The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of Boston, Massachusetts, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and the Boston Police Department and Police Commissioner over its sanctuary policies, claiming that it interferes with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration laws. “The City of Boston and its Mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America – they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will,” she added. “Michelle Wu is one of the worst offenders in the entire country. She says Boston is safe, but it’s not. A Haitian national was charged with raping a child in a migrant center, an 18-year-old illegal alien from Haiti molested a 10-year-old child, and an illegal immigrant from El Salvador faced 11 counts of rape against a child,” Bondi said in an interview. “If she’s not going to protect the people of Boston, we are,” she continued. Check it out: AG Pam Bondi slams Mayor Wu, announcing the Justice Department lawsuit against Boston: "Michelle Wu is one of the worst offenders in the entire country. She claims Boston is safe, but it’s not. A Haitian national was charged with raping a child in a migrant center, an… pic.twitter.com/yUbWXv0b1w — Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) September 6, 2025 More from the Justice Department: Not only are Boston’s sanctuary city policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Boston’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities results in the release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets. On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations. On Aug. 5, Attorney General Bondi published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which included the City of Boston, and vowed to bring litigation to end these policies nationwide. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in New York, New Jersey, and Los Angeles, California. “This unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise,” Mayor Wu said, according to CBS News. “Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country-but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda. This is our City, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield,” she continued. The US Justice Department sued the city of Boston and its Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu to challenge an ordinance that restricts police from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement carrying out US President Donald Trump's agenda https://t.co/2cW45DC9il — Reuters (@Reuters) September 5, 2025 CBS News provided further info: In August, Mayor Wu responded to an ultimatum from the government over city policies, saying Boston “will not back down.” The DOJ wrote in the lawsuit, Wu’s “resistance endangers public safety, resulting in a number of criminals being released into Boston who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States.” The lawsuit targets the Boston Trust Act, which limits the role of the city in enforcing federal immigration laws. The DOJ said the policy, “discriminates against the Federal Government.”

Senator Mike Lee went on Charlie Kirk’s podcast to discuss Utah’s electoral system which is under attack by Democrats and their allies in the Utah courts. Democrat judges are turning the Utah votes over to outside commissions. In the end, it reduces voter participation in the electoral system. In the clip, Mike Lee discusses the […] The post “A Kind of Judicial Takeover of Utah’s Electoral System “ appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Japan launches unprecedented space defense initiative as Russia and China deploy sophisticated satellite-killing weapons that threaten to cripple critical infrastructure and national security systems across the free world. Communist Powers Target Space Dominance Russia and China have accelerated development of anti-satellite weapons systems designed to neutralize American and allied space capabilities. Russia’s May 2025 launch of Cosmos 2588 positioned a suspected kinetic kill vehicle in close proximity to U.S. reconnaissance satellites, demonstrating Moscow’s ability to destroy critical intelligence assets. China’s People’s Liberation Army has simultaneously deployed advanced ground-based laser systems capable of blinding or damaging satellite sensors, with intelligence officials warning of more powerful weapons expected by the late 2020s. The communist regimes’ coordinated assault on space security represents a direct challenge to Western technological superiority and military readiness. U.S. Space Force officials describe China’s counterspace buildup as a “grave threat” while highlighting concerning funding gaps in American defensive capabilities. Russia’s suspected nuclear ASAT program, including the Cosmos 2553 satellite launched in early 2022, adds a catastrophic dimension to the space warfare threat that could devastate global communications and navigation systems. Japan Develops Revolutionary Defense System Recognizing its vulnerability as a key U.S. ally heavily dependent on satellite infrastructure, Japan has initiated development of an innovative “bodyguard” system to protect its space assets. The Japanese Ministry of Defense acknowledges the nation’s critical reliance on satellites for missile