It was astoundingly successful and will likely serve to coerce the rest of the hemisphere into strategically capitulating to the US…
The US launched a half-hour-long “special military operation” in Venezuela on Saturday morning that culminated in Delta Force’s capture of President Nicolas Maduro. Several military sites were bombed, US helicopters flew freely over Caracas in a surreal display of the US’ aerial supremacy, and there were reportedly no US casualties. The US’ “special military operation” was therefore an astounding success regardless of one’s personal opinions about its merits. Here are five takeaways from this event:
1. The US’ Grand Strategic Goal Is To Build “Fortress America”
It was assessed here that the National Security Strategy’s prioritization of the Western Hemisphere is all about building “FortressAmerica”, which refers to the restoration of the US’ hegemony over the Americas in order for it to survive and even thrive if it loses control of the Eastern Hemisphere. It might not happen right away, but the US’ “special military operation” will likely result in it obtaining control over Venezuela’s oil reserves, the world’s largest. That would help make “Fortress America” a reality.
2. Maduro Should Have Taken Trump’s Deal In Hindsight
Trump earlier claimed that Maduro had “offered everything” to the US when asked about a report that the Venezuelan leader agreed to let American companies take control of his country’s resources. The only sticking point appeared to be Maduro’s political fate, with Trump wanting him to go into exile likely at the urging of Marco Rubio (his powerful Secretary of State and National Security Advisor), while Maduro seemingly refused. He should have taken Trump’s deal in hindsight to avoid this humiliating end.
3. The Ayatollah Is Likely Watching Everything Very Closely
Trump recently threatened military action against Iran in support of its latest protest movement, which assembled in response to the country’s deteriorating economy but is suspected of being orchestrated in part by foreign spy agencies in collusion with local agents. The US clearly wants Iran’s complete strategic capitulation after its arguable loss to Israel during last summer’s 12-day war, and if the US doesn’t get what it wants through diplomacy or a Color Revolution, then it might try to capture the Ayatollah too.
4. Adversarial Media Will Likely Try To Discredit Russia
Venezuela has an estimated $20 billion worth of Soviet/Russian arms, including Sukhoi fighter jets and S-300 surface-to-air missiles, yet none were used against the US (possibly due to it buying off top defense officials). Russia and Venezuela also ratified a strategic partnership pact late last year too, but it importantly didn’t contain any mutual defense clauses. Nevertheless, these two factors will likely be exploited by adversarial media to discredit Russia after the US’ “special military operation” in Venezuela.
5. Top Alt-Media Figures Once Again Discredited Themselves
Some top Alt-Media figures lie about the subjects of their geopolitical devotion like when they lied about how the Iranian-led “Resistance Axis” would destroy Israel in a war prior to their defeat at its hands last year. Many of the “usual suspects” did the same with regard to what Venezuela would do if the US attacked it, only to have once again discredited themselves, but Tim Anderson takes the cake after lying that Russia gave Venezuela Oreshniks with the innuendo that they’d be used if it was attacked.
The US’ astoundingly successful “special military operation” in Venezuela is a monumental geopolitical development that’ll likely serve to coerce the rest of the hemisphere into strategically capitulating to it, which could lead to “Fortress America’s” construction at an accelerated pace.
Iran might soon follow Venezuela even if the Ayatollah isn’t captured like Maduro just was.
The common thread between them is that the US has decided to take out its weaker adversaries across the world who refuse to submit to it.
The hottest restaurant items of 2025 aren’t gourmet burgers – they’re value meals. When eating out turns into a budgeting exercise, it reveals something deeper about inflation, the rising cost of living and the quiet erosion of our quality of life…
Restaurants have been a constant of human life for centuries, from roadside taverns serving weary travelers to dining rooms built to impress the wealthy.
Every city, town, and village has one. Even places too small for a post office usually have somewhere to eat.
Today, restaurants are so ubiquitous that many towns have at least one drive-through, letting people grab a meal without leaving their car and eat it on the way back to work.
Because the industry is everywhere (and fiercely competitive), restaurants are always searching for the next angle to pull people through the door and persuade them to spend.
That’s why chains closely track which menu items sell best.
