As the people of Ukraine know, neighborliness is not among Putin’s great qualities.
Still, it was with a reference to the US and Russia being neighbors that Putin kicked off his conversation with President Trump in Alaska yesterday.
On the red carpet at the airport he apparently said to Trump: “Good afternoon, dear neighbor. Very good to see you in good health and to see you alive.”
…
Trump’s own remarks at the joint press conference were friendly and formal.
But he acknowledged that while the talks were a start there was no deal.
Because there were still a number of small things and “one which is the most significant” that the two sides had not agreed on.
Presumably that one big thing was whether or not Putin should be allowed to keep the territory of Ukraine that his forces have already annexed.
This is a point of contention not only for the Ukrainian people, but for America´s NATO allies, who are united in the belief that giving Putin something of Ukraine will not satisfy his appetite for land, but only encourage it.
There are those at home in the US who say that this is fever-dream of war-mongers. But America’s allies in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Finland, Sweden and nearly all of the rest of Europe fear it.
And for them this is not some theoretical, grand-strategy game.
It is a matter of whether their countries will be at existential risk of invasion by Putin next.
And so, now, in Alaska, Mr. Trump sits down with Vlad Putin to attempt a settling of Ukraine’s hash. This war has been a three-year bloody grind, millions killed, mostly Ukrainians, provoked underhandedly by US State Dept / CIA neocons, Britain’s MI6 apparatus, and the girl-bosses of the EU, for no good reason, namely, to weaken and possibly break-up Russia so as to get at its vast mineral and energy resources. This has been tried before in history, always to the grief of the triers.
From our country’s point of view, the dynamics in play at this moment are delicate to an extreme. In the background of the Trump-Putin meet-up, amid an eerie silence in the DOJ and FBI, an epic, sweeping prosecution of the RussiaGate hoaxers creeps forward. RussiaGate, of course, was born in the false charge (by America’s highest officials, derived from nonsense cooked up by Hillary Clinton) that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.
. It was preposterous and continually disproven, but the many-footed creatures of America’s deep state, which controlled so many levers of power, dragged it out for years. Altogether, that endeavor amounted to a campaign of sedition and arguably treason.
The delicacy comes in as President Trump must now avoid at all costs any appearance of giving-in to Mr. Putin, of appearing to be any sort of a vassal — “Putin’s puppet,” as charged in RussiaGate.
The raw truth is that Russia has likely already “won” the war in Ukraine, in the sense that it has finally gained control of the battlespace and worn out its opponent. It is fait accompli. What remains is the disposition of Ukraine’s future which, in another raw truth, is mostly Russia’s to determine.
Yet another raw truth is that this would probably be the best outcome for all concerned: a neutralized, disarmed Ukraine returned to its prior condition as a mostly agricultural sovereign backwater of Europe within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, resuming its longstanding status as not being a problem for anyone.
Still, yet another raw truth is that the USA would benefit hugely from normalized relations with Russia, no more sanctions, fair trade, a rebalance of the drift toward China, lessening the chance of nuclear war — and this would even benefit the knuckleheads of Europe whose economies are imploding due to a lack of affordable energy (and also because of, let’s face it, the EU’s terrifically stupid “green” policies).
All of which means there will necessarily be a lot of “pretend” played in Anchorage for show. Mr. Trump must pretend to be tough on Putin, and Mr. Putin must pretend, a little bit, to give-in to Mr. Trump’ proposals. That is, it will be something of a kabuki, a kafabe. Surely, many of the stickiest points have been pre-negotiated by Mr. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, who quietly visited Moscow a week ago.
Mr. Trump must appear strong with Russia because his appointees are commencing to go medieval on the folks who called him “Putin’s Puppet” nine years ago — and subjected him to a series of epic torments including the subversion of his whole first term in office, nonstop obloquy from the media, impeachment (X 2), home invasion, and a grotesque set of malicious, nitwit prosecutions that have either failed completely (Fani Willis, Jack Smith) or will be subject to humiliating reversals in the higher courts. Not to mention two attempted assassinations.
You should assume that Mr. Putin well understands all this and intends to play along. He will appear to make some generous concessions to Ukraine, starting with the promise that it can go forward as a sovereign, self-governing nation.