warning, disaster response, and economic operations makes it a prime target for Russian and Chinese aggression. This defensive initiative represents Japan’s commitment to maintaining technological independence while strengthening alliance cooperation against authoritarian space warfare capabilities. Japanese defense officials emphasize the urgent need for resilience and redundancy in space systems as both Russia and China continue testing proximity operations and physical interference techniques. The bodyguard concept would create protective barriers around critical satellites, potentially using decoy systems, jamming countermeasures, and early warning networks. This approach demonstrates how free nations must innovate rapidly to counter the growing sophistication of communist space warfare programs that threaten fundamental infrastructure supporting democratic societies. Strategic Implications for American Security The escalating space arms race poses severe risks to American national security and economic stability, as satellite disruption could cripple military communications, financial networks, and civilian infrastructure. Russia’s 2021 destructive ASAT missile test created thousands of debris pieces that continue threatening all space operations, while China’s 2007 satellite destruction established precedents for kinetic attacks. Legal scholars highlight the dangerous ambiguity surrounding counterspace activities, as existing international law provides insufficient deterrence against these destabilizing weapons programs. The potential deployment of nuclear-armed satellites represents an unprecedented threat that could trigger electromagnetic pulse attacks devastating entire continental power grids and communication systems. Security analysts warn that the combination of kinetic kill vehicles, directed energy weapons, and nuclear capabilities gives adversaries multiple options for attacking American space infrastructure while maintaining plausible deniability. Japan’s protective satellite initiative offers a model for allied cooperation essential to preserving Western space dominance against authoritarian aggression that undermines global stability and threatens constitutional freedoms dependent on secure communications. Sources: SWP Berlin: Russian Nuclear Weapons in Space? Defense One: How China is expanding its anti-satellite arsenal NSSA Space Threat Fact Sheet The Army Lawyer: Countering Space-Based Weapons of Mass Destruction Lieber Institute, West Point: Shadows in Orbit—Unpacking Cosmos 2588

The Trump administration has launched a counterrevolution in American culture and government. As much as the credit for this sudden and dramatic reversal belongs to the president, it is further being fueled by larger changes in the conservative movement. These changes were set in motion in part thanks to the annual National Conservatism Conference, initially created by Yoram Hazony, author of “The Virtues of Nationalism,” and hosted by the Edmund Burke Foundation. The conference first launched in 2019 and just wrapped up its fifth such gathering on Thursday. As a disclosure, I’ll note that my wife Inez Stepman is one of the hosts of the “NatCon Squad” podcast, an excellent weekly show that provides some of the most insightful analysis about contemporary politics. (Yes, I’m biased, but it’s true.) The National Conservatism message has largely “won” on the Right. That’s in part because it’s strongly aligned with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Vance has spoken several times at the conference, including in 2024, when he spoke about how America is a “homeland” and not just an idea. But in a certain sense, the movement has run alongside Trump and Vance’s success. It has thrived because it filled the vacuum of where the pre-Trump conservative message failed. Addressing What Matters Most Too often there was talk of liberty and the Constitution, of how the government had infringed on the rights of citizens. There was a clear understanding that the Left had gone too far, but little clarity about what to do about it. The first National Conservatism Conference set the tone of how the Right needed to act if Western civilization was to survive and not either disintegrate or become a twisted, villainous version of itself, powerful but wretched. The conference was met with a certain degree of scorn when it began, as many elements of the traditional conservative movement denounced it for embracing ideological heresies. But it succeeded in large part because it was addressing the issues that the American people cared deeply about—issues the Republican Party and conservative institutions ignored or didn’t seem to be taking seriously. For instance, why should Americans extol the virtues of free trade when it seemed to mean the disintegration of jobs, the breakup of communities, and the destruction of the “good life” at the heart of the American dream? Pointing to national economic growth or the benefit of cheaper consumer goods wasn’t good enough when communities were dying and local schools were allowing biological males in girls locker rooms. Unsettled arguments had been treated as settled; dissent or second-guessing was looked upon as a betrayal; and any suggestion that the institutional Right had missed some things in the lead up to