Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the unfortunate UK populace, is forcing people to have digital IDs if they want to work. Boris Johnson wants to be the leader of the anti-digital ID movement but he’s the leader who set the UK on this path. He locked them down and was quite authoritarian. He […] The post Keir Starmer Forces UK Populace to Have Digital IDs appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The UN is planning global citizenship with The Pact of the Future. The EU is gladly going along. From Their Website The Summit of the Future in September, 2024, will produce an inter-governmentally negotiated, action-oriented Pact for the Future (Resolution A/RES/79/1) with chapters on: Sustainable development and financing for development; International peace and security; Science, […] The post UN & EU Move to Global Citizenship appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The humanities are falling. Universities across the country are phasing out degree programs and closing departments. Indiana University’s main campus is eliminating 40 majors in the humanities. Sonoma State in California is shuttering its art history and philosophy departments. Graduate programs in the arts and sciences at the University of Pennsylvania are having to rescind informal offers of admission. And except for philosophy and music composition, the University of Chicago will not admit doctoral students for the 2026–27 year in the arts and humanities.  This is news to shock any lover of the liberal arts. How did we get here? Is it the fact that university budgets are tightening under the Trump administration’s funding cuts? The result of a clash between conservative lawmakers and liberal professors? Or is it simply that interest in these majors is cratering, with the American Academy of the Arts reporting 35% and 32% declines in degrees awarded in history and English, respectively, between 2009 and 2020? These causes are not unrelated. The draconian cuts to the humanities are the answer to a question that has puzzled observers of higher education for decades: how much longer will anyone — students, parents, alumni, the states, or the federal government — be willing to keep paying liberal arts professors to saw off the branch we’re all sitting on? To employ a more fashionable metaphor, our humanities departments are simply wearing the skin suit of the liberal arts, which they long ago gutted and flayed.  What is being taught in our humanities departments generally bears little resemblance to the liberal arts. By and large, their project is inimical to the pursuit of truth and the appreciation of beauty — and to the sources of our flourishing. This has been increasingly obvious since 1951, when William F. Buckley Jr. demonstrated in “God and Man at Yale” the modern university’s contempt for faith and freedom. It was certainly clear by the 1987 publication of Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” that the rot had reached the core of the intellectual enterprise — free inquiry in pursuit of truth. Just a few years after that, I was teaching freshman English at the University of North Carolina and realized that my fellow graduate students considered it their mission to detach their students from the beliefs their parents had taught them. Around that same time, I found myself at what can best be described as a come-to-Marx revival meeting in a graduate course, where a charismatic professor of English made a guest appearance and spent the entire class meeting urging us to quit dabbling in different ideologies and commit ourselves to Marxism alone. What, I wondered, would North Carolina taxpayers think if they knew they were paying for his sermon and altar call? Yes, college students should be reading Marx — but they should be reading him critically, not buying his revolutionary philosophy wholesale. And not just because it has killed approximately 90 million human beings, and counting. Also, because criticism is — or was — essential to the liberal arts project. It is not, however, the only attitude essential to that project. Through a process of critical thinking and open debate, the liberal arts ultimately aim at the discovery and cultivation of positive goods, beauties, and truths that are conducive to human flourishing.  “The Communist Manifesto” is one of a tiny handful of real classics of Western thought that appear in the top 50 most assigned works, according to Open Syllabus. That list also includes Plato’s “Republic.” But books by gender theorist Michel Foucault and anti-colonialist Edward Said are assigned more often. And where are Aristotle and Augustine? Homer and Virgil? Aquinas and Dante? Where are the classic works that can help the students discover any truth, good, or beauty that might contribute to their happiness and the health of the society they belong to? In what now passes for the liberal arts, propaganda has replaced the search for truth. Today, no good is recognized except for power. For a time, there was some comfort in hoping that the indoctrination in hard-left politics at our colleges had only a minority appeal. Then the George Floyd riots demonstrated that even a tiny minority committed to violent revolution can cause significant mayhem. And developments in the wake of October 7, 2023, suggested that the professors’ radical politics have broad appeal after all. The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the largest mass protests on campus since the Vietnam War.  Socrates was innocent of corrupting the youth. The philosophers, scholars, and critics who staff our liberal arts departments are guilty as charged. The beliefs they inculcate are intellectually dubious and personally immiserating. Communism, hatred of one’s own country, and racial and gender resentment are not tickets to personal happiness. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!  Nor is the damage confined to the students. Our entire society has been fundamentally transformed by the leftist politics disseminated from university humanities departments, from gender theory and repressive tolerance to the notion that Western civilization is the root of all evil. If our young people are going to get a real liberal arts education, it will be at institutions of higher education that have held out against the flood of leftist ideology: Hillsdale, St. John’s, or any of a number of Catholic and evangelical Christian colleges. Or — and this is the really hopeful trend — it will be in a secondary education with a “classical curriculum.” On a family vacation this summer, I was surprised and delighted when a young cousin, making a point about her personal life, brought up Socrates’ argument that it is better to suffer injustice than to inflict it. She had read Plato at Westminster Academy in Memphis, Tennessee, a small Christian school founded in 1996. Lots of homeschoolers are also reading the classics — with open minds, ready to learn from Caesar and Shakespeare, not to dismiss them as patriarchal relics of white supremacy. Relentless politicization has fundamentally transformed America over the past few decades. History tells us that this level of polarization often leads to violence and unrest. We’ve seen rumblings of such unrest in recent months, especially in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Something must be done. We can start by turning off the spigot of Robespierres and Trotskys from our universities. Or at least we can quit paying the water bill before we drown in the flood. Elizabeth Kantor is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

