. It details year-over-year inflation rates from Sept. 2024 to Sept. 2025, based on CPI-U (a measure of the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers).

Food and Household Staples Lead Price Increases

Among the categories shown, beef and veal prices jumped 14.7%, leading the pack.

Food inflation has been a major pain point in recent years, with a recent survey finding that 90% of American adults are stressed about the cost of groceries.

Sugar, sweets, and other processed food items also became more expensive, reinforcing the trend that grocery store essentials are rising in cost.

Deflation Hits Tech, Apparel, and Energy

While some prices continue to climb, other categories are seeing declines. IT hardware and services (-2%), women’s apparel (-2%), and gasoline (-0.4%) have all recorded price decreases over the past year ending Sept. 2025.

Note that within the IT hardware category (e.g. computers, peripherals, smart-home devices), the BLS makes price adjustments based on quality. As devices become more capable, the “effective price” paid by consumers may fall even if nominal sticker prices have not.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Biggest Challenges Americans Face in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Christopher J. Ferguson via RealClearInvestigations,

In 2023, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released a bombshell report, “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation,” that painted a bleak picture of citizens feeling “isolated, invisible, and insignificant.” Most provocatively, it stated that perhaps half of Americans face a personal crisis of aloneness that poses health risks “similar to that caused by smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.”

The report received wide attention as it resonated with myriad data points – including declining marriage and birth rates and the rise of remote work – showing Americans are spending less face time with one another. But a RealClearInvestigations inquiry has found that its warnings of a loneliness epidemic are unsupported and that its claims of severe health risks stem from a misreading of the data. 

The University of Rochester’s Viji Kannan, whom Murthy partly relied on for his claims of a loneliness increase, told RCI her study focused on measurable declines in social connections and not more subjective feelings of loneliness. “YES!” she said in an email. “Loneliness is a different thing.” 

Daniel Cox at the American Enterprise Institute, whose research on loneliness was also cited by the surgeon general, had a similar take. He told RCI, “The evidence more strongly supports an epidemic of ‘aloneness’ rather than loneliness. We are spending more time by ourselves.” 

Hans IJzerman, who studies loneliness at the University of Oxford, concurred. “The biggest story may be how the surgeon general basically butchered the narrative by not relying on solid data,” he said.

Murthy, who now works outside of government, did not respond to request for comment. The Department of Health and Human Services, which still posts the loneliness report on its website, declined to comment, citing the government shutdown.

Critics say the former surgeon general’s questionable assertion of a loneliness epidemic – which has been amplified extensively in the media – reflects a larger pattern whereby science is invoked to make larger arguments about American culture. These include claims that systemic racism is a public health crisis or that technologies such as cell phones are increasing rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues among teens. These assertions take kernels of truth – racism exists, mental health problems were on the rise until the last few years – and then attach them to specific causes to add a patina of scientific credibility.

The alleged loneliness epidemic seems to stem in part from concerns over how technology in particular may be enabling people to choose to spend more time by themselves – which can seem counter to democratic ideas of community – and from a conflation of two very different phenomena: loneliness and being alone. Being alone is not the same thing as being lonely, and research shows social obligations in heavy doses can be as stressful for many as they are supportive. 

Research results have clarified that true feelings of loneliness only kick in at the extreme end of social isolation. Quality time with others is more important than simply time spent with others overall (sometimes other people are annoying!) Unsurprisingly, those who enjoy being alone are less likely to feel lonely when not around others.

More Time Alone

A wealth of data suggests that Americans are spending more time by themselves. The surgeon general’s advisory, for example, pointed to slow declines in family and friend engagement during the early 2000s, though the most serious drop-offs occurred after the COVID-19 pandemic due to lockdowns and social distancing.

More people are forgoing marriage and parenthood. We have fewer close friends. More Americans live alone than ever before, partly because we’re living longer. 

Source: National Vital Statistics, US Census Bureau and American Community Survey, and previous work by John Loo

According to Gallup Data, U.S. church membership has been on a steady decline since the 1990s, though that decline may have slowed or leveled off as of 2018.