Trump taking over the Republican Party was often lambasted as a “sellout” of principles. ‘The Kingdom of God Must be Defended Like Any Other’ Much has changed now. The existential threat the Left poses to our way of life is more widely understood and acknowledged. The Right is more focused on issues directly related to the concerns of millions of forgotten ordinary Americans who are forgotten no more. There is a much stronger focus on culture and the family. Cultural issues are in the driver’s seat, not the backseat—or in a ditch by the side of the road. There is a more widespread belief that political and institutional power is a necessary component of change and success. The National Conservative movement reminded the Right that a great moral and spiritual deficit will bankrupt the country just as much as a fiscal one. What National Conservatism brought to the larger Right is the mentality that the good things at the heart of Western civilization could not be defended by creating small islands of liberty in a sea of hostile leftism. It wasn’t sufficient to just explain the virtues of free speech, to demand religious liberty, and to extol the virtues of the Constitution and limited government. The institutions and changing culture of Western societies controlled by the Left had not only ghettoized traditional cultural and religious ideas, but they had also set them on a path of ultimate annihilation. National Conservatism took hold because it embraced a maxim excellently conveyed in the 1964 movie, “Becket,” which is about the 12th-century Archbishop of Canterbury who defended the church against a corrupt and hostile state. When Becket, played by Richard Burton, decides to excommunicate a state official who killed a priest—thereby angering the ruling regime—three court bishops begged him not to take that action because it would “strike a blow that will split Church and State for a generation.” Becket rebuked them sharply, saying, “If I do not strike it now, the Church as we know it now will not survive a generation.” The bishops answered back, “God will see that it survives.” But Becket had none of it and concluded in a spirit that I think is emblematic of the mindset of National Conservatism: “No, the kingdom of God must be defended like any other kingdom.” It’s not good enough to accept being a “remnant,” mere dissenters clinging to a handful of battered, infiltrated bastions just waiting out the clock and hoping that something will change. It’s About the Institutions, Stupid What was needed was an aggressive counter, an attitude that the institutions of Western civilization do not belong to the Left. We can build and use our own political and institutional power to ensure that we live in a good society of human flourishing. That mindset has produced tangible results.  For instance, the second Trump administration has done something that Republicans had never seriously attempted to do regarding higher education. Instead of just grumbling about the loony Left that’s taken over college campuses and turned them into woke madrassas, as conservatives have done for more than half a century, the administration defunded or threatened to defund them. No longer could schools actively violate the law with impunity and carry out policies that discriminated primarily against white and Asian students. By doing so, colleges risked losing in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars. States followed suit with their own demands that higher education change its ways—or else. And for the first time in a long time, even elite universities such as Harvard must take the Right’s demands seriously, because conservatives are serious about using real political power against them. Even long-standing demands such as defunding the ideologically compromised NPR and PBS, long talked about by conservatives but seemingly never taken seriously by Republicans in office, have suddenly come to pass. It turns out, you can just do stuff. There are other big changes, too. The Trump administration hasn’t just secured the border, it’s deporting thousands of people who have come here illegally, and taking amnesty off the table. The United States is a nation, as National Conservatives have argued, not just an economic zone. With limitless illegal and even legal immigration, it becomes impossible to maintain the cultural bonds that are necessary for a healthy and thriving people. The emphasis has moved away from raw economic competition to family-building and uplifting the American citizens that the state has a duty and obligation to. The challenge now is to keep the momentum going. Trump and the Right’s more confrontational attitude have thrown the Left and its disgraced, untrusted institutions into disarray. That doesn’t mean that a “Retvrn”—“reject modernity, embrace history“—is guaranteed and that the West has been fully restored. Far from it. It’s going to take a generation—or likely generations, plural—to rebuild what has been lost. All that it means is that we are at the beginning of the beginning. We have a new lease on life, so to speak. And that’s thanks in large part to the changes that National Conservatism has brought to America and other Western nations. The post How ‘National Conservatism’ Has Changed the Right appeared first on The Daily Signal.