The big enchilada might be to grant that Ukraine can retain possession of Odessa, the port city on the Black Sea which is Ukraine’s depot for export to the world of its chief commodity, grains. In any case, both Russia and the USA intend to relieve Volodymyr Zelenskyy of his duties — notice he is conspicuously not invited to the Alaska meeting.
Mr. Trump well understands that one way or another, Russia is going to prevail in this conflict on-the-ground. He abhors all the killing. He has already expressed a disinclination to keep backing the war with money and weapons. He must be disgusted at how the Bidens (and the Deep State) used Ukraine as a money-laundry, as a site for bioweapons labs, and how it served as a nexus for human trafficking.
He also knows that Russia wants badly to be re-admitted to normal relations with the West, which is in everybody’s interest, except perhaps China’s. You should infer therefore that Russia wants the war to end in a way that does not humiliate the losers and backers — perhaps along the lines of how America managed our victory against our enemies in World War Two, carefully and gracefully.
Democrat New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was indicted on federal charges on Friday.
A federal grand jury indicted Cantrell and former New Orleans Police officer Jeffrey Vappie after an investigation by the FBI.
Details of the indictment are forthcoming.
WVUE reported:
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday, August 15, marking the first time in the city’s history that a sitting mayor is facing criminal prosecution.
The mayor’s legal troubles come after more than two years of mounting criticism including; an alleged romantic relationship involving her former executive security officer, a legal battle with a New Orleans resident who took photos of the alleged relationship, a legal battle with New orleans Public Schools over a broken multi-million dollar funding promise, the indictment of a former city inspector who allegedly bribed her with Saints tickets, and frequent travel amid an ongoing jail escape and in the aftermath of a mass power outage.
Details of the indictment have not yet been released at this time.
Last year it was reported that LaToya Cantrell was under FBI investigation for allegations of an ‘ongoing adulterous affair’ with Jeffrey Vappie, the former head of her police detail, and potential misuse of taxpayer funds, according to the Daily Mail.
The FBI scrutinized the mayor’s actions, including her time spent with Vappie on city property and during personal trips funded by the government.
Security footage has allegedly captured Mayor Cantrell and Vappie spending extensive periods together in a city-owned apartment during work hours, raising questions about the nature of their relationship.
Source: fox8live This revelation comes amidst an investigation into Vappie’s work hours and activities.
In 2023, Vappie was accused of multiple incidents of timesheet discrepancies while serving on Mayor Cantrell’s security detail. This accusation partly stemmed from WVUE-TV’s reports on the mayor’s use of an Upper Pontalba apartment on Jackson Square. In response, the City Council prohibited the mayor from using the apartment as a personal residence.
According to the New Orleans Advocate, the investigation by the New Orleans Police Department concluded that Vappie breached departmental regulations by logging 18 hours of work in a single day. Additionally, he was cited for spending “numerous hours” in the company of Mayor Cantrell beyond his scheduled duty hours, and for participating in two board meetings as the mayor’s appointee on the Board of the Housing Authority of New Orleans.
The allegations have been fueled by Danielle Vappie’s divorce filings, which imply an affair between her husband and Cantrell dating back in May 2021, coinciding with the start of Vappie’s tenure on Cantrell’s security detail.
Cantrell was previously under fire for spending more than $30,000 of taxpayer money to fly first class to Europe.
Cantrell argued the first class flights were for her safety as a black woman and to protect her from Covid.
President Trump arrived in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday with a single urgent demand for his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin: a ceasefire in Ukraine, and he wants it immediately. “I’m not going to be happy if it’s not today… I want the killing to stop,” Trump told reporters as he headed to the high-stakes summit, which is taking place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a Cold War–era military facility. Trump will greet Putin upon arrival, a symbolic gesture underscoring the significance of the talks.
If the meeting goes well, a follow-up summit that includes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will be the next step, one that, according to Hillary Clinton of all people, could even put Trump in line for a Nobel Peace Prize if he manages to broker an end to the bloody, grinding war between Russia and Ukraine. Not only that, but she also says she’d nominate him herself.