What’s surprising isn’t that they do this. No, it’s what those top-selling items are in 2025.
The hot new trend: Reading menus from right to left
Often, what’s “hot” especially in fancy restaurants is exotic, disgusting, gross or just plain expensive. I once watched an episode of Bizarre Foods where Andrew Zimmern ate a cobra heart. I’ve seen restaurants in LA that serve desserts covered in gold foil (I didn’t order one).
Well, it seems that, at least for now, those days are behind us. According to Amelia Lucas with CNBC, the hottest menu items for 2025 are “value” items. That’s right, budget foods, the ones that cost less or give more calories for your buck, those were the hottest items year-round.
This trend may explain why McDonald’s no longer carries a gourmet burger (which I thought was surprisingly good). Well, it wasn’t a budget product, so it had to go.
And McDonald’s isn’t the only chain cutting down to the bare budget basics. Not by a long shot.
And I bet you can guess why restaurant chains are focusing on the low end of their pricing spectrum. Lucas tells us that “diners, particularly those who make less than $40,000 a year, have been eating out less frequently and spending less money when they do.”
In fact, according to Lauren Clifford at Lending Tree, 85% of Americans surveyed said that they have changed “their dining out habits.” Nearly three out of five said they’re eating out less often.
They just can’t afford it. And when they do eat out, they order off the value menu.
One way of describing it that I found interesting: They read restaurant menus from right to left, checking the price to see if they can afford something before even checking to see if they actually want to eat it. If you’ve ever tried to impress someone by taking them to a restaurant you couldn’t afford, then you’ve probably done this yourself… I know I have. But now people are doing this all the time.
Eating out, which used to be an affordable reward at the end of a long work week, a small luxury that most Americans could enjoy? No longer. Most families can’t afford the temporary respite from cooking dinner for the family and cleaning up the kitchen afterwards.
Now, it’s an exercise in budgeting to even see if they can afford to eat at that restaurant.
Life on the value side
It probably comes as no surprise that more and more people are choosing to eat at home more often than eating out. Sure, Dave Ramsey may be proud of them for doing that, but that’s little consolation when it’s not a choice but a necessity.
The change in how Americans are eating doesn’t stop at the move to focusing on value menu items and eating out less. It is also affecting how people are eating at home. Clifford notes that nearly nine out of ten Americans surveyed “are changing the way they shop to fight inflated grocery bills.” And over 60% of those surveyed said they were stressed about the possibility of not being able to buy enough groceries within the month before the survey.
That’s just appalling. How many mothers and fathers does that include who are scared that they won’t be able to feed junior and their precious little girl? Worse still, earlier this month I read that a shocking 60% of families report skipping meals to save money. Nearly half have delayed payments on such essential expenses as utilities and rent.
Back in November, a survey found that 1 in 5 Americans said they’d taken out a loan to pay bills or rent. (And almost half said they weren’t sure they could pay it back.)
People working hard now are having difficulty making ends meet, and people who’ve worked hard their entire lives are scared that they may have to just stop eating until their next check comes in.
I’m not telling you all this so we can just wring our hands about how much these people are suffering. Or so we can tut-tut and shake our heads and judge them for failing financially.
This trend is important for two reasons.
First, the big-picture, macroeconomic reason: Consumer spending makes up 2/3 of total GDP. When families cut back spending, it’s bad news for the economy. Often a sign of imminent recession.
Second, the small-picture, microeconomic reason: When we see bad things happen to others, it’s natural to ask how we can avoid such fates. So what can we do?
Failing to plan is planning to fail
It’s a scary situation to find yourself in if you have children and grandchildren to feed, especially if you’re retired, depending on a fixed income. Finding yourself in a situation in which you struggle to make the most basic purchases to maintain your standard of living (not even luxury) isn’t just stressful. It’s humiliating.
Most families aren’t in that situation because they weren’t willing to work hard. They aren’t in this position because they avoided responsibility, or made bad decisions. Most of them followed a conventional path. They just never realized how much inflation could quietly erode their purchasing power over time.
They’re struggling because no one ever taught them how inflation compounds over years and decades. Or how important it is to plan for rising prices, how futile it is to think about future spending in today’s dollars. And that blind spot is catching up with them today.