ERIE, Pennsylvania—Few outside of those who live there understand what the county of Erie’s future holds for its economic future. Is it rural? A port? A city? A college town? A beach town? A faded Rust Belt hub for industrialization? Drive around the county and you’ll soon find that it is all those things. And while the bulk of the population (80%) lives in more urbanized areas, the 38 municipalities of Erie County comprise two cities, 22 townships, and 14 boroughs. There is still a significant number of people in the rural landmass of the county, which makes up 93% of the county’s total land area. They still need the same services as their urban cousins, including what they can get from retailers. Amazon, the largest online retailer in the country, recognized this gap across thousands of other rural ZIP codes nationwide. Its $4 billion investment in rural America was first announced in April, not only expanding its delivery networks in rural areas but also ensuring those deliveries are made faster. It also created 100,000 new jobs across the country in total. In the Millcreek suburb of the city of Erie, a brand-new delivery station is bustling with individual delivery stations—think of them as small businesses inside a larger business—where workers are loading a fleet of Amazon trucks for delivery across the rolling hills where few brick-and-mortar retailers are located. Holly Sullivan is visiting the facility from Amazon’s Nashville, Tennessee, office. She’s the vice president of worldwide economic development at Amazon and led the development of the Tennessee office. It’s no accident that the location is in the middle of the country—Sullivan says it’s important to have that kind of connection with customers and employees. Sullivan calls facilities like the one in Erie their last and most important mile. “Let me work backwards from the customer, which is what we do. We have within our fulfillment network our larger Amazon robotics, which is our smaller items. We have sortation centers, which is our middle mile, and then we have our last mile, which is our delivery stations,” she explained of the logistics. “We started our delivery stations primarily in more urban areas where the larger fulfillment centers were, but we kept hearing from our customers and our drivers of the distance having to be driven to some of the rural areas,” she explained, adding that it was a problem they wanted to solve that led to the rural delivery stations like the one in Millcreek. The building is not new, per se; it is a retrofit placed inside a former industrial site that produced chemicals. It was 2020, and the company wanted to see if the plan would work. “We tweaked some things,” she explained, “learned as we went, and by 2026, we plan on having over 200 rural delivery stations and, in total, a $4 billion investment in rural America.” Sullivan pulled up a map showing they will be in all 50 states, once Vermont finally makes it over the permitting threshold. “It’s fine. We like to follow the rules, and this goes into part of our bigger network,” she said. Underscoring her point, a recent economics study showed that when an Amazon fulfillment center or delivery station is located in a community, it increases the median income by $1,200 a month, according to Oxford Economics. The small businesses within Amazon are the delivery service partners, which operate their own delivery businesses within Amazon, explains Danielle Whitlock, who, along with her husband, Army reservist Victor Whitlock, operates their logistics business across rural Erie. “We’ve been here since July of 2021, and it has grown a lot. We started with a total of seven routes, and now we constantly run around the 40 range in a day, and it is a pretty wide rural territory that runs to the Ohio border,” she explained, adding that they started with a handful of employees and are now over 100. What is great about the program is that it creates small businesses within Amazon, which in turn creates good-paying jobs for people in rural areas, she said. “But it also provides an overnight service that people in high-population areas take for granted but had been considered a luxury in retail deserts in rural America. Pull it all together, and it is a very good thing for everyone.” COPYRIGHT 2025 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 Amazon Expands Jobs and Services in Rural America appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia lawmakers have thrown down the gauntlet and challenged President Donald Trump’s war on the use of race at universities. Their action, clearly intended to save George Mason University President Gregory Washington from being fired, has made the Old Dominion a test case. The Trump administration has a choice. It can stand down and allow Washington to thumb his nose at executive actions banning diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the use of racial preferences in schools that take taxpayer money (virtually all except for outliers like Hillsdale). Or