Yes, you read that right. On Jessica Tarlov’s “Raging Moderates” podcast, Tarlov asked what she would be aiming for if she were heading to Alaska to meet Putin, drawing on her experience as a former secretary of state. Clinton was candid in her response. She said she personally wouldn’t be going but acknowledged the reality that President Trump had chosen to take on the mission at a military base on U.S. soil. She said her focus would be on convincing Trump that “he gains nothing by capitulating to Putin.”
Clinton revealed that, from what she’s gathered, Trump “very much would like to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.”
“Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war where Putin is the aggressor invading a neighbor country, try to change the borders, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, had to in a way validate Putin’s vision of Greater Russia, but instead could really stand up to Putin, something we haven’t seen, but maybe this is the opportunity,” she said.
Clinton laid out the conditions she would demand: a ceasefire with “no exchange of territory” and Putin gradually withdrawing from seized lands over time to demonstrate “good faith efforts, let us say, not to threaten European security.” She said, “If we could pull that off, if President Trump were the architect of that, I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.” Her main goal was to prevent “capitulation to Putin, aided and abetted by the United States.” She warned that any such capitulation would set “a terrible, terrible precedent,” making America “less safe” and rewarding Putin’s aggression, which “he will not stop.”
Clinton closed on a note that mixed skepticism with hope: “You can dream, Jessica, you can dream. And I’m dreaming that for whatever combination of reasons, including the elusive Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump may actually stand up to Putin on behalf of not just Ukraine and its democracy and its very brave people, but frankly, on behalf of our own security and interests.”
Does she mean it? I wouldn’t trust a Clinton as far as I could throw one. But watching her have to swallow those words? That would be priceless.
Imagine Hillary Clinton having to endorse Trump for peace! If you’re sick of the media’s selective outrage, PJ Media dives deeper where others fear to tread. Unlock exclusive analysis with PJ Media VIP. Use the code FIGHT for 60% off. Stand with free speech — support fearless journalism today!
“He’s a great columnist. I think he’s terrific.” – Mark Levin
Matt Margolis is a conservative commentator and columnist. His work has been cited on Fox News and national conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dan Bongino Show. Matt is the author of several books and has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice News, Salem News Channel, and even CNN.
Imagine a world where a silent prayer lands you in court, where a meme earns you a prison sentence, and where the government monitors your social media posts—not for threats of violence, but for wrong-think. This isn’t the plot of a dystopian novel; it’s modern Britain, where the once-cherished principles of free expression are being dismantled brick by brick under the guise of “safety” and “protection.” The United States State Department, in a scathing indictment of the UK’s rapidly deteriorating free speech landscape, has sounded the alarm: Britain is no longer a beacon of democratic values but a cautionary tale of how quickly liberty can erode when power-hungry officials decide what truths are permissible. The Online Safety Act, sold to the public as a shield for children, has instead become a sword wielded against dissenters, journalists, and even silent protesters. And if America doesn’t take heed, the same forces of censorship will soon knock on our doors.
The irony is bitter. The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta, that stood defiant against tyranny in two world wars, now arrests citizens for posting memes, jails mothers for social media comments, and threatens prayerful grandfathers with fines. This isn’t just a slippery slope—it’s a free-fall into authoritarianism, disguised as progressive governance. The question isn’t whether Britain has lost its way; it’s whether the rest of the world will follow.
Key points:
The US State Department’s 2024 Human Rights Report explicitly condemns Britain’s Online Safety Act, calling it a tool of government censorship that suppresses political and religious speech under the pretense of child protection.
Lucy Connolly, a mother and former childcare giver, is serving a 2.5-year prison sentence for a single social media post—her appeal rejected in July—while Adam Smith-Connor, a British Army veteran, was fined £9,000 for silently praying near an abortion clinic.
The UK government monitored and flagged “concerning narratives” through a secretive Whitehall unit, threatening arrests to chill public debate, particularly after the Southport murders, where officials silenced discussions about the attacker’s background.
Ofcom, Britain’s media regulator, now has sweeping powers to fine tech companies up to 10% of global revenue (or £18 million) if they fail to censor “harmful” content—including political debates and criticism of government policies.