Remote work, already slowly increasing, skyrocketed after the pandemic. Whether this is bad or not is debatable, given people seem eager enough for it.

While these trends are clear, their meaning and effect are harder to pinpoint. Even though people are alone more often, data for the period 2003-2019 shows a very small decline in social connection. Professor Kannan calculated that time spent with others declined by about 146 hours per year, or about 1.7% – a relatively slight decrease that hardly seems reflective of an epidemic. 

That period was, of course, also marked by the rise of smartphones and social media, forcing researchers to ask new questions about connectivity: Is aloneness defined by physical proximity? If someone is playing Dungeons and Dragons online with friends all over the world, are they truly alone?

Loneliness By the Numbers

Loneliness is, of course, a common and universal human trait. It is a subjective feeling of unwanted aloneness that is accompanied by a sense of social emptiness. A connection is desired but missing. Feeling lonely from time to time is not a sign of a problem. Loneliness becomes a clinically relevant issue when it is chronic and becomes a precursor for persistent distress and dissatisfaction with life. 

Tracking loneliness over time can be trickier than time spent alone, perhaps one reason why so many conversations about loneliness seem to subtly shift to time spent alone instead. There appear to be few high-quality datasets tracking subjective loneliness over time. Though some data suggests a very small, gradual trend upward in loneliness among young adults since the 1970s, the increase is remarkably small over a 40- to 50-year period, hardly an “epidemic.” Data from Gallup suggests that loneliness has decreased since a high during the pandemic, although their data does not appear to extend back earlier. As one recent summary of the evidence put it, “There is an epidemic of headlines that claim we are experiencing a loneliness epidemic, but there is no empirical support for the fact that loneliness is increasing, let alone spreading at epidemic rates.”

As Bad as Smoking?

One of the surgeon general’s more dramatic claims was that “lacking social connection is as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.” 

This comparison appears to come straight from the research of Professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad at Brigham Young University, who was the lead science editor on the surgeon general’s report. However, this comparison appears to be for light smoking (defined as 15 cigarettes or less per day). Had comparisons been made with medium (15-25 cigarettes) or heavy smoking (25+ cigarettes), smoking would clearly come out far more dangerous. 

Further, the impact of smoking is pretty direct … lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes. Loneliness’s impact on mortality is clear. It could involve everything from more stress to fewer people around to help with medical issues. Causal claims are also tricky, given the degree to which the evidence relies on self-report correlational studies of subjective loneliness, associating it with mortality. In some cases, prolonged illness could prompt social abandonment, which would cause loneliness. Using correlational data to suggest that loneliness is causing illness is fraught, but that did not stop the surgeon general.

While Holt-Lunstad declined to address RCI’s questions about the surgeon general’s use of her study, her co-author, University of Arizona Professor David Sbarra, expressed some unease with the epidemic framing. “In terms of a loneliness epidemic, I think I am more skeptical than most…demographic changes that would establish an epidemic are really challenging,” he told RCI. “I think loneliness can spread through social networks…but what are the best data that loneliness and social disconnection are increasing? It’s quite equivocal, in my opinion.” 

There is little disagreement that loneliness is bad and can be associated with declining health. This may be because the distress of loneliness can cause stress and related health problems such as high blood pressure. But also because close social connections can help people with their medications and medical complications. 

It’s less clear that, if the prevalence of loneliness has risen, it’s risen dramatically or that simple interpretations of loneliness = health risk are warranted.

IJzerman, who is also CEO of Annecy Behavioral Science Lab and an expert on loneliness, has been critical of the way Kannan’s data was used by the surgeon general. IJzerman noted that trends regarding time spent alone don’t tap into subjective loneliness and may be due to changes in how questions are asked over time. Further, they may simply reflect more people using technology for social interaction, which isn’t necessarily bad. IJzerman suggested we tend to get distracted by vanishingly small time trends and a tendency to look for technology to blame, such as social media or smartphones. Instead, we should be more concerned with the structural barriers some people face regarding social connection, for example, older adults and lower-income individuals.  