it can use its ample leverage to move against GMU. The track record of this administration has not been one of rolling over. Indeed, it has dealt forcefully against Harvard and other Ivy League schools. GMU, take heed. The action by the Democrats in Richmond came last Thursday. The state’s Senate Privileges and Elections Committee voted to block 14 appointments that Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin had made to the boards of GMU, Virginia Military Institute, and the University of Virginia. The committee had blocked eight appointments to the same schools in June. Why would a Senate committee act in such high-handed fashion? In its drive to eliminate woke policies from universities nationwide, the Trump administration has told universities in Virginia to follow the law against racial discrimination, whether in admissions or hiring and promotion practices, or in the training that goes under the label of diversity, equity, and inclusion. GMU and its very DEI-oriented president have been major causes of concern for several months, as the Departments of Education and Justice launched two investigations each, both on DEI and hiring practices, respectively, on July 10 and 17. Then, on Aug. 22, the Department of Education announced it had found GMU in violation of various civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because of its hiring and promotion practices. Title VI bans discrimination based on race and national origin in educational institutions that receive funds from the taxpayer. The Education Department gave GMU 10 days to resolve the violations, which included “illegally using race and other immutable characteristics in university practices and policies, including hiring and promotion.” “In 2020, University President Gregory Washington called for expunging the so-called ‘racist vestiges’ from GMU’s campus,” acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement. “Without a hint of self awareness, President Washington then waged a universitywide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. You can’t make this up.” The department’s Office of Civil Rights also told Washington to apologize. Washington, though, refuses to do that. Through his lawyer, former Maryland attorney general Douglas Gansler, Washington called the OCR findings “absurd.” “If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance,” Gansler wrote in a letter to the GMU board. “An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch.” The GMU Board of Visitors had taken a different approach, saying in a statement on Aug. 22 that it would “continue to respond fully and cooperatively to all inquiries from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. House of Representatives and evaluate the evidence that comes to light. Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the university and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.” This is where the Virginia Democrats come in. The governing board met on Aug. 1 amid reports that it was ready to fire Washington. Instead, it not only kept him on the job but also unanimously approved a 1.5% salary increase. This led to a raft of stories about how the board was behind Washington, who put out a statement saying, “Regardless of how one views the events unfolding at George Mason University, today’s display of unity by the Mason community is inspiring.”  The reality is that the 1.5% raise was the lowest that Washington could get, and the statement of support was tepid. That, plus the board’s cooperative response to the administration after the charges of violations were announced, clearly convinced Washington’s many friends in the Virginia Senate that it was moving to fire him. The cuts the Democrats have made to the GMU board, which should have 16 members, leave it now with only six. In other words, the board now lacks a quorum and can no longer govern the university. The Democrats told the governor to cease making any more appointments. “We therefore respectfully request that you suspend further appointments to these boards,” they wrote in a letter. Youngkin has called the cuts a “partisan campaign” that “irreparably harm[s] higher education in Virginia.” But he is termed out and due to leave office in January, and in the remainder of his term, he faces a hostile Virginia General Assembly. Which puts the matter back into the Trump administration’s hands. GMU receives about $200 million in federal funds. The administration has made adroit use of this leverage in this second term, and it has seen one university after the next fold when faced with the cut of funds. Will it use it again? If Virginia gets away with this use of raw power, it will become the model to thwart the administration on DEI and many other fronts. Originally published by the Washington Examiner The post George Mason Battle Will Mold Opposition to Trump’s Agenda appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In New York City, It's Class Warfare. If You Own Anything, Mamdani Wants to Take It.