The Online Safety Act criminalizes “false communications” with vague definitions, allowing prosecutors to target satire, memes, and dissenting opinions while exempting mainstream media—creating a two-tiered system of free speech.
US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have privately met with persecuted UK activists, warning that Britain’s crackdown on speech is a direct threat to American values and could embolden global censorship efforts.
The EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Bill are part of a coordinated global push to police online speech, with former Big Tech executives now leading censorship bodies, raising conflicts of interest.
Encryption and privacy are under attack, as the law pressures platforms to weaken security in the name of “safety,” leaving users vulnerable to government surveillance.
From Magna Carta to memory holes: How Britain betrayed its legacy.
There was a time when Britain stood as a bulwark against tyranny. The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, was one of history’s first declarations that even kings were not above the law. Centuries later, British thinkers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill shaped the very foundations of free speech, arguing that the marketplace of ideas—no matter how messy—was essential to a functioning democracy. Yet today, the descendants of those same philosophers are being arrested for memes, jailed for prayers, and silenced for questioning official narratives.
The Online Safety Act, passed in 2023 and enforced in 2024, is the crown jewel of this authoritarian transformation. Sold as a measure to protect children from online harms, the law instead grants Ofcom—Britain’s state media regulator—unprecedented power to dictate what can and cannot be said online. Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to 10% of their global revenue—a financial death sentence for any platform that resists. But the real targets aren’t just corporations; they’re ordinary citizens who dare to challenge the government’s version of reality.
Take Lucy Connolly, a 48-year-old mother and wife of a Conservative councillor. Her crime? Posting a single message on X (formerly Twitter) in the aftermath of the Southport murders, where three young girls were stabbed to death. The government, desperate to suppress discussions about the attacker’s background, pounced. Connolly was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 2.5 years in prison. Her appeal was rejected in July, ensuring she remains behind bars until late August. This isn’t justice—it’s political persecution, a warning to others that dissent will be punished.
Then there’s Adam Smith-Connor, a British Army veteran who was fined £9,000 for the crime of silent prayer near an abortion clinic. No protest signs, no shouting—just standing in quiet reflection. Yet under Britain’s “buffer zone” laws, even thought itself is now policed. His case drew international attention, with US Vice President JD Vance citing it in a speech in Munich as evidence of Britain’s “alarming decline in free expression.” In March, Smith-Connor met with US State Department officials, who confirmed what many already feared: Britain is systematically eroding religious and political freedoms.
The Southport murders became a turning point. After the attack, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson issued a chilling warning: anyone who “reposts, repeats, or amplifies” messages deemed “false or inciting hatred” could face prosecution and extradition. The government even released a propaganda video urging citizens to “Think before you post!”—a not-so-subtle threat that Big Brother is watching. Arrests followed, though some charges were later dropped, revealing a pattern of selective enforcement designed to intimidate the public into silence.
The censorship industrial complex: How governments and Big Tech collude to control speech
Britain’s descent into authoritarianism didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s part of a global crackdown on free speech, where governments and Big Tech oligarchs work hand in hand to define, monitor, and punish “unacceptable” opinions. The Online Safety Act is just one piece of a much larger puzzle—a censorship industrial complex that spans continents.
In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes similar restrictions, forcing platforms to remove “misinformation” or face massive fines. The law explicitly targets “divisive material”, including criticism of COVID-19 policies and skepticism of official narratives. Meanwhile, the UK’s Online Safety Bill goes even further, criminalizing “false communications” with prison sentences of up to 51 weeks. The problem? No clear definitions of what constitutes “false,” “harmful,” or “reasonable excuse.” In practice, this means prosecutors and algorithms—not juries—decide what’s allowed.
Worse still, the enforcers of these laws are often former Big Tech insiders. The UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) is now led by Gill Whitehead, a former Google executive. Other top regulators have ties to Meta and Amazon, creating a revolving door between Silicon Valley and the censorship state. This isn’t just regulatory capture—it’s a hostile takeover of free speech by the same corporations that profit from controlling information.
The US State Department’s report highlights another disturbing trend: the weaponization of “hate speech” laws to target political opponents. In Britain, pro-life activists, immigration critics, and COVID-19 skeptics have all been arrested, fined, or imprisoned for peaceful expression. The selective enforcement is glaring—while anti-Semitic threats (rightfully condemned) are met with outrage, a meme about knife crime can land you in jail for eight weeks.