WASHINGTON — Top law enforcement organizations are warning that a government shutdown would put the lives — and livelihoods — of many American law enforcement officers in danger. The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which represents 250,000 state and local law enforcement officers throughout the United States, warned in a statement Saturday that “if lawmakers neglect their constitutional duties, allow funding to run out and shut down the government, federal law enforcement officers, who are working to protect our cities and communities from violent crime, drugs, and guns, will be putting their lives on the line without getting paid.” “Federal funding for task forces will stop flowing,” the organization warned. “Federal grants, resources, and supports for state and local law enforcement will stop, leaving vital public safety initiatives in the lurch.” NAPO pointed to the tragic shooting at a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility earlier this week, arguing: “Now is not the time to let federal funding run out. As the deadly shooting at the Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility [on Wednesday] illustrates, American law enforcement officers are working in an increasingly dangerous and charged environment.” Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout “To have them risk their lives without pay undermines support for the work they are doing and increases the stresses and strains the job puts on them and their families,” the organization insisted. “We are calling on all lawmakers to do the right thing and enact a continuing resolution to fund the government before time runs out.” Their calls to action come after the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memo late Thursday to federal agencies, ordering these agencies to prepare for reduction-in-force if there is a government shutdown — specifically pinpointing unfunded programs that fall outside President Donald Trump’s priorities — and draft termination plans. The National Fraternal Order of Police, which represents 382,000 members throughout the United States, similarly urged Congress to fulfill one of its “most fundamental responsibilities” — “providing funding for the operations of our Federal government.” US President Donald Trump (C), flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi (L) and Fraternal Order of Police National President Patrick Yoes (R), speaks during a roundtable discussion with the Fraternal Order of Police in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2025. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) “They have got to pay the bills,” said the organization’s president, Patrick Yoes. “Political divisions and Congressional dysfunction seem to be a growing problem no matter which party controls Congress and the White House.” Yoes pointed to the continuing resolution, which passed the House earlier this month, but requires 60 votes to pass the Senate. It failed to pass the Senate in a 44-48 vote, which eight of the senators missed. “The bill is a ‘clean’ continuing resolution that will prevent the partial government shutdown that is swiftly approaching,” Yoes argued. “The Senate’s rejection will cause major disruptions for programs that fund public safety efforts in our communities. Government officials throughout the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security won’t be able to man their posts and provide support for operations in the field. This should be unacceptable to all Americans.” Similarly, the Council of Local Prisons argued that a government shutdown would “not only threaten” the livelihoods of the men and women who serve in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) — it would also “directly jeopardize institutional security and public safety nationwide.” The individuals who work in the BOP perform incredibly “difficult, dangerous, and essential work in government service,” the organization warned. BOP can’t reduce its hours, close its doors, or pause its operations during a shutdown, the organization said in a statement. And given that federal correctional officers are already facing a staffing crisis, a shutdown would cause officers to work without pay, put major strain on the spouses and children of correctional staff, and signal “instability” in the profession, making recruitment harder and driving “experienced officers to seek employment elsewhere.” “Correctional facilities must remain fully operational around the clock,” the Council of Local Prisons explained. “Inmates must be housed, fed, transported, and supervised regardless of political gridlock. The mission of the BOP is continuous, and its staff are required by law and duty to report to work—even if pay is withheld.” “This reality means that during a shutdown, thousands of correctional officers and staff are compelled to put their lives on the line each day without the certainty of a paycheck. For many, this creates immediate financial hardship, while for all, it adds unnecessary stress to a job already defined by danger and high stakes.” Understaffed prisons will see more violence, the organization warned, noting: “Failures within institutions spill over into the public—whether through contraband trafficking, gang coordination, or threats against law enforcement and citizens.” “This issue transcends partisanship,” the Council of Local Prisons insisted. “Members from both sides of the aisle have consistently recognized the critical role of the Bureau of Prisons in safeguarding the public. Ensuring these officers are supported is not a Democratic or Republican issue—it is an American issue. Public safety cannot be compromised for political brinkmanship.” “Every day a shutdown continues, correctional staff are asked to risk their lives without pay, institutions operate under mounting strain, and the American people are put at greater risk. The cost of inaction far outweighs any perceived political gain.”