Children and Loneliness

Much attention has focused on the world of teens. Buffeted by COVID-19 lockdowns, with increasingly structured lives, and navigating new technology worlds, legitimate concerns have been raised about teen loneliness. Though some studies have suggested an increasing loneliness trend among youth, IJzerman has said they are seriously flawed. He has critiqued these studies as “mining noise,” saying, “We cannot afford to base our understanding of loneliness on the psychological equivalent of wetted fingers in the wind.” 

IJzerman also noted the difficulties of measuring loneliness across various cultures, as some studies have done. “While measuring loneliness across different societies might seem as simple as translating a questionnaire, the reality is far more complex. A Dutch student’s understanding of loneliness may differ fundamentally from their British peer’s interpretation, shaped by distinct cultural norms and social expectations. Even within the same country, temporal shifts in social attitudes can dramatically affect responses – as stigma around loneliness waxes and wanes, respondents’ willingness to acknowledge these feelings may change accordingly.”

While arguing that our difficulty in measuring loneliness should give society pause – especially when it comes to advancing specific policies as a response – he also noted that our current concerns around technology have a long lineage. “Socrates warned that writing would erode memory and authentic dialogue; the printing press faced condemnation for encouraging solitary reading over community gatherings; early telephones were criticized for disrupting social norms; television was blamed for isolating families. Even mundane innovations like heating stoves faced resistance for disrupting traditional communal practices. Time has generally proven these fears exaggerated, suggesting we should approach current concerns about social media with similar careful skepticism.” 

This doesn’t mean we should dismiss all concerns about loneliness.  Whether subjective loneliness has declined or people have simply changed how they interact with others remains something of an open question.  Whatever is occurring, it does not appear that changes in technology are central, so we might look to the breakdowns in institutions, reduced marriages, problems with schools, etc.  

Our difficulty seems to be that our national conversation can occur in only two modes. Either something is a crisis, or it is not worth talking about at all. Perhaps in having a more nuanced understanding of loneliness concerns, we could begin to appreciate that some issues are still worthy of consideration even if they are not a 5-alarm fire.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida and author of “Catastrophe! The Psychology of Why Good People Make Bad Situations Worse.”

The 1990s were a different time. Dial-up internet, gas costing a dollar, and many states still leaning on manufacturing.

Even then, new tech clusters and improved drilling methods were starting to reshape the map, setting up today’s energy-rich and tech-focused states for the strongest economies.

The visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia by inflation-adjusted GDP growth between 1998–2024.

Data for real GDP growth by U.S. state is sourced from Bureau of Economic Analysis.

ℹ️ Real GDP growth measured from chained 2017 dollars.

America’s Shale Boom in One Map

North Dakota’s economy more than doubled thanks to the Bakken shale boom, which lifted its real output by 164%—twice the U.S. average.

Texas, already the nation’s largest oil-producing state, followed closely with 141% growth.

New Mexico and Oklahoma also landed in the top 20. Cheap feedstock, rising exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and associated midstream build-out helped these states capture much of the value created by soaring U.S. energy production.

ℹ️ Related: New Mexico overtook North Dakota as the second-largest oil producing U.S. state.

Tech & Tourism Hubs Sustain Rapid Expansion

Utah (+157%), Idaho (+144%), and Washington (+134%) show how a diversified tech sector can supercharge state-level GDP.

Microsoft’s cloud push, Idaho’s semiconductor fabs, and Utah’s “Silicon Slopes” collectively fostered high-wage job growth and attracted inbound migration.

Even the giant economies of California (+115%) and Florida (+113%) managed to outpace the national average rate of GDP growth by U.S. states. This shows how tech and professional-services clusters spill over into broader economic activity.

Rust Belt and Coastal Laggards

Manufacturing-heavy states in the Midwest and Appalachia largely underperformed. Michigan (+30%) and West Virginia (+34%) never fully recovered the industrial output lost after the early-2000s recession and the Great Financial Crisis.

Connecticut (+35%) and New Jersey (+47%) illustrate how high costs and slow demographic growth weighed on East Coast economies.