And let’s not forget the encryption kill switch. The Online Safety Act includes provisions that pressure tech companies to weaken encryption, ostensibly to catch “harmful” content. But as digital rights experts warn, this destroys user privacy, making everyone vulnerable to government surveillance. If Britain can monitor private messages for “wrongthink,” what’s to stop other nations—or even the US—from doing the same?
America’s moment of reckoning: Will we follow Britain’s path or resist the censorship tide?
Could not delete image
The US State Department’s report isn’t just a condemnation of Britain—it’s a warning to America. The same censorship mechanisms being deployed in the UK are already taking root here. The Biden administration has been accused of colluding with social media platforms to suppress dissent, particularly on COVID-19 policies and election integrity. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed new digital oversight bureaus, and Congress has floated bills that would gut Section 230—the law that protects free speech online.
If Britain’s Online Safety Act is any indication, America could be next. The playbook is the same:
Pass laws under the guise of “safety.”
Empower regulators to define “harmful” speech.
Fine and intimidate platforms into compliance.
Arrest and prosecute dissenters to set an example.
The only thing standing in the way is public resistance. The US State Department’s strong stance—delayed and strengthened under Trump-appointed officials—shows that some in Washington still understand the stakes. But will Congress, the courts, and the American people push back before it’s too late?
The fight for free speech is the fight for democracy itself. Britain’s authoritarian turn didn’t happen overnight—it was the result of years of complacency, of trusting governments and corporations to define the boundaries of acceptable thought. Now, prayer is a crime, memes are “hate speech”, and truth is whatever the state says it is.
America must learn from Britain’s mistakes. We must reject censorship in all its forms, whether it comes from London, Brussels, or Washington. The first casualty of tyranny is always the truth. The question is: Will we let it die without a fight?
A voter may dislike a black, homosexual or female candidate, but it’s not likely that he would openly admit it. However, diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are be leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men. While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual, something that pleases diversity crazies, he is also a white man, young and religious. With Kamala Harris’ departure from the race, the Democratic field has lost one of its persons of color. Another, Senator Cory Booker, stands at 2% in the polls; his days are numbered. That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman, Elizabeth Warren.
LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts. Brown said: “I’m over white men running the country. I don’t know if him (sic) getting in changes the field. He has name recognition, but his strength is also his weakness.” Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented, “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.” The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes, Michael Bloomberg, had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker “well-spoken” in a TV interview. The New Jersey senator said he was “taken aback” by what he saw as Bloomberg’s racist “trope.”
Michael Moore gave us his racist warning: “Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.”
This is the new racism, much of it learned and taught at our nation’s colleges. George Orwell said, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses. If their ideas didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment. But these cancerous ideas have infected society. Statements such as “I’m over white men running the country,” or “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose” are examples of that cancer.
Last year, Philip Carl Salzman wrote “The War Against White People” in Minding the Campus. He declared: “Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.”
When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he said of working-class white voters, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were “a basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump’s black, Asian and Hispanic supporters? No, she was talking about millions of Trump’s white supporters.
Then there’s Sarah Jeong, a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions. Among them are: “The world could get by just fine with zero white people.” “Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black, Hispanic or homosexual people.
The bottom line is that the new racism, born in academia, is just as ugly as the old racism.
Walter E. Williams was a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.
Artificial intelligence isn’t just a buzzword anymore. It’s actively reshaping today’s job market by automating mundane tasks, enabling new business strategies, and more. Moving forward, companies will expect workers to meaningfully interact with AI tools. Here’s how to stay ahead.
Using AI Tools Like ChatGPT
Using AI tools like ChatGPT is becoming a regular part of work in many industries, but it’s not just about typing in questions—it’s about knowing how to ask the right ones. Prompt engineering means giving AI clear, specific instructions so it can give you helpful answers.
Think of working with AI tools in this way as being similar to using Google, but way more powerful. Whether you’re brainstorming ideas, drafting emails, or summarizing long documents, mastering AI tools will save you time. These skills are growing in demand and the best part is, they’re easy to practice.