Sadly, many more Americans will likely find themselves in the same situation, struggling with basic expenses, because they never took steps to ensure a comfortable retirement. They never learned that one of the biggest pillars of a stable financial future is making sure that your savings can endure the inflation that never goes away.
You, however, are different. You’re seeing a first-hand example of how failing to plan for the future is planning to fail in the future. Hopefully it’s not too late to correct this trajectory. You can take action right now to secure your purchasing power by diversifying with inflation-resistant stores of wealth.
Democrats Now Claim They Are The “Real” American Patriots
Leftists have never understood the phrase “If you can’t beat em’, join em'”. Instead, they believe that if they can’t defeat their political opponents in terms of logic, reason, morals, facts or the law, then their next best bet is to co-opt the enemy’s message and image without actually adopting their values..
Voters witnessed the first tinges of this strategy in 2024 when Kamala Harris claimed her campaign wasn’t woke (after years of saying Americans needed to be more woke) and Tim Walz pretended to be manly by talking about football and masculinity without knowing anything about either subject.
In 2025 going into 2026, however, the Democrats are taking their Talented Mr. Ripley routine to the next level. They don’t just want to compete with conservative messages, they are trying to steal the conservative identity by proclaiming themselves to be the “real” American patriots.
The new activist narrative (largely organized and funded by NGOs) runs with 1776 symbolism, claims that the US military is really on their side, argues that they are the true guardians of the constitution and that their revolution is one that the Founding Fathers would applaud.
In tandem with the “No Kings” protests, Dems like Jasmine Crockett argued that MAGA is “unpatriotic” and anti-constitution. She believes Democrats are the true patriots and that they are the barrier protecting Americans from “fascism.”
This theme has led to a number of protests which have abandoned woke symbols in favor of a carefully crafted “pro-America” costume. The theatrics often revolve around mass deportations of illegal aliens and lead to hilariously misguided grandstanding.
NEW: Anti-ICE activists used the 252nd anniversary of the Boston Tea Party to protest ICE and deportations.
Led by transgender and immigrant activists, they compared themselves to the United States’ Founding Fathers. After calling for ICE to leave Boston, they dumped chunks of… pic.twitter.com/EL6xuooq5p
In a bizarre twist, leftists are proclaiming their patriotism by actively aiding a foreign invasion of the US. Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries co-opted the words of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant as a strange justification for Democrat driven civil unrest, noting that “There are but two parties in America right now, patriots and traitors…” (conservatives, in his version of reality, being the traitors).
Hakeem Jeffries: “There are but two parties in America right now, patriots and traitors.”pic.twitter.com/oz5C7qSDVr
Keep in mind, Democrat activists are the same people who have been celebrating the deconstruction of western culture for years and assert that the constitution is meaningless because it was “written by slave owners.”
In 2022 at the height of their pandemic frenzy, Democrats in blue states and blue cities widely supported a flurry of freedom crushing mandates and pushed hard for the creation of a vaccine passport system which would effectively destroy the Bill of Rights by taking away citizen access to the economy if they refused to be injected with an experimental jab.
That same year, a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey found that 48% of voters favored President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies. The same survey showed that a disturbing number of Democrats also supported “Chinese-style” punishments for people who refused to take the jab.
Around 55% of Democrat voters were in favor of government enforced fines for the unvaccinated. Nearly 60% supported forced home confinement for the unvaccinated. 48% of Democrats were in favor of fines and prison time for anyone who publicly questioned the efficacy of the vaccines. Around 45% of Democrats supported the idea of confining the unvaccinated to “designated facilities” (covid camps) until they complied. 47% of Democrats favored the use of digital tracking for the unvaccinated.
Around 30% of progressive voters suggested taking children away from parents who refused to vaccinate. The Biden Administration and Democrats were exposed for violating constitutional law in their efforts to pressure social media companies to silence and censor conservative critics of covid policies (among other things).
Anyone who stood against the mandates was accused of being a threat to democracy and a potential terrorist. The Democrats initiated a propaganda war against US patriots; a war which they ultimately lost. Now, they want you to forget all about their many trespasses and accept their new image as “freedom fighters” saving the country from Trump’s tyrannical policies…which the majority of Americans voted for.
Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were indicted in the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced early on Jan. 3.
“Nicolás Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States,” Bondi said on X.
“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.”
Bondi issued the statement hours after Maduro and Flores were captured and extracted by U.S. armed forces in Caracas in the early hours of Jan. 3.
“On behalf of the entire U.S. DOJ, I would like to thank President [Donald] Trump for having the courage to demand accountability on behalf of the American People, and a huge thank you to our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers.”
Bondi’s announcement follows statements made by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who said he was told by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the strike on Venezuela’s capital was a means to protect law enforcement as they carried out an arrest warrant for Maduro.
Lee added that Rubio also told him that Maduro was “arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States.”
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau also emphasized that Maduro was expected to face legal action.
“The tyrant is gone,” Landau said on social media.
“He will now—finally—face justice for his crimes.”
In 2020, Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials were charged with narco-terrorism, corruption, drug trafficking and other charges in New York City, Miami, and Washington, D.C.
“The scope and magnitude of the drug trafficking alleged was made possible only because Maduro and others corrupted the institutions of Venezuela and provided political and military protection for the rampant narco-terrorism crimes described in our charges,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in the 2020 press release.
“As alleged, Maduro and the other defendants expressly intended to flood the United States with cocaine in order to undermine the health and wellbeing of our nation. Maduro very deliberately deployed cocaine as a weapon.”
The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Justice to clarify whether Bondi was referring to this 2020 indictment or not.
As Jonathan Turley reports, this operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega in 1989. There is precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela.
Here is part of the earlier description from the Justice Department of the indicted conduct:
“Maduro helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials. As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns. In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.”
Ordinarily, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other international agreements require the United States to notify the embassy of a foreign national arrested and held in the United States. Notice seems a tad superfluous in this case.
In his appeal, Noriega argued that his arrest violated international law under the head-of-state immunity doctrine. The district court rejected Noriega’s head-of-state immunity claim because the United States government never recognized Noriega as Panama’s legitimate ruler — an argument that will be made in the Maduro prosecution.
Noriega also argued that his capture violated the Treaty Providing for the Extradition of Criminals, May 25, 1904, United States of America-Republic of Panama, 34 Stat. 2851 (“U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty”). The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), however, was found to bar this argument. The issue was whether he was abducted to the United States with a superseding extradition treaty. The Eleventh Circuit held:
The article of the U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty upon which Noriega relies for his extradition treaty claim contains almost the same language as the provision of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty at issue in Alvarez-Machain. See U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty, art. 5 (“Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizen or subject ․”)…
Under Alvarez-Machain, to prevail on an extradition treaty claim, a defendant must demonstrate, by reference to the express language of a treaty and/or the established practice thereunder, that the United States affirmatively agreed not to seize foreign nationals from the territory of its treaty partner. Noriega has not carried this burden, and therefore, his claim fails.
The Noriega case offers ample support for the Trump Administration, which has had an outstanding arrest warrant for over five years. He is not viewed as the duly elected leader of Venezuela and has been tied to a criminal drug cartel.
Low-Wage Work Is Concentrated Among Less-Educated Workers
Workers without a high school diploma face the greatest exposure to low wages. Roughly two-thirds of this group—about 6.9 million people—earn less than $20 per hour, reflecting limited access to higher-paying occupations and fewer opportunities for advancement.
The table below breaks down low-wage workers by education level:
Among workers whose highest education is a high school diploma, 43% earn under $20 per hour. This group represents the largest number of low-wage workers overall, totaling nearly 15.9 million people.
Even some college education offers only partial protection. More than one-third of workers with some college (but no completed degree) earn below the $20 threshold, amounting to 12.9 million workers.
College Degrees Don’t Eliminate Low Wages
Higher education significantly lowers the likelihood of earning under $20 per hour, but it does not eliminate it. About 12% of workers with a college or advanced degree, roughly 7.2 million people, still fall below this pay level.
Overall, while education remains one of the strongest determinants of earnings, income outcomes depend on various factors, including industry mix, regional costs of living, and labor market conditions.
