Assessing Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska

The meeting was preliminary and productive, but it is soon to assess how formative it will be for an end to the war that Trump is pushing for. Roger Kimball: Trump said that he would rank their discussion as very good—”10 out of 10,” he said. He and Putin came to an agreement about a lot of issues. Some issues remained. “There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump acknowledged when the summit concluded. “I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I’ll, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today’s meeting. It’s ultimately up to them.” For his part, Putin said he could “confirm” the contention that, had Trump been president in 2022, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. What should we make of that? Within hours of the summit, it was being reported that President Zelensky would be coming back to meet with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday. Memo to Zelensky: “Russia is a very big power, and they’re not.” Perhaps the biggest policy desideratum to issue from the Trump-Putin summit was a change from “ceasefire” to “peace.” “It was determined by all,” Trump posted on Truth Social, “that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up” (American Greatness). Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was more bullish than much of what was covered in our elite outlets: Politico: Special envoy Steve Witkoff says the White House extracted critical wins from its Friday summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, even as President Donald Trump failed to walk away with the ceasefire he was loudly advocated for. Security guarantees offering Ukraine “Article 5-like protections” are the real prize, Witkoff told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. They’re “game-changing,” he said. “We didn’t think that we were anywhere close to agreeing to Article Five protection from the United States in legislative enshrinement within the Russian Federation, not to go after any other territory when the peace deal is codified,” Witkoff said on CNN’s “State of the Union” (Politico). Cliff May: “No deal is always better than a bad deal.  President Trump was right not to get tagged along to the deal Putin wanted — a deal that would turn Ukraine into a vassal of the Russian empire. President Trump has said that if Putin continues slaughtering civilians, there will be ‘severe’ consequences. That implies tough economic sanctions to starve the Kremlin’s war machine and the expeditious delivery of both defensive and offensive weapons to Ukraine. Those consequences should be imposed sooner rather than later to persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire. Serious negotiations for a long-term armistice can follow” (FDD).

Zelensky to Visit DC for Meeting With Trump Today

An immediate indicator of a least a measure of success for the recent engagement with the principals in Russia’s war against Ukraine is the fact the key players are both coming to the table. Ukrainian President Zelensky will visit the White House today, joined by other European leaders invited by the White House: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Axios). Zelensky, for his part, is—very justifiably in light of his country’s experience with Putin—concerned about security guarantees. Wall Street Journal: “It’s very important that you are with us and that we speak to America together,” Zelensky said in Brussels, standing alongside von der Leyen. “It’s crucial that Europe is as united now as it was at the very beginning—as it was in 2022,” when Russia staged its large-scale invasion of Ukraine, Zelensky said. “This unity really helps encourage real peace, and it must stay strong.” Zelensky also thanked Trump for saying in recent conversations with European leaders that he was open to providing security guarantees to Ukraine. “For everyone in Europe this is a significant change, but there are no details how it would work and what America’s role will be, what Europe’s role will be, what the EU can do,” Zelensky said. “This is our main task: We need security to work in practice.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that a major focus of the Monday talks will be security guarantees, including the role the U.S. might potentially play (Wall Street Journal).

Rubio Defends Trump Effort to End Russia-Ukraine War

Key talents on the Sunday morning shows were pushing the line that the European leaders were showing up today at the White House so that Zelensky wouldn’t get “bullied.” Rubio pushed back: “This is such a stupid media narrative.” Daily Mail: Secretary of State Marco Rubio took on the mainstream media Sunday during a slew of appearances following President Trump’s bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rubio sparred with CBS host Margaret Brennan as she pushed him to divulge details about Trump’s meeting with Putin, which took place in Alaska on Friday, as well as the forthcoming White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. This is such a stupid media narrative that [European leaders] are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal. We’ve been working with these people for weeks… We invited them to come,’ Rubio told Brennan. ‘To have a deal … to reach the end of this conflict, both sides are going to have to make concessions,’ Rubio said of the agreement America is working to broker between Russia and Ukraine (Daily Mail). Axios: Rubio, who made appearances across the Sunday political show lineup, told ABC’s Martha Raddatz a ceasefire was not the aim, arguing, “You’re not going to reach a ceasefire or peace agreement in a meeting” without Ukraine present. If an agreement isn’t reached, Rubio said, there will be consequences — but he emphasized the administration is trying to avoid such measures. Late last month, Trump threatened to shorten Putin’s deadline to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face heavy sanctions, which he said would include “secondary sanctions and tariffs.” Rubio on Sunday argued that if the U.S. levies additional sanctions, the “talking stops.” “If this morning the president woke up and said, ‘I’m putting these terrible … strong sanctions on Russia,’ that’s fine — [it] may make people feel good for a couple hours,” he said on Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” “But here’s what you’re basically saying … talks are over for the foreseeable future” (Axios).