Understanding the Tech Without Being a Techie
You don’t need to be a software engineer to understand how AI works, but you do need to be tech-savvy enough to speak the language. For instance, most AI systems run on programming languages like Python, and utilize spreadsheets and databases. Additionally, if you can learn how to sort and analyze data (even at a beginner level), you’ll instantly become more valuable in almost any role.
Knowing how to ask the right questions about data or being able to follow what the tech team is saying during a meeting can make all the difference. Consider taking a few tutorials in tools like Excel or programming languages at the beginner level, as it will set you apart from many other candidates and non-tech workers.
How AI Models Work
Machine learning is the part of AI where computers learn from examples, similar to how we learn through experience. For example, if you give an AI thousands of images of cats and dogs, it can learn to tell the difference. Indeed, that is machine learning in action.
The challenge is to keep the AI working properly, ensuring that it doesn’t break or start providing weird results. This process of maintenance is called Machine Learning Operations (MLOps). Even if you’re not the person writing the code, understanding this process can help you work smart with the tech team.
AI Ethics
Ethical AI adoption has become a boardroom concern. In the coming years AI skills will center around fairness and transparency, and you’ll be expected to think beyond bias. In other words, you’ll have to ask yourself: “What are the social and legal implications of implementing and using AI in the context of my role/organization?”
As AI makes its way into various industries, companies are investing in more “guardrails,” so to speak, so professionals who can spot bias, craft effective and balanced prompts, and explain AI “behavior” will be in high demand.
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Although AI excels at pattern recognition, it lacks the ability to define problems and think critically, which is where you (yes, you!) come in. Employers value critical thinking as a core skill, especially when it comes to AI.
If you’re able to properly frame questions, pivot when new problems arise, and interpret odd or ambiguous output from AI, you’ll be considered a pro at directing AI. Remember, the ability to learn, adapt, and think critically is a key differentiator that AI cannot replicate.
Soft Skills
Even with our new AI overlords (just kidding) popping up all over the place, human skills matter now more than ever. Most employers cite adaptability, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution as vital skills—ones that AI can’t replicate.
Along with the soft skills mentioned above, communication is key. If you’ve become well-versed in AI systems and related tools, your ability to communicate effectively with the tech team will make you a valuable asset. For more on critical soft skills in the age of AI, check out our advice here.
Continuous Learning
AI is moving fast, and what’s considered cutting-edge now could be outdated next year. That’s why it’s incredibly important to adopt the mindset of continuous learning. Employers like to see that you’re curious, open to change, and eager to keep up with new tools and ideas.
Continuous learning in this context could mean reading up on current trends, taking a short online course, or simply experimenting with AI systems. You don’t need to know everything; just show that you’re willing to keep learning. This mindset will make you valuable in any industry.
You don’t have to become a full-time AI expert to thrive in today’s job market, but it would be advantageous to start looking into how AI fits into your current or future role. If you start building the right skills and knowledge now, it will benefit your career down the line.
Author’s Note: Having recently read about the Shroud of Turin and heard the words “write about me” in a recent dream, this article was researched and composed.
God the Creator has graciously preserved and given to humanity an astounding, miraculous, 2,000-year old gift, a precious holy relic. It is the Shroud of Turin, the recently authenticated burial cloth of Jesus Christ determined by extensive research and scientific examination to be the genuine article. For sure, the implications of this finding are far reaching.
The 14.5 x 3.7 foot Shroud contains a face-up image of a man with blood stains on his forehead, wrists, side, and feet; exactly the areas of the body where the Christian Bible describes how Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified by Roman soldiers. Below is the facial image on the Shroud:
Recent research indicates that the fabric of the Shroud is characteristic of fabrics woven in Israel during the first century and that the fabric contains microscopic residue of plants known to exist around Jerusalem.
A recent Newsmax post states: “Dr. Robert Harrington, a renowned skeptic and scientist, recently shocked his colleagues and peers when he announced his conversion to Christianity after a groundbreaking investigation into the Shroud of Turin.”