Louisiana, hit by multiple hurricanes and refinery shutdowns, posted the slowest gain at just 23%, one-quarter of the national pace.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Largest Economies, Including U.S. States on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

• Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly stated that China is positioned to win the global AI race due to its significantly lower energy costs and less stringent regulation compared to the United States and Europe.

• The pursuit of net-zero ambitions has led to high electricity costs in the UK and EU, which directly threatens their plans to become AI superpowers, as AI development is highly dependent on affordable power.

• The surge in demand for electricity from data centers is driving up power prices even in the energy-rich United States, potentially jeopardizing the country’s lead in artificial intelligence.

Not long ago, the UK’s Prime Minister declared his government would turn the country into an “AI superpower”. The EU leadership has similar plans for the bloc—while China and the U.S. race ahead without looking back. Neither the UK nor the EU will catch up soon. Their energy is too expensive. Now, Nvidia’s boss is warning that even the United States’ energy costs may be too high to help it win the race.

“China is going to win the AI race.” Jensen Huang made the blunt statement at the Financial Times’ Future of AI Summit this week, going on to list as reasons for this prediction the fact that China enjoyed lower energy costs and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, less regulation than the United States. He then proceeded to accuse the collective West of “cynicism” with regard to the AI pursuit, calling for some optimism instead. “Power is free” in China, he said, referring to generous state subsidies for the industry—and likely to the fact that China has a lot of low-cost hydrocarbon power generation, unlike, notably, the UK and the EU.

In fairness, Nvidia’s chief executive has a very good reason to be angry with the U.S. leadership. Beijing this week banned foreign microchips from AI data centers receiving state funding. Per the new regulation, new data centers are to only use Chinese-made chips, Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources. It was unclear from the report whether the regulation had a national or local scope, but in either case, Nvidia chip sales to China would be affected by it.

Personal reasons for disgruntlement aside, Huang’s critique of energy policies and overall regulation are quite on point. The European Union is a perfect case in point: it has for years used regulation as a means of stimulating innovation and competitiveness, only to achieve the complete opposite, drawing strong criticism from industries about it.

The UK, meanwhile, is a perfect case in point on energy costs. The country has some of the highest electricity prices in the world because of the net-zero push by several successive governments. AI development, however, depends on low electricity costs. In other words, the UK’s AI superpower dream will likely remain a dream unless the Starmer cabinet finds a way to bring costs down—even though Nvidia recently announced plans to invest $2 billion in fostering an AI startup culture in the UK.

Yet even in the United States, which is a lot more self-sufficient in affordable energy than either the UK or the EU, the artificial intelligence race is driving electricity prices higher, which may jeopardise the country’s success in that race. Earlier this year, the biggest capacity auction in the country, covering a fifth of Americans, ended with a record-high price of $329.14 per megawatt-day. The number was 22% higher than the final price of last year’s auction and reflected the surge in demand for electricity driven by the data center industry. States with high concentrations of data centers are seeing soaring electricity prices that some households are struggling to pay.

Meanwhile, China is subsidizing its AI industry and building new coal plants to ensure stable, reliable, and affordable electricity even as it remains the largest wind and solar installer in the world. Since 2021, the Chinese state has paid an estimated $100 billion in subsidies to the AI industry, Reuters reported this week, after reviewing government tenders in that sector. Nvidia’s CEO has criticized the Trump administration openly for its export curbs on chips, saying it was smart to keep Chinese AI developers hooked on U.S. chips, which, of course, would also boost Nvidia’s profits, but the Trump administration has refused to listen, focusing on what it sees as a risk of the Chinese government using U.S. chips in military technology.

Corporate interests aside, however, it is true that energy costs will determine the winner of the AI race.

The challenge for the West is to choose between bringing those costs down and suffering defeat in AI as it remains focused on net zero ambitions.

By early next week, much of the eastern United States “will be about as cold as Nuuk, Greenland,” warned meteorologist Ben Noll, adding, “It will be warmer in St. John’s, Newfoundland, than in parts of northern Florida.” 

On Tuesday morning, parts of the Southeast U.S. will be about as cold as Nuuk, Greenland — near the edge of the Arctic Circle.