'We have no knowledge of any investigation.'

President Donald Trump has ordered troops to protect Portland, Oregon, and any Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities threatened by Antifa. “At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on TruthSocial Saturday. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” This comes after a shooting at a Dallas ICE detention center on Wednesday left multiple people injured and one victim dead.   It is not immediately clear when troops will be deployed. On Thursday, Trump singled out Portland as a left-wing violence hub. “Take a look at Portland,” he told the press from the Oval Office. “Sometimes these are wild, these are crazy people, and they’re trying to burn down buildings, including federal buildings. And on my list of things that I want to do before we finish up with the cities, because I think we’re going to whip the cities back into shape.” He said the administration would do “pretty big number of those people in Portland.” “They’re professional agitators and anarchists,” Trump said. “They’re actually anarchists.” Trump signed an executive order designated Antifa as a domestic terror organization on Sept. 22. Trump signed a memorandum Thursday directing an “all-of-government effort to dismantle left-wing terrorism” and Antifa. The post BREAKING: Trump Selects Next ‘War Ravaged’ City for Troop Deployment appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After eight months in office, almost all of the Trump administration’s aggressive trade agenda has come into focus.Sectoral tariffs have been applied to industries deemed important to national security. A fresh review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, negotiated and signed during President Donald Trump’s first term, has been announced. And while lots will hinge on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court review of the legality of “reciprocal” tariffs, the president has used them to trigger trade talks and higher rates with almost every major trade partner.Trump has a chance to stand on higher ground than his predecessors on China. But it all depends on what kind of deal his administration strikes with that country.But the biggest trade question remains unanswered: How will the second Trump administration ultimately deal with China?The China questionNegotiations between the U.S. and Chinese governments are ongoing, the results of which will be hugely consequential. But judging from the administration’s own body language and with a November deadline rapidly approaching, you might conclude that the president is most interested in another deal for the sake of a deal.That would be a mistake. China’s state-directed economy massively distorts global trade. Many of its manufacturing industries are in a state of intentional overcapacity, and the Chinese government has proven willing to absorb those trade barriers rather than correct the imbalances; as such, China remains a major U.S. trading partner, despite the wall of tariffs and other restrictions our nations have raised and lowered against each other. A bad precedentMoreover, we know what happened the last time a Trump administration cut a hasty trade deal with China. The promised bulk-commodity purchases weren’t completed, and China made no meaningful changes to specific unfair trade behaviors like intellectual-property theft, circumvention, and its raft of industrial subsidies. While Trump began both his terms as a China trade hawk, looking to differentiate himself from his predecessors, his first-term retreat and ongoing second-term hesitation make that distinction hardly discernible.Misreading BeijingOver the last quarter-century, every American president has misread the Chinese Communist Party. President Bill Clinton trusted that market power would liberalize Chinese society; it has since grown more authoritarian. President George W. Bush trusted the power of Hank Paulson to manage the U.S.-China relationship. Instead, the American manufacturing workforce suffered the horrific China shock. President Barack Obama, much more sanguine about China, aimed to mitigate the damage but trusted that bilateral dialogues and engagement through the World Trade Organization would induce Beijing to move off of its model of state capitalism; it instead ran out the clock on him and his efforts. Donald Trump, the ultimate dealmaker, trusted that an agreement would change the bilateral dynamic, but then Xi Jinping ignored it. President Joe Biden, to his credit, kept many of Trump’s tariffs and even made nascent progress in shoring up our own industrial capacities and enlisting our allies. But, to borrow a phrase utilized by his administration, the “yard” in “small yard and high fence” was, in fact, too small to spark systemic change.What’s the strategy?Now Trump has returned, but has his approach evolved? The administration’s actions on China to date could cause whiplash. Perhaps this strategic ambiguity is by design. But it makes one wonder what his priorities are now. Is it a TikTok deal inconsistent with U.S. law? Will we have 145% tariffs, a grand trade bargain, or something in between? Does the president want to make China dependent on American technology for artificial intelligence, or does he want to completely box it out of the latest tech? Will he invite Chinese domestic investment or view it as a national security threat?And if he announces an agreement, will it be strong enough to move more critical supply chains out of China?RELATED: Trump hasn’t changed his position on China one bit Photo by Neil Hall/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesAfter all, defending U.S. manufacturing and its workers against unfair Chinese trade used to be the clear goal. If it remains so, any deal with China must maintain tariffs at a level high enough to limit import volumes, make extremely narrow and time-limited exceptions for the inputs necessary to turbocharge the reshoring effort, and phase tariffs for those categories over time.The administration must also continue to enlist allies in the effort to surround China. There will be a chance for that with Canada and Mexico during the USMCA negotiations. Higher tariffs for “transshipped” goods, like the recent deal with Vietnam, should be a feature of all these reciprocal agreements. The latest China shock is hitting manufacturing hard in the European Union, so the EU’s participation should be a priority.Lasting changeFinally, the administration must include the U.S. Congress in this work. Executive orders only go so far, and, in 2025, skepticism about the U.S.-China trade relationship is one of the few areas of bipartisan political agreement. President Trump should leverage that, call on Congress to repeal China’s permanent normal trade relations, and make a higher tariff rate permanent. That would be a huge step toward locking in a sensible derisking strategy and also demonstrating to businesses that the strategy is durable.Trump has a chance to stand on higher ground than his predecessors on China. But it all depends on what kind of deal his administration strikes with that country. A lot of American factory jobs depend on the outcome.Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Veteran journalist Paul Bond is breaking the silence on what really happens inside major newsrooms — and it’s not comforting for those who want to believe that there are still objective journalists out there.“If we don’t have journalists that say, ‘I will be an objective journalist, not an activist,’ we are a communist country,” BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan tells Bond, who has some bad news for Shanahan.“Problem is, we have lots of people who say that; they just don’t mean it,” Bond warns. “I mean, if you ask the people who work for the New York Times and the Washington Post and Newsweek and Time and MSNBC and CNN, they will tell you, ‘I’m an objective journalist.’”“I’ve met some that are good, and they’re hard to find,” Shanahan agrees.“It’s hard to be a trusted journalist,” Bond says, “because you’re dealing with others with other agendas. And, you know, sometimes somebody at Newsweek or at the Hollywood Reporter would reach out to me saying, ‘Hey, we’re writing this piece on so and so, and we know you have a relationship with them. Can you get a comment?’”“I’ll reach out for a comment, and they’ll give me a comment because they trust me. And then it’s this hit piece. And so, I feel like I was used,” he adds.Bond recalls once interviewing Jesse Watters from Fox News while someone at Newsweek was writing a negative piece about Watters at the same exact time.“I forgot what it was, but in that story, it says, you know, ‘Newsweek was unable to reach Jesse Watters.’ And I’m like, ‘I’m on the phone with Jesse Watters. Newsweek is able to reach Jesse Watters. I’m talking to Jesse Watters about this thing that you’re writing about,’” he recalls.“They wanted their hit piece. They didn’t want him to deny that it was true, or whatever he would have said if he hadn’t been on the phone with me. So, they write this hit piece. They publish this hit piece. ‘No access to Jesse Watters,’” he says, noting that this happens all the time.“A lot of times, they’ll reach out to people to get their comment after the story’s written,” he adds.Want more from Nicole Shanahan?To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.