Trump Pushes Back on Critics of Putin Meeting

He was focused—most immediately—on Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy who said “Putin got everything he wanted” (Murphy). Trump responds: The very unattractive (both inside and out!) Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, said “Putin got everything that he wanted.” Actually, “nobody got anything,” too soon, but getting close. Murphy is a lightweight who thinks it made the Russian President look good in coming to America. Actually, it was very hard for President Putin to do so. This war can be ended, NOW, but stupid people like Chris Murphy, John Bolton, and others, make it much harder to do so (Truth).

Newsom Calls for Special Election to Facilitate His Redistricting Efforts

The inconvenient fact for the California governor is that he can’t re-draw the lines with only his supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature. He has to go to the people, because in 2008, California voters authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (We Draw the Lines). Los Angeles Times: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic lawmakers and their allies on Thursday launched a special election campaign urging California voters to approve new congressional districts to shrink the state’s Republican delegation, a move that could determine control of Congress next year and stymie President Trump’s agenda. The special election effort is a response to Republican-led states, notably Texas, pushing at Trump’s behest to redraw their congressional maps to favor Republicans and reduce the number of Democrats in the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives (Los Angeles Times). Cal Matters on the prospects of a special election: [Newsom] would still have to persuade voters who are no more than lukewarm despite the unpopularity of Trump in California, according to private polling. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of an independent redistricting commission, says he’ll oppose Newsom’s plan and Charles Munger Jr., a wealthy scientist who bankrolled two ballot measures to create the commission, says he’ll support an opposition campaign. Given the stakes, Trump and Republicans would probably flood the state with opposition campaign money while Democrats would do the same, with even more money coming from labor unions and other Democratic allies. Newsom also faces the possibility of legal battles, such as issues over what data he uses to draw the new districts (Cal Matters).

Obama Was for Gerrymandering Before He Was Against It

Larry Elder highlights the hypocrisy of the former president who called the Texas effort, “a power grab that undermines our democracy.” From Larry: That “voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around” reflects quite a change in thinking from a politician who skillfully used gerrymandering to protect his Illinois State Senate seat. In 2012, the left-leaning ProPublica wrote “Obama’s Gerrymander — President Obama may have propelled his political career forward by gerrymandering a Chicago district to include rich supporters.” Illinois State Sen. Obama decided to primary Democrat Illinois U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther. Rush painted Obama as a born-and-raised-in-Hawaii, carpetbagging lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, by way of Harvard Law, who attended prep school and did not have a clue about the life of a typical black person. It worked. Obama not only lost the primary; he performed poorly with black voters. So, what did Obama do? He examined the election results and proceeded to gerrymander his State Senate seat to guard against losing it. He reduced the number of those who voted against him and increased the numbers of those who did. In short, Obama rejected the notion that “voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around….” Call it the Obama Gerrymander Rule: When Democrats do it, “It’s just politics.” When Republicans do it, it becomes “a power grab that undermines our democracy” (Hot Air).

Former Fact Checker Glenn Kessler Admits: On COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory “I got it wrong,” “I screwed up”

A few years late, but notable still for dismal record of American media for the era. Matthew Xiao: Former Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler admitted this week that he was “completely wrong” to publish a May 2020 headline casting doubt on the theory that COVID-19 originated from a Chinese lab, saying he has “infinite regret” over the headline. “I screwed up,” Kessler told journalist Ira Stoll in a Wednesday interview, referring to his Post fact check headlined “Was the New Coronavirus Accidentally Released From a Wuhan Lab? It’s Doubtful.” Kessler admitted to adding the words “It’s Doubtful” to the original headline. “Everyone makes mistakes,” Kessler went on. “No one is perfect. And when you’ve got a title like ‘the Fact Checker,’ when you make a mistake, people notice. So, you know, you’ve got to own it” (Free Beacon).