Russia, Iran, China Outraged At US ‘Flagrant Armed Aggression’ On Venezuela As EU Shrugs
The international reaction to America’s bombing campaign against Venezuela, during which time US special forces did a grab and nab of longtime President Nicolás Maduro has been predictably mixed.
Global leftist leaders condemned a US attack in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro in Caracas.
Brazil, Russia, Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba rejected the US military action, with some calling for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
US Democrats have raised questions over the legality of the strikes
While Europe has issued statements of placid acceptance – and also generally a ‘wait and see’ type approach – the reaction from BRICS countries and Washington rivals has been one of horror and swift condemnation.
First Russia: Moscow quickly condemned the blatant “act of armed aggression” against a sitting head of state and Russian ally, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. “In the current situation, it is important … to prevent further escalation and to focus on finding a way out of the situation through dialogue,” the ministry added.
“The pretexts used to justify these actions are untenable,” Moscow stressed. “Russia reaffirms its solidarity with the Venezuelan people.”
“Venezuela must be guaranteed the right to determine its own destiny without any destructive, military intervention from outside.
“We reaffirm our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and our support for its leadership’s policy of defending the country’s national interests and sovereignty,” it added.
Second Iran: Tehran itself has been in Trump’s crosshairs this week against ongoing protests focused on economic hardship in the country, amid crippling US-led sanctions and coming off a recent, brief war with Israel.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote on X, “What’s important is when one realizes an enemy wants to force something on one’s govt. or nation with false claims, they must stand firmly against that enemy.”
At this moment, however, there have been scant signs of any real fight or resistance on the part of the Venezuelan Army, suggesting this could have had help from the inside, akin to a coup which had the support of the US.
“We won’t give in to them. With reliance on God & confidence in the people’s support, we’ll bring the enemy to its knees,” Iran’s top cleric added.
EU leadership shrugs after long lecturing the world on the so-called “rules-based order”…
Unreal that the EU can’t even as much as condemn such a textbook act of aggression, after spending the past 3 years lecturing the world on the need to defend the inviolability of these principles 🤷♂️
Ukraine set aside, think about the precedent this sets for Greenland… https://t.co/DHalVJfChC
Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs separately said it “strongly condemns the American military attack on Venezuela and the flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.”
As for China, we know what they think, given the timing is a hugely symbolic shot across Beijing’s bow by Trump:
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro received a Chinese government representative at the presidential palace in Caracas on Friday, hours before US President Donald Trump claimed Maduro had been captured following American military strikes.
Maduro met Qiu Xiaoqi, special representative of the Chinese government on Latin American affairs, at the Miraflores Palace.
“I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi, Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping,” Maduro said on Telegram. “We reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.”
Insane timing…
China went to meet with Maduro today to discuss joining forces, then Trump captures Maduro the same day.
Savage.
In fact, the Chinese delegation is still in Venezuela.
Trump captures Maduro and sends a powerful message to Xi and China at the same time.
Mexico’s reaction: “The Mexican government strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by the armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations,” according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“Mexico emphatically reiterates that dialogue and negotiation are the only legitimate and effective means of resolving existing differences, and therefore reaffirms its willingness to support any efforts to facilitate dialogue, mediation, or accompaniment that contribute to preserving regional peace and avoiding confrontation.”
UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer shrugs, using an ambiguous and caution statement: “I want to establish the facts first. I want to speak to President Trump. I want to speak to allies. I can be absolutely clear that we were not involved … and I always say and believe we should all uphold international law,” Starmer said.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the strike in Venezuela was a “serious affront” to the country’s sovereignty.
The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line. These acts represent a most serious affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community,” he wrote on X.
” Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.”
“The Government of Colombia rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote Saturday on X, translated from Spanish.
“Internal conflicts between peoples are resolved by those same peoples in peace. That is the principle of the self-determination of peoples, which forms the foundation of the United Nations system. I invite the Venezuelan people to find the paths of civil dialogue and their unity. Without sovereignty, there is no nation. Peace is the way, and dialogue between peoples is fundamental for national unity. Dialogue and more dialogue is our proposal,” he added.