It will be warmer in St. John’s, Newfoundland, than in parts of northern Florida. pic.twitter.com/SU1TNvQAdx

— Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) November 7, 2025

Temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic region, particularly around Washington, D.C., will begin sliding this weekend and could average in the mid-30s by Tuesday morning.

The Arctic cold blast detailed in a note earlier this week isn’t expected to linger long, with temperatures forecast to rebound to seasonal 5,10,30 year seasonal norms between 45°F and 50°F by the end of the week.

“The COLDEST part of the airmass will actually be felt into the south through midweek with some of the highest anomalies from GA into FL especially with morning lows,” meteorologist Jim Cantore wrote in a note on X, adding, “Lake effect snow should really set up from Sunday night to Tuesday from west to east and down the spine of Appalachia.” 

Separate from the upcoming cold blast, but something we told readers weeks ago, is that globalist Bill Gates’ climate-change crisis doom narrative turned out to be utter nonsense; the billionaire himself even admitted as much.

Other folks watching the same soap opera noticed this, too. Climate fueled gaslighting! https://t.co/YbF7jbvsC1

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) November 6, 2025

Remember, the only reason Democrats ramped up their “climate crisis” propaganda against the American taxpayer was to put a heist on the U.S. Treasury and enrich their globalist allies.

Like this guy. 

Now, far-left Al Gore just has to admit that he has been wrong for three decades. 

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

There’s a lot of black-pilling Republicans out there this week after a handful of elections in the northeastern US led to “sweeping” Democrat victories in New York, New Jersey and Virginia. As is always the case whenever Republicans lose any race no matter how insignificant to the bigger picture, suddenly the sky is falling and doom is about to come crashing down on America for all eternity. The panic has become quite tiresome.

Keep in mind, the gloom is limited mostly to social media and is exacerbated by a few hundred conservative influencers. As usual, these people still don’t realize that the social media world is not the real world.

If you were shocked by someone like Zohran Mamdani winning the mayor’s race in New York for example, then you have not been paying any attention to what’s been happening in blue cities lately. I predicted that liberals would turn out in droves to vote for the guy back in July. In my article “Batman vs The Joker: Democrats Will Double Down On Chaos To Save Their Party”, I noted:

“Leftists in the US will rally around uncompromising socialists like Mamdani because they’re tired of pretending that they care about “democracy”, free markets, property rights, moral codes or freedom in general. They need an all encompassing vision, even if it’s a monstrous and dystopian one. And, they want leadership that is transparent and unapologetic in its psychopathic intent. They don’t want to play the role of humanitarians anymore – They want to take the mask off and taste the flavors of blood and power…”

It’s New York, folks. It’s one of the largest hives of far-left scum and villainy in the world and conservatives only make up 26% of the city’s population.  OF COURSE Mamdani won. He represents everything the political left wants; a radical repudiation of western culture and free markets. Let’s not forget, these are the same people who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The same goes for New Jersey. In Virginia, the GOP decided to run a woman (Winsome Earle-Sears) who positioned herself as a “Never-Trumper” in 2022. She claimed that Trump was a liability for the Republican Party and that he should step aside. She then suddenly flipped in 2024 after Trump won again. OF COURSE she lost the race in Virginia. Conservatives have scruples about their candidates. They aren’t going to show up at the ballot box for someone who trashes their party leader and then jumps on the bandwagon at the last minute.

My point is, the hysteria going around social media over these “losses” is limited to a tiny bubble of people bouncing their ideas around in perpetuity. These few elections are in no way an indicator of America shifting far-left. They are, however, a reminder that our country is thoroughly divided on almost every issue and policy. Conservatives and progressives could not be more opposed in every way.

And, as I keep saying but I’m not sure if conservatives are hearing, it’s a reminder that leftists and Democrats are fighting A WAR while conservatives continue to play politics.  The leftists are consolidating around communist figures and ideas of radical insurgency.   Meanwhile GOP members and influencers are freaking out about “how to get more college-age white women in NYC” to vote for them.  It’s pure stupidity.