“Dr. Harrington embarked on his study of the Shroud intending to debunk its authenticity. However, as he delved deeper into the analysis, employing cutting-edge technology and methodologies, he encountered findings that challenged his scientific and personal beliefs.”
“‘I approached this study with a critical mind, ready to expose what I believed was a long-standing historical fabrication,’ Dr. Harrington explained. ‘But the evidence we uncovered was so compelling that it left no room for doubt. This is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.’”
Extensive examination of the Shroud indicates, among other things, that the blood and other bodily fluids/stains on the fabric were “burned” into the fabric by a tremendous burst of energy unexplainable by scientific examination. In fact, the study group of the Shroud of Turin Research Project that included 35 physicists, chemists, NASA image specialists, electrical engineers, a forensic pathologist, and others, determined that:
* the Shroud’s image appears to be created by an oscillating strobe of high intensity light coming from inside the body;
* the burning event happened in 1/40 of a billion of a second like a laser beam, moving 2.5 billion watts of electricity; to create a similar light, one would need all the electric power generated on Earth!
Given all the above, the question arises: what should the information and findings about the Shroud of Turin mean to people? The following comments and conclusions are offered:
* The latest scientific findings—using devices that scan deep space and probe the smallest nanoparticles of the human cell—-have verified claims many Christians have long held about the Shroud; that it is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
* The Shroud establishes the fact that Jesus was a real person who was crucified and died. His body was wrapped in a burial cloth where it underwent a tremendous burst of energy so powerful that modern science cannot explain such a tremendously powerful event.
* The Bible says that God raised Jesus from his dead body and that he, in his resurrected body, interacted with hundreds of people for another 40 days proving that he had overcome death so that people would have faith in him and assurance of an afterlife with their Heavenly Father. At the end of the 40-day period, the Bible says that Jesus returned to Heaven to “sit at God’s right hand”.
* The Bible says that God provides a pathway to a joyous, eternal life with him in Heaven but only through faith and trust in his Son, Jesus of Nazareth, who died as atonement for people’s unrighteous behavior (sins). Absent faith and trust in Jesus and because of their sinful lives, people are subject to God’s wrath leading to an eternity in the “lake of fire”, i. e., Hell.
* Christians believe that God sent Jesus to live among people to demonstrate how to live a life pleasing to God. The fruits of such a righteous life include attributes and outward demonstrations of joy, love, patience, peace, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. The Bible records many of Jesus’ activities, miracles, and teachings in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
* The Bible says that when a person admits that he/she is a sinner and accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, God provides a counselor, the Holy Spirit, to live in the heart of that person to help him/her navigate through earthly life, using God’s word (the Bible) as a guide.
The Shroud of Turin is a message of hope and assurance to anyone searching for meaning in life or unsure about what will happen to them (their souls) upon their earthly death. Jesus is recorded saying in John’s gospel, chapter 3, verse 16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”.
God has graciously given us a special gift, a holy relic that is truly precious and miraculous. The Shroud is under protective covering in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is a reminder to people to focus their lives much more on Jesus, to have faith and trust in him as God’s Son, and focus much less on earthly problems and endeavors.
Further information about Christianity can be found at the Christian Reformed Church in North America or Billy Graham Evangelical Association.
Although the stated purpose of today’s Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is to discuss how to end the war in Ukraine, the meeting will also be an important demonstration of how Trump is restoring America’s leadership on the world stage and establishing himself as one of America’s most powerful and influential presidents.
Trump’s critics predictably claim Putin manipulated him with his proposal to hold a summit to stop the crippling energy sanctions that Trump was about to impose on Russia and to buy time to continue the war.
Given Trump’s much-reported frustration with Putin and several decisive foreign policy moves by the president during his second term, especially Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, I believe Putin realizes that Trump will react harshly against Russia if he does not come to the summit ready to negotiate an end to the war or presses for demands that Trump views as unreasonable.
Trump is sure to encourage Putin to agree to a cease-fire. He will argue that he is the only leader on the world stage—now and in the foreseeable future—who will ever make the Russian leader a deal to halt the war that will end Russia’s isolation and restore Russia’s economy. This is consistent with Trump’s landmark speech in Saudi Arabia last May, when he said America should no longer have permanent enemies and that he wants to promote a new world order of global security through trade and prosperity.