He called on the United Nations to “respond vigorously” to the attacks.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, the first secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, said the operation to capture Maduro was a “criminal attack,” adding that “our zone of peace is being brutally assaulted.”
* * *
Domestically, responses fell as always along partisan lines.
The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and the legal implications of the strike under U.S. law were not immediately clear.
The Trump administration maintains that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela and claims he has effectively turned Venezuela into a criminal enterprise at the service of drug traffickers and terrorist groups.
Mike Lee, a U.S. senator from Utah, said on X that the action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”
But some Democrats were more critical.
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement, “President Trump’s unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro — however terrible he is — is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.”
“This strike doesn’t represent strength. It’s not sound foreign policy,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) in a post on X, who pointed to polling that shows broad voter disapproval towards armed conflict in Venezuela.
“Congress did not authorize this war. Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.).
Trump dismissed his congressional critics as “weak and stupid people.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of GOP leadership, said in a post on X that Maduro was an “illegitimate dictator” who “ran a vast drug-trafficking operation” and would now “face justice for his crimes against our citizens.”
“The interim government in Venezuela must now decide whether to continue the drug trafficking and colluding with adversaries like Iran and Cuba or whether to act like a normal nation and return to the civilized world. I urge them to choose wisely,” Cotton added.
As Jonathan Turley reports, this operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega in 1989. There is precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela.
* * *
The capture of Nicolas Maduro is likely to have a significant impact across the region, with some leaders welcoming the intervention and others expressing concern over instability and potential migration.
Great powers make the rules up as they go – the US has a long history of it, doing it eg in Panama and Grenada but even more so under Trump. Russia and China ditto. Surely you don’t think this has a serious impact on China’s go/no go decision on Taiwan?
The data for this visualization comes from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (October 2025). GDP figures are measured in current U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.
The United States Remains on Top
Since 1980, the United States has consistently ranked as the world’s largest economy. Its GDP rose from about $2.9 trillion in 1980 to more than $30.6 trillion by 2025. While its global share has fluctuated, the U.S. has maintained its lead due to a large domestic market, deep capital markets, and sustained productivity growth.
China represents the most dramatic structural change in the global economy over the past 45 years.
In 1980, it ranked outside the top five, with GDP just over $300 billion. By 2010, China had already surpassed Germany and Japan, and by 2025 it stands firmly as the world’s second-largest economy at nearly $19.4 trillion.
Japan dominated the global economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, briefly narrowing the gap with the United States. However, slower growth and demographic headwinds caused it to lose ground, falling to fourth place by 2025.
Europe’s largest economies—Germany, the United Kingdom, and France—have remained among the top 10.
Emerging Markets Gain Ground
Beyond China, several emerging economies climbed into the top ranks. India’s GDP expanded from under $200 billion in 1980 to more than $4.1 trillion in 2025, placing it among the world’s five largest economies.
Outside of the top 10, countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Türkiye have also moved up the rankings, reflecting faster growth than many advanced economies over the long run.
Tukey is planning to send a drilling vessel to Somalia this February to begin its first deep water exploration project abroad, Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said on Friday.
The minister said the operation with the Cagri Bey drilling vessel will focus on offshore areas in Somalia’s waters, but did not elaborate further. Ankara signed an energy exploration agreement with Somalia last year and has been seeking ways to diversify energy sources and reduce its reliance on imports.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said earlier this week that a new drilling vessel would soon be operating on the Somali coast.
Alparslan’s announcement comes in the aftermath of Israel’s decision to recognize the separatist Republic of Somaliland. Israel last week became the first state to formally recognize Somaliland, which broke away from Somalia in 1991 but had never been recognized by any UN member state.
Somalia has slammed the move, which was also condemned by most members of the UN Security Council, as well as Turket.
“Preserving the unity and integrity of Somalia in all circumstances holds special importance in our view. Israel’s decision to recognize Somaliland is illegitimate and unacceptable,” Erdogan said.
Reports over the past year said Somaliland and Israel have been in talks to forcibly relocate displaced Palestinians from Gaza to the East African breakaway state.
Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said two days ago that Somali intelligence confirms Somaliland accepted three Israeli conditions in exchange for recognition – specifically the resettlement of Palestinians, an Israeli military base on the Gulf of Aden coast, and accession to the Abraham Accords. Somaliland has denied this.
According to a new report by Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN), Somaliland’s president is planning an official visit to Israel and is expected to formally join the Abraham Accords.
NOW – Turkey’s Erdogan condemns Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as an illegal act aimed at destabilizing “the entire Horn of Africa.” pic.twitter.com/3TCW085JZQ
Israel’s i24 news outlet had previously reported that the recognition came after months of secret negotiations between the two sides.
Somalia and Turkey have accused Israel of trying to destabilize the Horn of Africa. Meanwhile, Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement has vowed to target any potential Israeli presence in Somalia.
Far-Left Radicals Attack F-35 Stealth Jet’s UK Supply Chain
Far-left activists targeted a critical supply chain node supporting the F-35 stealth fighter jet program, an attack that directly undermines Western national security interests and raises questions about whether foreign adversaries provided material support.
Stu Smith, an investigative analyst and researcher focused on extremism, influence networks, and transnational political activism at the Manhattan Institute, posted a video on X showing that, in the early hours of the new year, a group of radical leftists broke into Bruntons Aero Products in Musselburgh, Scotland, and went on a smashing spree.
The aerospace manufacturer produces precision parts and assemblies that become components in larger systems (such as electronic-warfare or survivability systems produced by Leonardo and others) that are integrated into the stealth jet through OEM supply chains.
“So this wasn’t “property damage” in the abstract. They’re bragging about sabotaging a link in the supply chain for aircraft self-protection systems — the kind of tech meant to help jets like the F-35 survive radar-guided missile threats,” Smith said, adding, “It’s sabotage in pursuit of a political cause and that’s exactly what terrorism is.”
🚨 Activists Sabotage the Tech That Keeps F-35s From Getting Hit by Missiles
Only hours into 2026, an “autonomous” direct-action group says it broke into Bruntons Aero Products in Musselburgh, outside Edinburgh, and destroyed machinery used to manufacture aerospace components… pic.twitter.com/i8EY6CLboS
Calla Walsh, founder of PalAction U.S. and Unity of Fields, and co-chair of the National Network on Cuba, commented on the incident, saying, “New year, same duty: shut down the factories of death.” Recall, Walsh previously worked for Senator Ed Markey’s 2020 reelection campaign and volunteered with other Democratic-aligned political efforts before leaving electoral politics in 2022.
Smith reminded readers that the mission of the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) has been to disrupt and dismantle the F-35’s supply chain.
And just the other day, I pointed out that this U.S.-based group’s international footprint is an interesting pressure point—and a potential avenue for pushback. Does PYM have any connection to this “autonomous” group? https://t.co/t9vd4I1rSR
In late fall, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel urging an investigation into PYM’s Aisha Nizar for openly calling for the destruction of the F-35’s supply chain.
Whether PYM is the group that attacked Bruntons Aero Products remains to be seen. What should be clear, however, is that a war on the West is being waged through nonprofit networks with foreign influence.
Germany’s Family Businesses Warn: Taxes, Energy Costs, And Bureaucracy Are Killing Competitiveness
Submitted by Thomas Kolbe
At the turn of the year, the Foundation for Family Businesses, together with the ifo Institute, presented a corporate survey on tax policy and location attractiveness. The result is unequivocal: Germany is too expensive and no longer competitive as a business location.
There is nothing new under the sun. In their year-end Annual Monitor, the Foundation for Family Businesses and the ifo Institute once again went straight to the heart of the matter. A total of 1,705 companies across all sectors and size categories were surveyed on their assessment of current tax policy and Germany’s attractiveness as a business location. The evaluation of this corporate panel—1,358 of which were traditional family-owned businesses—turned out to be devastating, as expected.
Overburdened Labor Factor
More than 80 percent of companies perceive the overall tax and contribution burden—particularly in the area of personnel costs, i.e., wage taxes and social security contributions—as far too high. The heavy burden on the employee side is especially criticized by smaller family-owned businesses. It has become increasingly difficult to grant wage increases when the fiscal authorities take the lion’s share and key performers are bled ever more heavily with each pay raise due to the continuous increase in social security contribution ceilings.