NFL Doubles Down on Social Justice: End Zones to Feature Mandated Woke Messages

The options: “End Racism,” “Stop Hate,” “Choose Love” or “Inspire Change.” The league seems to be slow in getting the message that the country has moved on. From male cheerleaders to this. ESPN: The NFL is continuing its on-field social justice messaging for a sixth straight season. All 32 teams will feature an end zone message of their choice at each home game throughout the season, selecting from four options: “End Racism,” “Stop Hate,” “Choose Love” or “Inspire Change.” Once again, “It Takes All of Us” will be stenciled in the opposite end zone for all games. The only change from 2024 is that “Inspire Change” replaces “Vote.” These messages will complement the league’s other cause campaigns such as Salute to Service and Crucial Catch, which will also appear in end zones during select weeks this season. “We’re working hand-in-hand with players, and alongside our clubs, to amplify player voices and underscore what is most important to them,” Anna Isaacson, the NFL’s senior vice president of social responsibility, told The Associated Press. “For decades, the NFL and its players have been a unifying force in American culture and society that brings people of all cultures and backgrounds together to enjoy America’s most popular sport (ESPN).

Canada’s Euthanasia Policy Is Macabre; It’s Also Gaining Momentum

It’s notable that the article admitting as much was published by the Atlantic. The title: “Canada Is Killing Itself: The country gave its citizens the right to die. Doctors are struggling to keep up with demand.” Elaina Plott Calabro: It is too soon to call euthanasia a lifestyle option in Canada, but from the outset it has proved a case study in momentum. MAID began as a practice limited to gravely ill patients who were already at the end of life. The law was then expanded to include people who were suffering from serious medical conditions but not facing imminent death. In two years, MAID will be made available to those suffering only from mental illness. Parliament has also recommended granting access to minors…. Has Canada itself gotten what it wanted? Nine years after the legalization of assisted death, Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAID from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics; as if continued expansion is not a reality the government is choosing so much as conceding. This is the story of an ideology in motion, of what happens when a nation enshrines a right before reckoning with the totality of its logic. If autonomy in death is sacrosanct, is there anyone who shouldn’t be helped to die? … The details of the assisted-death experience have become a preoccupation of Canadian life. Patients meticulously orchestrate their final moments, planning celebrations around them: weekend house parties before a Sunday-night euthanasia in the garden; a Catholic priest to deliver last rites; extended-family renditions of “Auld Lang Syne” at the bedside. For $10.99, you can design your MAID experience with the help of the Be Ceremonial app; suggested rituals include a story altar, a forgiveness ceremony, and the collecting of tears from witnesses. On the Disrupting Death podcast, hosted by an educator and a social worker in Ontario, guests share ideas on subjects such as normalizing the MAID process for children facing the death of an adult in their life—a pajama party at a funeral home; painting a coffin in a schoolyard. (Atlantic). Wesley Smith: In all of this, I am reminded of the observation made by Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne many years ago: “A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.” Canada is indeed killing itself. If it can happen there, it can happen here too (Evolution News).

The Alliance to Watch: Progressive Leftist and Islamists

New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is perhaps one of the clearer embodiments of these two political/ideological/religious movements that have become unlikely bedfellows. Dalia Al-Aqidi—a journalist who fled Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: A dangerous political alliance is taking shape between the Democratic Socialists of America and radical political Islam. These two forces, seemingly different, together threaten the foundations of the American republic. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a political reality taking root at cities like New York and Minneapolis, and it is spreading. Unless voters push back, this movement will continue infiltrating local governments, statehouses, and eventually, national leadership…. What do radical socialists and Islamist activists have in common? They both reject the foundations of American democracy. Both weaponize identity to silence dissent. Both normalize antisemitism, relentlessly attacking Israel while refraining from holding Hamas accountable for the October 7th terrorist massacre and its consequences. And they both reject personal responsibility in favor of top-down ideological control. This emerging alliance between the far left and Islamic radicals is  using the electoral process not to serve democracy, but to subvert it.  It behooves Americans to name it, confront it, and reject attempts to normalize its agenda (New York Sun). Eli Lake looks at what he calls “a cognitively dissonant red-green alliance,” pointing to the left’s embrace of the Iranian revolution as the root or the origin: In the West, the politics of the Gaza war features a strange marriage between political Islam and the 21st-century Western left. For instance, the Democratic Socialists of America simultaneously support making New York a national hub for transgender youth medicine but also want to globalize the intifada. It supports the bleeding edge of social progressive values while throwing its full support behind the fanatic fascists who filmed their mass murder of Jews and proudly posted the videos to Telegram. The first example of this cognitively dissonant red-green alliance arose during Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1978 and 1979. Inside the country, many of the socialist and liberal factions ultimately accepted the leadership of the radical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but they did so for cynical reasons. Khomeini’s politics were extreme and reactionary, many of Iran’s socialists and liberals knew, but they believed he lacked the political skills to really take over the country (Free Press).