Trump will also discuss other global issues with Putin on which the U.S. and Russia might cooperate, such as global trade, the Israel-Hamas war, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, North Korea, Arctic energy cooperation, and terrorism. Such discussions could be part of a broader deal to begin new U.S.-Russia partnerships on global security and economic matters.
Several Trump critics have criticized the summit as a “win” for Putin and an ill-advised concession by Trump that rewards Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This claim is false. American and Russian presidents should meet and speak by phone frequently to promote good relations and global security. Trump believes U.S. presidents should meet with the leaders of all states, both friends and foes. This is good statesmanship. President Biden was at fault for causing U.S.-Russian relations to seriously deteriorate by not speaking to Putin after February 2022, even by phone. Instead, Biden constantly demonized Putin, including calling him a war criminal and likening the Russian leader to Hamas.
President Trump deserves credit for the extensive efforts he and his team have taken to consult with Ukrainian President Zelensky and European leaders about the summit despite their strong reservations about the meeting and objections that they have been excluded.
Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Putin is reasonable. After all, Trump has met with Zelinsky and many European leaders one-on-one, some on multiple occasions. European leaders want to be at the summit because they don’t trust Trump and think they know better than him on how to deal with Putin. If this is true, one has to ask why Europe did nothing to end the war in Ukraine before Trump was elected. And why did French and British leaders never invite Putin for summits with them in London or Paris over the past three years to discuss a cease-fire in the Ukraine War?
In phone calls this week and a so-called “emergency” virtual summit on Wednesday, convened by Germany with European and Ukrainian leaders, President Trump and his national security team listened to their concerns about the Alaska summit. European leaders also outlined their red lines for the Alaska meeting: a cease-fire as a prerequisite for further talks; any territorial discussions must start from the current battle lines; security guarantees; Ukraine’s participation in the negotiations; and support from the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine for any peace deal.
European leaders and Zelensky reportedly were reassured after the virtual summit because Trump told them his objective for the Alaska summit will be to obtain a cease-fire. Trump also said Russia and Ukraine had to negotiate territorial issues: this would not be negotiated in Alaska. In addition, Trump said security guarantees would be part of a peace agreement.
Trump promised to call Zelensky immediately after the Alaska summit and, if this summit is successful, to hold a follow-up summit soon afterward with Putin and Zelensky and possibly European leaders.
There are major differences going into the Alaska summit between Putin and Zelensky on territory, Ukraine’s future in Europe, and Ukraine’s defense. Addressing these issues will require significant compromises by both sides to get a cease-fire or peace agreement. Trump will use the Alaska summit to assess whether Putin is prepared to make a peace deal that both sides can support. Some demands by Putin, such as Ukraine giving up land it controls in the Donbas to Russia or demilitarizing Ukraine, are unacceptable to Zelensky and will block any peace plan. Trump hopes his leadership, dealmaking skills, and good relationship with Putin will enable him to bridge these gaps to convince both sides to make the compromises necessary to end the war.
As President, Donald Trump has established himself as a powerful leader and one of history’s leading peacemakers, having brokered peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo, and with the Abraham Accords. NATO states agreed to increase their defense spending in response to Trump’s demands. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran stunned Iranian leaders and demonstrated decisive leadership by an American president that was sorely lacking during the Biden presidency.
Putin is facing a devastated economy, a ruinous war, and unprecedented diplomatic and economic isolation, as well as a competent and decisive American president who is offering his country a way out. Hopefully, Putin is traveling to Alaska because he has decided to take a chance with Trump and agree to end the war. If he doesn’t, there will be severe consequences for Russia and global security.
The summit might not be successful. Trump may walk away from a bad deal. But regardless of whether the summit succeeds or fails, this event is another sign of how the global leadership that President Trump is demonstrating indicates that his second term will be a historic and consequential presidency.
Fred Fleitz previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, a CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member. He is the Vice Chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security.
“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?” ― Walter E. Williams
“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” ― Walter E. Williams
“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.” ― Walter E. Williams
“The public good is promoted best by people pursuing their own private interests.” ― Walter E. Williams
“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.” ― Walter E. Williams
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 