I would like to use the EBT/SNAP debate as a model for this divide because I think it’s revealing. Food subsidies are the epitome of socialism and the growing dependency on government that they create cannot be denied. Over 42 million Americans are now collecting SNAP; that’s 12.5% of the population. When the program first started in the late 1960s (on a national level), only 1.4% of the population qualified.

When SNAP was created it was promoted as a stop gap, a temporary safety net for people out of work and looking for employment. The primary focus of welfare benefits was supposed to be the disabled and the elderly, not able bodied working-age people (who now make up 80% of SNAP recipients). The program was a helping hand and then it became a crutch or a trap.

Right now the government shutdown is up in the air and emergency funds will do little to keep food subsidies running. The crux of the shutdown is the debate over healthcare benefits (more socialism) going to illegal immigrants (at least 1.8 million illegal migrants collected ACA in 2024). Only 5 Senate Democrats are need to vote for a clean funding bill, but they have refused 14 times.

As I have been warning for the past couple months, the Democrats are hoping for food riots that can be blamed on Trump and conservatives. Another few weeks and yes, this could happen in some major cities where Democrats refuse to enforce property theft laws.  The Democrat message is this:  “We will use mob violence and chaos to FORCE you to give us what we want.  Even if you win elections, we are in control…”

It’s political extortion.  Give them what they want and they will only continue to mobilize angry mobs over and over again to exert leverage over government decisions.

But what will the result be? Corporate chains and grocers will inevitably close up shop and those cities will become permanent food deserts. Leftists can’t force retailers to stay open, stock shelves and put employees at risk. Food riots will not have the effect that Democrats are hoping for.  Businesses will leave these cities. Smart people will leave these cities.  And the Democrat politicians still running the cities will be targeted by the same criminal mobs they have allied with.

There are certainly a number of people out there that are in actual need. I would never hold it against someone if they turned to a government program for support when life goes wrong. If they’re trying to rebuild and get a job and they need a short term boost, that’s okay. I prefer charity be private and personal rather than government enforced, but I grew up dirt poor; I know people will take whatever help they can get and usually they don’t care if it comes from the government.

The problem arises when welfare becomes a social mainstay, or an expectation. The level of entitlement surrounding SNAP is truly incredible. The number of people taking to the internet to call for blood because “Trump is stealing their SNAP” is disturbing. It’s the same thing that always happens with socialist projects – They draw support because they start small and innocuous. Then, they turn into an expensive society draining monstrosity that the populace is addicted to.

A number of commentators have been ringing warning bells about potential food riots, but I would like to point out some positives if cuts to SNAP continue.

First, the program was never supposed to become as large and costly as it is today. Reducing it to people who are truly in need (disabled, elderly and short term jobless) would help to reduce government spending which helps to reduce national debt and inflation.

Second, with 42 million people on food subsidies, grocery retailers are collecting billions in taxpayer dollars through artificially created demand. This demand eats up supply and, in turn, helps to drive up food prices. Cutting down SNAP would lead to a reduction in grocery traffic and deflation in prices for everyone.

Third, if labor shortages are persisting as the BLS claims, then able bodied people living on SNAP for years will now be forced to go back to work, filling the labor pool and solving the shortage problem. All the talk of migrant deportations leaving industries without workers? That goes away.

Free stuff is not free stuff. There is always a terrible price to be paid for government subsidized living. There are only two kinds of people that support long term welfare for the able bodied – Entitled people who are lazy and don’t want to work for what they have, and the politicians that want those people to vote for them.

Zohran Mamdani won in New York in part because of his many promises of socialist handouts, from government run grocery stores with cheap food to a rent freeze to free public transportation and subsidies for minorities and low income residents.  Mamdani is growing a “free stuff army” and the only way he can fund these programs is through overt taxation; he has admitted this.

He claims rich individuals and corporations will pay the heft of the bill, but we’ve seen similar attempts in cities like Seattle and San Francisco. They all end the same way – With wealthy residents leaving the city by the thousands and taking their businesses with them. The socialist politicians are then left with only middle-class taxpayers who then bear the pain of funding those programs.

