This Week in Historyby Dianne Hermann “The secret to happiness is freedom.The secret to freedom is courage.” Carrie Jones June 30-July 6, 2025 June 30 1859 – Charles Blondin is the first person to cross Niagara Falls on a tightrope. Blondin walked the 1,100’ across the falls 160’ above the water before a crowd of […] The post This Week in History: June 30-July 6, 2025 appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

US Attorney Bill Essayli wants to know where $2 billion went in California under the horrendous leadership of Gov. Newsom and Mayor Bass. He launched a task force that will look at the homeless spending. They will account for where that money went. “There was an audit done at the order of a district court […] The post $2B Missing in LA but Bill Essayli Plans to Find Where It Went appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Cats can be extremely possessive. When they decide that something is theirs, it is theirs. End of discussion. That is why, when the plumber was working and his toolbox was blocking the cat’s cabinet, the cat was visibly angry. @mrmeowsalot Telling the plumber to get out of his cupboard. #catsbeingcats #meowing #cathabits –#catlife #catsoftiktok2025 ♬ original sound – SirArthurmeowsalot It is doubtful that the plumber was paying much attention to the cat yowling at his feet. He did offer a few answering yowls back to the cat. Other than that, the cat was complaining to the great and vast vacuum of space. Although his Mom thought it was funny enough to record, and can be heard giggling in the background. This cat’s name is Sir Arthur Meowsalot. That is probably one of the most appropriate cat names on the planet. Sir Arthur is a meowy boy. It’s not your standard meow either. He’s got a gravelly, very low, almost growly meow. Compared to Sir Arthur, the plumber’s return yowling was weak. If you’re wondering why Sir Arthur has decided that that particular cupboard is his, one look at the contents will remove any question. @mrmeowsalot Can you guess what’s in the cupboard? #catlife #catsoftiktokcomedy #catlife #meow #cathabits #catmom #catmeme @Purina Animal Nutrition ♬ Clumsy Situations – Eitan Epstein Music Sir Arthur the cat is angry because the plumber is blocking his treats. Maybe Sir Arthur should talk to Puffin the Cat and find out where he got his handy cat buttons. It sounds like he has a lot to say, and cat buttons might allow him to voice his opinions more accurately. Prince Louie and Todd use their buttons to demand tuna treats constantly. That might work for Sir Arthur. To find out how the plumber’s block saga continues, follow Sir Arthur Meowsalot on TikTok. This vocal, angry cat is always talking. He has a set bedtime, he wants out, he wants in, or he wants treats. Please share. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here and here. The post Angry Cat Is Absolutely Fed Up With The Plumber For Stealing His Cupboard appeared first on InspireMore.

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Thomas Massie Reveals What Would Get Him To 'Yes' On Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