After a transgender shooter murdered children at Annunciation Catholic School last month, liberals demanded no more "thoughts and prayers." For once, they're right — but not for the reasons they think.Ritual scornBefore the facts were fully known, liberals seized on the moment to lecture Americans about why prayer is an insufficient response to the tragedy.Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki declared that "prayer is not freaking enough." Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) went a step further. He used a press conference to browbeat Christians. "Don't just say that this is about thoughts and prayers right now," he declared.The reaction was as predictable as it was tone-deaf.Evil had just entered the sanctuary of God, and two innocent children were murdered. Yet progressives like Psaki and Frey believe that was the time to denounce believers who offer their sympathy to the victims and call out to God in a time of dire need?It's a familiar ritual: Politicians and pundits use tragedy to score easy points against Christians.Are they right?Yes — partially. While Scripture recounts miraculous answers to prayer, most Christians don't experience immediate "results" from prayer (as if results are the goal; they're not). Prayers don't restore broken stained-glass windows and (typically) don't resurrect life.But in a way, these ghoulish critics are right: America needs something more than words.America lacks the courage to name evil for what it is and to confront the anti-God and demonic ideologies that deform human souls.It's not that prayer is weak, ineffective, or insufficient. Calling on God is not a wholesale abdication of duty. Quite the opposite. Prayer is a powerful act precisely because it's meant to lead us to repentance, action, and moral renewal. Christian tradition does not sever prayer from action. They are inherently intertwined.So, I agree: Our country needs more action. But what kind?Rotten rootsAs liberals sneer at prayer — the one practice that consistently births moral courage in the face of evil — they offer to sacrifice the Second Amendment on the altar of progressivism. Endless laws, strict regulations, all in the name of "safety," are pushed as the "real action" America needs. Ironically, they can't name a single law that would have prevented the tragedy, short of repealing the Second Amendment entirely.But gun control is not the cure. The real solution is moral action.Right now, America lacks the courage to name evil for what it is and to confront the anti-God and demonic ideologies that deform human souls. At the core, the Annunciation Catholic School tragedy is the fruit of moral disorder, the result of a culture that catechizes people into anti-God, anti-truth ideologies.When a society teaches young people to reject God, meaning, and moral reality — everything that is true and good — we should not be surprised when their brokenness turns monstrous.RELATED: The idols and lies behind the Minneapolis Catholic school shooting The cure begins with addressing the spiritual rot at the root of these tragedies: racial individualism, nihilism, the denial of objective truth, and the rejection of God. In the simplest terms, it means rejecting the worldview of progressive liberalism. And prayer, rightly understood, fuels this moral reckoning. It reminds us that righteous action is not merely a policy outcome but a divine imperative.We have a duty to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That means it's time for courageous Americans to stand up and recover a moral vision that forms strong men and women who fear the Lord and walk in His ways. No law will save us. Only righteous action from God-fearing men and women will prevent the next Annunciation tragedy.Prayer's demandWhen Jesus hung on the cross and bore the weight of humanity's sin, mockers looked upon the living God and declared, "He saved others, but he cannot save himself" (Matthew 27:42).That is exactly what the prayer-mockers do. They think prayer doesn't work or it has failed. Worse yet, they believe that God has failed.But the eyes of man are easily led astray. The mockers on that day failed to discern that what they saw as a failure was anything but a failure. Jesus, after all, left the tomb alive.So, yes: "Thoughts and prayers" aren't enough. Not because prayer is insufficient but because prayer calls us to more than words; it demands moral seriousness and righteous action.If "thoughts and prayers" are to mean anything, they must be joined to action — the hard, uncompromising, and courageous work of confronting evil, calling out false ideologies, and shaping a culture that values truth, virtue, human life, and the God that created us. And what is beautiful about prayer is that it prompts righteous but flawed people to step up and do what is right. It fuels our courage to act.We must pray — because it's vital — but we must also act. Prayer sets the compass, and moral action steers the ship. It's high time we took the wheel.

LOL-Yup, JD Vance BROKE HIM --> Point and LAUGH at Brian Krassenstein's 24-Hour X-Tastrophe MELTDOWN