According to CBS News, French authorities have asked Elon Musk to appear to answer questions. They are investigating his social media platform X, the Paris prosecutor’s office said Monday. They conducted a raid on X’s office in the French capital. “Summons for voluntary interviews on April 20, 2026, in Paris have been sent to […] The post French Cybercrime Raid X in Paris & Call for Musk to Appear appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Anti-ICE activists pressure businesses to “pick a side,” the House looks to vote on reopening the government, and thousands of Americans demand answers as the lights remain off after Winter Storm Fern. It’s Tuesday, February 3, 2026, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below: Left-Wing Activists Pressure Businesses To Dump ICE Businesses that don’t even have ties to ICE are under pressure to take an explicit stance against the federal agency. Currently, Target is the main mark for demonstrators. Over the weekend – similar to the protest that included the storming of Cities Church in St. Paul – dozens of activists marched through Target stores all over Minneapolis. Left-wing activists want the company to publicly condemn ICE and ban agents from conducting operations on Target property, or even entering stores. Activists even went to Target headquarters in Minneapolis on Monday and called out its new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, who officially stepped into the top job on Sunday. Government Shutdown Is On Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been working frantically to end the government shutdown before its effects are felt. President Donald Trump says he wants to move forward with the federal government spending package without any changes, as the government has remained shut down since last weekend. He wrote on Truth Social, quote: “There can be NO CHANGES at this time.” The president says that he wants the bill to be signed into law right away, and that he’s “working hard with Speaker Mike Johnson.” Outrage Over Nashville Storm Failures The response to the crippling power outages from Winter Storm Fern has frustrated many communities across the country – including here in the Nashville area. It’s been more than a week, and more than 20,000 residents are still without power in the Music City in a situation declared “unacceptable.” The Nashville power outage fiasco has made national news as Reese Witherspoon, John Rich, and other celebrities have spoken out about their Tennessee neighbors living in the dark. The Nashville Electric Service’s lack of preparation is most frustrating to residents. Last summer, the CEO, Teresa Boyles-Aplin, focused on saving Nashville’s tree canopy instead of cutting down the trees that clearly were overtaking power lines. On top of that, Nashville started the power restoration with around 100 linemen – far too few for such a widespread outage. Other regional utilities had 500-600 linemen ready.

Chicago’s self-described socialist mayor just watched his anti-ICE executive order collapse within 48 hours as the city’s largest police union, the State’s Attorney, and law enforcement experts dismantled what critics are calling a reckless political stunt that undermines federal law and officer safety. Mayor’s Anti-ICE Order Crumbles Immediately Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order on January 31, 2026, titled “ICE On Notice,” directing Chicago Police Department officers to document alleged illegal activities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents during operations. The order instructs CPD to refer evidence to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for potential prosecution of federal agents. Johnson positioned Chicago as the “first city” to formalize prosecution groundwork against federal immigration enforcement, framing the move as protection against “militarized” federal operations threatening residents. The order does not require CPD officers to arrest federal agents, a distinction Catanzara acknowledged as the only competent aspect. Police Union Delivers Scathing Rebuke Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #7 President John Catanzara Jr., representing Chicago’s largest police union with over 12,000 officers, called the executive order “a piece of toilet paper” in statements to The Center Square. Catanzara criticized Johnson’s understanding of federal immigration law, emphasizing that illegal entry into the United States constitutes a misdemeanor or felony under federal statute. He suggested a “two-way street” approach where CPD officers could similarly report city officials for violations. The union leader characterized the order as demonstrating “incompetence” and political grandstanding rather than legitimate law enforcement policy. Former Riverside Police Chief Tom Weitzel echoed this assessment, labeling the move a “political stunt” distracting from Chicago’s rising crime rates. State’s Attorney Contradicts Collaboration Claims Within hours of Johnson’s press conference, Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke publicly refuted the mayor’s claims of collaboration. Burke stated via Twitter and official statement that her office had not received, reviewed, or provided legal approval for the executive order prior to its signing. She emphasized that any evidence referred to her office would be reviewed independently according to established prosecutorial standards and the rule of law. This contradiction undermined Johnson’s credibility and revealed the order’s rushed implementation without coordination with the official responsible for any potential prosecutions. The immediate pushback from the county’s chief prosecutor exposed the hollow nature of the mayor’s threat to hold federal agents accountable. Federal Law Supremacy and Sanctuary City Tensions Chicago’s sanctuary city status originates from the 2017 Illinois Trust Act, which prohibits local law enforcement from participating in immigration enforcement without warrants. This policy framework has generated escalating tensions with federal agencies, particularly following reports of a 1000% increase in violence against ICE agents since early 2025 according to Department of Homeland Security data. In October 2025, CPD officers were reportedly barred from assisting ICE agents surrounded by protesters, prompting condemnation from the National Fraternal Order of Police and Illinois State FOP. Johnson cited late 2025’s Operation Midway Blitz—federal raids involving shootings, a fatal incident, and mass detentions—as justification for his order, anticipating an ICE “spring surge” in 2026. Constitutional and Law Enforcement Implications The executive order represents municipal overreach attempting to criminalize federal agents executing lawful immigration enforcement under constitutional authority. Former CPD detective Chuck Hernandez noted that such disputes belong in Congress, not local government offices attempting to obstruct federal law. The order strains already fragile relationships between city and federal law enforcement while burdening CPD with documentation requirements that divert resources from addressing Chicago’s crime crisis. Legal experts anticipate challenges if prosecutions are attempted, as federal supremacy doctrine establishes immigration enforcement as an exclusively federal function. This sanctuary city defiance exemplifies the broader pattern of progressive urban officials obstructing immigration law enforcement that Americans voted against when electing President Trump, who campaigned on restoring law and order including deportation of criminal illegal aliens. As communities report ongoing mental health distress from immigration enforcement uncertainty, Johnson’s order deepens divisions rather than addressing legitimate concerns through lawful channels. The Illinois Accountability Commission heard testimony on February 2, 2026, regarding ICE and Border Patrol conduct, but the commission represents proper oversight mechanisms rather than mayoral threats to prosecute agents. The rapid collapse of Johnson’s order demonstrates what happens when political theater meets constitutional reality—law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, and legal experts recognize it for what Catanzara aptly described: worthless paper unmoored from both legal authority and common sense. Sources: Mayor Johnson Signs Executive Order Designed to Lay Groundwork to Prosecute Federal Agents Cop Union Chief Says Mayor’s Anti-ICE Order is ‘Toilet Paper’ Chicago Johnson Executive Order National FOP and Illinois State FOP Condemn Reports that Chicago Police Officers Were Barred from Assisting ICE Agents Illinois Accountability Commission Hears Expert Testimony on ICE CBP Misconduct