This assessment is shared by Professor Rainer Kirchdörfer, member of the Foundation’s executive board, who comments on the study:
“Our new Annual Monitor shows just how much employers and employees are pulling in the same direction. It is precisely the high taxes on labor that paralyze both sides and drain the joy from performance. High-tax Germany has also lost ground here.”
Two-thirds of surveyed executives complain about excessive income tax rates. Income tax is particularly relevant for partnerships—and by international standards it is clearly too high. A recurring grievance is also the complexity of Germany’s tax system. The familiar quip holds that roughly two-thirds of global tax law literature originates in the Federal Republic. Even if exaggerated, the message is clear: Germany is a bureaucrat’s paradise.
Currently, 5.4 million people work in the public sector—around half a million more than five years ago. This despite technological progress, artificial intelligence, and increasing automation of internal processes.
The Bureaucracy Reduction Classic
A tangible reduction in bureaucracy, including tax law, has been overdue for decades. Yet no federal government dares to tackle this hot potato. German bureaucracy has grown too powerful, evolving at all levels into a state within the state. At the same time, policymakers view the public sector as a kind of buffer for a labor market that has slowly but steadily tipped.
As a reminder: over the past three years, German companies have been forced to create 325,000 additional jobs merely to cope with the ever-expanding bureaucratic workload. The state is effectively outsourcing its ballooning documentation, archiving, and compliance requirements to the private sector.
Ranked second and third among entrepreneurs’ main points of criticism are rising local business taxes (Gewerbesteuer) and energy-related levies. Both factors are likely to play a significant role in 2026. Municipal budgets, paralyzed by a cumulative deficit of €35 billion last year, are virtually screaming for sharp increases in local business tax rates.
This threatens to trigger a tax-driven recessionary spiral initiated by local governments seeking short-term relief—particularly in regions hard hit by the industrial downturn, such as the automotive hubs of Stuttgart, Ingolstadt, and Wolfsburg.
Additional Pressure from Energy Levies
As of January 1, 2026, under the Fuel Emissions Trading Act (BEHG), the CO₂ price corridor will rise to between €55 and €65 per ton. This represents another substantial erosion of Germany’s economic substance, as it struggles to keep energy-intensive production in the country amid intensifying competition with China and the United States.
Entrepreneurs’ demands are clear: a reduction in the electricity tax is long overdue as a first step toward restoring the competitiveness of German industry. The abolition of the solidarity surcharge, alongside an accelerated reduction in corporate taxes, also ranks high on the business community’s wish list for the coming year.
Germany is too expensive as a business location by OECD standards. Since 2018, this has also become evident in overall economic productivity, which has stagnated and even declined slightly in recent quarters.
Valid Criticism, But the Root Problem Remains Untouched
There is no question that entrepreneurs are correct in their assessment of fiscal overburdening on companies and private households. The German state has expanded excessively and—given steadily rising public debt—is increasingly living at the expense of future generations.
What is striking, however, is what the study fails to address. Neither the billion-euro follow-up costs of migration into Germany’s welfare system nor the fiscal and real-economic consequences of centrally planned climate policy are included in the assessment. Yet both factors significantly contribute to rising tax burdens and have sustainably weakened Germany’s industrial base.
What has materialized in energy costs—burdens sometimes three times higher than those in competing locations such as France or the United States—must become the subject of a broad public debate if a return to rational economic policy is ever to be possible.
Under the current federal government led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, this appears fundamentally out of reach.
If not Germany’s economic middle class, who should initiate such a debate openly and courageously? We are still waiting for the icebreaker capable of overcoming the dogma of the alleged lack of alternatives in climate policy in a practical, rational, and unresentful manner. And it remains all too easy for policymakers, operating in an entrenched mode of accelerated debt accumulation, to align incentive structures and a lavishly funded subsidy machine in such a way that any critical voice from the business sector is ultimately silenced.
In the end, the study delivers a rapid situational assessment from which the familiar criticism emerges—criticism that, at all costs, seeks to avoid a collision with an ideologically hardened climate-socialist policy.