The goal of the far-left is to make everyone equal: Everyone becomes equally poor. Meanwhile the wealthy have the ability to simply leave and go to economies where they are more appreciated. Socialism and communism lead to a larger wealth gap, not a smaller wealth gap.

Mamdani will likely attempt a capital flight tax, which will not work. Businesses and money will rush out of New York like blood from an arterial wound. The rent freeze will push many property owners to stop leasing or sell, which will result in a shrinking rental market for the poor and middle class. Within 2-3 years the metropolis will be an economic wasteland.

Socialism only works when you can force everyone to participate in the scam, and even then it still ends with a far lower standard of living for most people. The only places where this doesn’t happen are highly homogeneous countries with small populations and vast natural resources.  In every other case, progressive economic policies encourage dependency and then trigger disaster.

Is America facing food riots if the shutdown continues? Probably. In limited pockets of the country certainly, but mostly in places where Democrats are already running the economy into the ground. In other words, people who vote far left will suffer the most.  The riots will take place in their backyards.

Is the increasing radicalism of the left a sign that the US will descend into full bore communism? Is Mamdani just the beginning?

No, that’s not going to happen. Even if GOP fears over the mid-terms turn out to be accurate, elections are not the only determinant of the direction of a nation. Millions of conservatives and patriots are not going to allow widespread communism/globalism to take hold. We’ve already got a taste of that under the Biden Administration. We’ve also seen many progressives brag about how they plan to take revenge on us (for winning in 2024) once they get back into power.

Conservatives need to STOP constantly worrying about the next election and start considering what needs to be done now.  They need to stop playing politics and start defending themselves against the insurgency that is targeting them. Many of us are prepared to fight an internal war before we become a punching bag for the political left (there will never be another covid shutdown, for example).  And if a war happens, the left will lose.

Let’s hope violence isn’t necessary.  Let’s hope that a political solution is possible, but let’s prepare accordingly anyway.  The only way war can be avoided is if the political left changes their ways and stops poking the bear.  Who actually thinks they will change?

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Last week, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro reached out to Russia, China and Iran for possible military aid, after US President Donald Trump mulled a military attack amid a massive buildup of American forces in the region.

“The requests to Moscow were made in the form of a letter meant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and was intended to be delivered during a visit to the Russian capital by a senior aide this month,” the Washington Post (CIA) reported, adding that Maduro also sent a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping seeking “expanded military cooperation” between the two countries in order to counter “the escalation between the U.S. and Venezuela.”

Now, The Atlantic (also CIA) writes that Maduro is open to a managed exit / exile, as long as Trump promises amnesty. 

Maduro would be open to a managed exit if the United States provides amnesty for him and his top lieutenants, lifts its bounties, and facilitates a comfortable exile, people who have dealings with the Caracas regime say. “If there is enough pressure, and if there is enough candy in the dish,” the person who speaks to officials in both countries said, “everything is on the table with Maduro.”

Of course, one needs to view the ‘managed exit’ thing with a grain of salt given the source and timing of what’s going on. 

Of note, Trump’s Venezuela envoy Richard Grenell was originally tasked with negotiating a deal with Maduro that would allow: 

• U.S. access to Venezuela’s oil and minerals
• Crackdowns on gangs/drug transit
• Release of detained Americans
• Resumption of deportation flights to Venezuela

While Grenell secured early concessions, including the release of six American hostages, Trump abruptly ended Grenell’s negotiations after Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed for a more aggressive strategy. 

Grenell, however, had made headway in negotiating a “managed exit” for Maduro. 

Talks of a managed exit come amid US strikes on allegedly cartel-linked boats near Venezuela and in the Pacific, killing at least 65 people across 16 attacks, which was followed by the Pentagon launching the largest Caribbean buildup since 1962 – which include: 

• the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier
• 8+ warships
• ~10,000 troops
• nuclear submarine
• drones and fighter jets

In short – way more than what might be needed to take on cartels – implying imminent regime change (which The Atlantic is surely happy about). Trump has also authorized the CIA to conduct potentially lethal activities in Venezuela (as if they needed permission). 