Over last weekend, a Kentucky farming family welcomed a new calf into a frigid world of single digit temperatures, and quickly realized it wasn’t going to last the night. So being a mother as well as a farmer, Macey Sorrell decided to bring the calf into their home where she was certain it would be […] The post Farmers’ Kids Cuddle Up with New Born Calf on the Couch After She Nearly Froze Outside appeared first on Good News Network.

If you were looking to cook up a surefire TV hit in the early 1980s, the recipe seemed obvious: start with the blazing heat of Happy Days, fold in two fan‑favorite characters, sprinkle in some The post TV Tales: Joanie Loves Chachi appeared first on The Retro Network.

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun,” King Solomon famously observed in the Koheleth (Book of Ecclesiastes). Truer words have never been written. Look no further than the present anarchic tumult in Minnesota. On Jan. 12, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the North Star State, along with municipal co-plaintiffs Minneapolis and St. Paul, against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, and the rest of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement apparatus. In his press conference announcing the suit, Ellison emphasized the same basic arguments as his formal complaint: Namely, that ICE’s enforcement “surge” in Minnesota amounts to a “violation of the Tenth Amendment and the sovereign laws and powers granted to states.” In essence, Ellison and his Minnesota’s Democratic Party leadership confreres argue that the constitutional federalism articulated in the 10th Amendment and its corollary of “states’ rights” can shield the Land of 10,000 Lakes from the long enforcement arm of federal immigration law. Ellison and Minnesota Democrats claim that by declaring their state and cities to be illegal alien “sanctuaries,” they can “nullify” federal immigration law. Stop me if you’ve heard that one before. Democrats in America have a long and inglorious history of invoking “states’ rights” and shirking federal law. It has never ended well. In 1798 and 1799, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—members of the Democratic-Republican Party, the partisan predecessor to today’s Democratic Party—penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The Resolutions, a direct response to the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts championed by President John Adams, argued that when Congress passes an unconstitutional statute, the states are permitted to declare the law null and void within their own jurisdictions. According to this argument, if a state’s constitutional officers deem a federal law to be unconstitutional, the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution—which normally establishes federal law as “the supreme law of the land” over state law—simply does not apply. This sentiment was taken to its logical conclusion during the antebellum period. During the nullification crisis of 1832-33, South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 to be unconstitutional and unenforceable in the Palmetto State. South Carolina even took initial steps to organize the militia, in anticipation of attempted federal mobilization. In ensuing decades, South Carolinian John C. Calhoun emerged as the most passionate advocate for state nullification. Calhoun argued not only for a state’s “right” to nullify federal law but also to secede from the Union, if necessary, to secure its sovereignty. The result was the 1861 attack on Fort Sumter and the 600,000-plus slain in the Civil War. For nearly a century after the Civil War, Calhoun’s ghost lingered. As the civil rights movement gained steam, segregationists invoked nullification and “states’ rights” as justifications for defying federally mandated civil rights. The Southern Manifesto, signed by dozens of U.S. senators and congressmen in 1956, took the position that the 10th Amendment permitted states to defy the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision of 1954. In the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, Gov. Orval Faubus relied on the same principles when he ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block Black students from attending Little Rock Central High School. Faubus lost his showdown when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division to forcibly desegregate Little Rock. In echoing the discredited theories of yesteryear, Ellison, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and the rest of the state’s top Democrat brass have emerged as modern reincarnations of Jefferson Davis and George Wallace. They wouldn’t see it that way, naturally. Nor would Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recognize that her own “race-infused worldview” and belief in “racial determinism,” as Justice Clarence Thomas accused her of harboring in his Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) concurrence, is an updated version of Calhoun’s vile life outlook. But that’s precisely what it is. On Thursday, Trump border czar Tom Homan announced that the administration is prepared to draw down federal personnel in Minnesota if the state cooperates. We’ll see if that transpires, but I have my suspicions. Historically, Democratic Party subversives and insurrectionists have not been known for their cooperation with the feds. The good news for President Donald Trump is that he has a clear legal precedent for how to respond, if the neo-Confederate uprising in Minnesota continues apace. On April 15, 1861, in response to the attack on Fort Sumter three days prior, President Abraham Lincoln invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807. Trump has recently been musing about doing the same. Will Trump pull the trigger? Maybe. After all, there’s nothing new under the sun. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post The Rise of the New Confederacy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As 2026 begins, fuel taxes are shifting across the country — and many drivers won’t notice until they fill up. Some states are adjusting rates by a cent or less, while others are imposing major increases or overhauling how fuel is taxed altogether. Much of it is happening quietly through automatic systems that rarely make headlines.Fuel taxes rarely dominate headlines, but they remain one of the most direct ways government policy intersects with everyday life. Unlike income or property taxes, fuel taxes are paid in small increments, embedded into a necessity for most Americans. That makes them politically sensitive, economically significant, and easy to overlook — until prices jump.The broader question is whether fuel taxes remain a sustainable way to fund transportation in an era of increasing vehicle efficiency.Over the past year, more than a dozen states adjusted their fuel tax systems. Some increased rates to shore up transportation budgets strained by inflation and aging infrastructure. Others reduced taxes to ease costs for consumers and commercial operators. As 2026 begins, another wave of changes is rolling out, driven largely by automatic formulas rather than new legislative votes.The result is a patchwork of increases, decreases, pauses, and structural overhauls that reflect broader debates about infrastructure, accountability, and the future of road funding. Small changes — for now Several states are seeing modest adjustments as of January 1. Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, and North Carolina are implementing small increases of about 1 cent or less per gallon. New York, Utah, and Vermont are seeing slight decreases, also under a penny.These changes are not the product of last-minute political deals. Instead, they stem from automatic adjustment mechanisms written into state law, often tied to inflation, fuel prices, or construction costs.Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia also allow automatic adjustments, but their fuel tax rates remain unchanged at the start of 2026. That stability does not mean those states are immune from future increases — only that the formulas did not trigger a change this cycle.Automatic adjustments are becoming more common because they provide predictable revenue without forcing lawmakers to cast politically risky votes. Critics argue they reduce accountability and disconnect tax increases from voter oversight. Supporters counter that they keep transportation funding aligned with real-world costs, especially as materials and labor become more expensive.While these small changes may barely register for individual drivers, larger shifts in several states deserve closer attention. Michigan’s major overhaul Michigan is implementing the most significant fuel tax change taking effect this year. Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a nearly $2 billion transportation funding package into law that fundamentally changes how fuel is taxed in the state.Currently, Michigan drivers pay a 31-cent-per-gallon state excise tax on fuel, along with a 6% state sales tax on gasoline and diesel. The problem with that structure is where the money goes. Much of the sales tax revenue flows into the state’s general fund rather than being dedicated to roads and bridges.Under the new law, the sales tax on fuel is eliminated and replaced with a higher fuel excise tax. The goal is to ensure that all fuel tax revenue is dedicated to transportation projects, aligning with Michigan’s constitutional requirement that fuel taxes be used for infrastructure.The tradeoff is cost. As of January 1, the fuel excise tax jumps from 31 cents to 52.4 cents per gallon. For drivers, that represents a substantial increase at the pump, even as state leaders argue the new system is more transparent and constitutionally sound.Supporters say the change corrects a long-standing mismatch between how fuel is taxed and how the money is spent. Critics counter that drivers are still paying significantly more, regardless of how the tax is labeled, at a time when vehicle ownership costs are already rising.RELATED: America First energy policy is paying off at the pump New Jersey’s variable