Russia Ready to Rock

With tensions escalating, Russia has responded to Maduro’s pleas for aid – with Moscow now publicly saying it’s prepared to provide support, including:

• Repairing Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets
• Upgrading radar and engines
• Delivering ~14 missile units
• Possible supply of new Oreshnik missile systems

Moscow is considering this to be legitimate bilateral military-technical cooperation, not covert aid – which would of course raise the cost and the risk of a US strike or invasion, and risks a direct proxy confrontation, Newsweek reports, noting that foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed Caracas’s request. 

Moscow’s response could reshape great power dynamics in Latin America and alter the regional security balance. Maduro’s request underscores Venezuela’s heightened sense of vulnerability and its turn to Moscow for critical military backing.

Zakharova said that Moscow stood ready to “respond appropriately to the requests” from Venezuela while requesting that all parties refrain from escalatory actions. Earlier statements from her have emphasized that Moscow acts within bilateral military‑technical cooperation agreements and laws, and that the maintained presence of Russian military advisers in Venezuela is consistent with those deals.

Russia’s involvement would rugpull Marco Rubio’s dreams of “quick regime change” – after framing Venezuela as a narco-terrorist state and a destabilizing force that serves as a proxy to US adversaries. It also means Grenell’s push for a negotiated exit may be off the table, as Maduro may feel he now has leverage to wait out Trump, and/or demand larger incentives. 

And so, it appears the entire regime change endeavor just became much riskier for team Trump.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,.

In a significant win for the Trump Administration, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday afternoon on the Trump Administration’s requirement that passport holders use their sex assigned at birth and that such requirements do not violate equal protection guarantees. While a brief, unsigned opinion issued on the interim docket, it represents a major ruling on the constitutional protections afforded to transgender individuals.

The case began with a challenge to an executive order issued on January 20, 2025, declaring that the federal government would only “recognize two sexes, male and female.” The order instructed the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”

The litigants alleged that the order and underlying policy were a denial of equal protection.

I previously discussed the Supreme Court’s upholding a Tennessee ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. One of the most notable aspects of this decision was the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.” However, the Court stressed that “This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasisuspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”

In her concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rejected the claim:

The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so.3 To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex.

…Nor is the transgender population a “discrete group,” as our cases require.

…The boundaries of the group, in other words, are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Finally, holding that transgender people constitute a suspect class would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion.

…The conclusion that transgender individuals do not share the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of “a discrete group” is enough to demonstrate that transgender status does not define a suspect class.

…The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status. Rational-basis review applies, which means that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.

While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, I wrote at the time that the concurrence “likely speaks to the view of a three or four other members on the Court.”

It now appears that it clearly did represent the majority’s view.

In this opinion, the Court rejects the rulings of U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the injunction of the policy. Both courts would have forced the Trump Administration to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflect the sex designation of their choosing.

However, the Court ruled that “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

In rejecting the equal protection claim, the Court added that there is no evidence that a policy requiring a passport to display the holder’s biological sex can only be the result of “a bare  . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” It further found that the challengers are unlikely to prevail under the Administrative Procedure Act as “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Trump administration is thus “likely to succeed on the merits” of its defense against the challengers’ claims, the court wrote. And because Kobick’s order “enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document,” the court said, the government “will ‘suffer[] a form of irreparable injury’” if the order is not paused.

That produced another fiery dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

Jackson slammed her colleagues:

“The Court … fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.”

Jackson dismissed the opinion as a type of “back-of-the-napkin assessment” in a cursory opinion. She objected that, not only had the Administration not shown any irreparable harm absent emergency relief, but the challengers “have shown they will suffer concrete injuries if the Government’s Passport Policy is immediately enforced.” She concluded by claiming that “the Court’s failure to acknowledge the basic norms of equity jurisdiction is more than merely regrettable. It is an abdication of the Court’s duty to ensure that equitable standards apply equally to all litigants—to transgender people and the Government alike.”

The opinion substantially reinforced Barrett’s earlier position. While the government had the advantage of a case in an area where considerable deference is given to executive decision-making, the underlying equal protection holding is a major setback for advocates seeking to establish transgender status as protected in the same way as race or religion.