approach New Jersey is also raising fuel taxes under a law passed in 2024 that allows annual increases through 2029 to meet transportation funding targets. The state uses a layered tax structure that combines a petroleum products gross receipts tax with a fixed motor fuels excise tax.As of January 1, the petroleum tax on gasoline rises by 4.2 cents, from 34.4 cents to 38.6 cents per gallon. When combined with the fixed 10.5-cent motor fuels tax, the total state gasoline tax reaches 49.1 cents per gallon. Diesel taxes rise by the same amount on the petroleum side, bringing the total diesel tax to 56.1 cents per gallon when paired with its fixed excise tax.New Jersey’s approach reflects a broader trend toward variable fuel taxes designed to stabilize transportation funding. By tying part of the tax to revenue targets or fuel prices, the state aims to avoid sudden funding shortfalls. The downside, particularly for commuters and commercial operators, is reduced predictability at the pump. Oregon hits pause Oregon tells a different story. A scheduled 6-cent gas tax increase set to take effect January 1 has been put on hold.Lawmakers approved the increase during a special session, raising the gas tax from 40 cents to 46 cents per gallon as part of a broader transportation funding package. After Governor Tina Kotek (D) signed the bill into law, opponents launched a statewide petition drive to delay the increase until voters could weigh in.Organizers gathered nearly 200,000 signatures — enough to force the state to pause the tax hike until the November 2026 election. As a result, the gas tax increase is suspended, along with planned hikes to passenger vehicle registration and title fees. Other elements of the transportation package will still move forward, including a change that applies the motor vehicle fuel tax to diesel.Oregon’s situation highlights the growing tension between legislative action and direct democracy when it comes to fuel taxes. Even when increases are framed as infrastructure investments, fuel costs remain politically sensitive, and voters are increasingly willing to push back. The rise of automatic fuel taxes Behind these headline changes lies a complex web of automatic adjustment systems that now shape fuel taxes in roughly half the country. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 25 states use some form of variable fuel tax rate.These systems vary widely. Some states set fuel taxes as a percentage of the wholesale price. Others combine a flat excise tax with a price-based component. Many tie adjustments to inflation, using measures such as the Consumer Price Index or highway construction cost indexes.Timing also varies. Indiana updates its fuel sales tax monthly. Vermont adjusts quarterly. Nebraska recalculates every six months. Several states, including Alabama and Rhode Island, make changes every two years.Annual updates are the most common and occur in states such as California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington.For policymakers, these mechanisms offer a way to keep transportation funding solvent without reopening contentious debates year after year. For drivers, they can feel like stealth tax increases — predictable, recurring, and largely disconnected from economic conditions at the household level. Are fuel taxes still sustainable? The broader question is whether fuel taxes remain a sustainable way to fund transportation in an era of increasing vehicle efficiency. As cars travel farther on less fuel, states collect less revenue per mile driven, even as infrastructure costs continue to rise.That gap is driving experimentation with mileage-based user fees, higher registration costs, and targeted fees for specific vehicle types. Despite those efforts, fuel taxes remain the backbone of transportation funding — and recent changes suggest states are not ready to let go of them.For consumers, the short-term impact is straightforward. In some states, filling up will cost a bit more. In others, it may cost slightly less or stay the same. Over time, however, the cumulative effect of these policies reaches far beyond individual drivers, influencing shipping costs, retail prices, and household budgets.Fuel taxes may be collected a few cents at a time, but they represent billions of dollars and fundamental choices about how roads are built, maintained, and paid for. As 2026 begins, drivers would be wise to pay attention. What looks like a small adjustment today often signals a much larger shift tomorrow.

Apple's CarPlay Ultra interface was reserved for a premium Aston Martin car up until now. Reports suggest that it's now making its way to other vehicles.

Apple CarPlay is a great way to use many iPhone apps hands‑free while driving, but relying on it long‑term can have serious consequences for your phone.

Iran's president said Tuesday that he instructed the country's foreign minister to "pursue fair and equitable negotiations" with the United States, the first clear sign from Tehran it wants to try to negotiate as tensions remain high with Washington after the Mideast...