Jake Retzlaff will be entering the transfer portal

Grand Ayatollah of Iran Issue Fatwa: Kill Donald Trump

In yet another desperate attempt to stay relevant in Hollywood’s “woke” propaganda wars, HBO’s Sex and the City reboot And Just Like That has been giving pedo-friendly vibes (again) in its latest episodes by sexualizing a minor child character in a storyline that caters to the LGBTQ+ cause de jour - polyamory. In episode 4, “Apples to Apples,” we are treated to an interesting family dinner with the Goldenblatt family- Mom Charlotte (Kristin Davis), dad Harry (Evan Handler) and their two teenage daughters, one of whom is non-binary and changed her name from Rose to Rock (Alexa Swinton) and the other, Lily (Cathy Ang) who is adopted and whose ballet dancing boyfriend Diego (Eliazar Jimenez) has a boyfriend himself. Harry’s dad is visiting and thus joins the family and their friends at the dinner, where Diego’s polyamorous relationship is announced for the first time: Charlotte: What did I miss? Lily: I was just telling Pop-Pop that Diego's a ballet dancer. Morris: So, you have a ballet dancer boyfriend? Lily: I do. I do, right? Diego: Mm hmm. Morris: Good for you, Lily. You know, back in my day, boy ballet dancers didn't have girlfriends. They had boyfriends. Anthony: Back in my day, they did too. Diego: Oh, I have a boyfriend too. Charlotte: Oh! You... you do? Diego: Mm hmm. Lily: Diego's poly. Morris: Rock, you know all the new things. What's your sister talking about? Rock: Oh, polysexual. Diego's attracted to multiple partners simultaneously. I hope it's okay I spoke for you. Diego: Yeah, that's cool. Thank you. Morris: Well. Does Polly want more brisket? Alrighty then. This particular scene is a prime example of how Hollywood inserts complex adult issues into narratives involving children who have no business engaging with such topics. It’s not just cringe-inducing, it’s downright irresponsible. The dinner table reaction to the announcement is basically a collective shrug, with Charlotte’s weak “Oh, you do?” as the only hint of parental shock. This isn’t progressive; it’s a parenting failure wrapped in a rainbow flag. Then we have Rock playing woke Wikipedia by defining “polysexual” like they’re earning a merit badge in social justice when both minor girls should be navigating algebra, not open relationships. Children aren’t emotionally or cognitively developed enough to handle the nuances of polyamory, yet the show seems perfectly comfortable portraying it as the new normal for high schoolers. What’s next? A storyline about polygamy and sister friends before prom? In episode 5, “Under the Table,” we have the age-old lament of teenagers not wanting to go away with their parents for the weekend because they’d rather be with their friends. Only, in woke Hollywoodland, Lily is worried because she doesn’t want Diego’s boyfriend Eric to get an extra night with him if she’s not there: Lily: Mom? So, we've been thinking... Rock, do you wanna take the lead? Rock: Yes. We are a unified front. We don't want to go glamping. Charlotte: You're going glamping. Rock: Okay, I'm out. Anthony: I thought you were vegan now. Rock: Ah, sh*t. I keep on forgetting. Lily: Well, I can't go. I have plans with Diego. Charlotte: You have plans with your father this weekend, and he is really looking forward to it. Lily: Daddy will be fine. Charlotte: You don't know that Daddy will be fine. Lily: It's just stupid glamping. I'll ask him. Charlotte: You will not ask him! You will not put anything negative on this fun, fun thing that he wants to do. This is a positive, positive event. Lily: You don't understand. Rock: She's still going for it. Lily: I split Diego's weekends with his boyfriend. And if I'm not there, Eric gets both nights. Eric. And that puts me at a disadvantage. Charlotte: Lily, you are spending the weekend with your family. End of story. I am sure that you can make up this time with your polyamorous, polysexual boyfriend some other weekend. Can you believe this is parenting now? Anthony: No, Char, I cannot. Rock: I miss cheese. So much. Anthony: Then, eat some! No, Charlotte, we don’t believe this is parenting now. We believe this is how Hollywood wants parenting to be now, but thankfully, we don’t believe this is how it is. Yet. But the show is trying to normalize polyamory for a character who is still a child. Thus, they completely sidestep the critical issue of consent. A teenager like Lily isn’t able to fully understand the emotional weight of such relationships, yet And Just Like That treats it as just another quirky subplot. Instead of focusing on age-appropriate challenges teenagers face, the narrative veers into adult sexual politics. In its attempt to stay relevant and appeal to a hyper-progressive audience, the show sacrifices authenticity and relatability. It would have been nice to see them address real parental concerns, like ensuring Lily develops healthy, age-appropriate boundaries rather than portraying polyamory as just another lifestyle choice for teens. This isn’t storytelling; it’s propaganda, and it’s particularly gross when it involves a kid who should be protected, not paraded as a poster child for the latest social fad. Parents, be on guard. They’re still coming for your children.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) just failed — again — in their bid to ram through the Credit Card Competition Act, a sweeping regulatory proposal that would overhaul the U.S. credit card system to resemble Europe’s heavy-handed financial regime. Their latest attempt to sneak the measure into a stablecoin bill collapsed under scrutiny, marking yet another setback for legislation that critics say would harm consumers, weaken data security, and empower retail giants.This outcome is welcome but unsurprising. The bill is wildly unpopular with consumers — for good reason. As written, it’s a thinly veiled giveaway to big-box retailers at the expense of virtually everyone else. Its sponsors claim it would inject competition into a noncompetitive market.Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken.In reality, the CCCA would allow retailers to continue accepting name-brand credit cards while processing payments through lesser-known networks — all without consumer knowledge or consent. Lawmakers should stand firm against any future efforts to resurrect this awful proposal.The central premise of the bill — that the credit card market lacks competition — is unfounded. As of 2025, 152 companies in the United States issue credit cards. Between 2020 and 2025, market entry has grown at an average annual rate of 8.1%. This kind of steady growth does not indicate a broken market, but rather a dynamic and competitive system that continues to serve consumers well.Kiss rewards goodbyeIf passed, the CCCA would jeopardize that progress. Fraud rates, already on the rise, would skyrocket. Unvetted payment processors would be handed vast troves of sensitive consumer data. The only beneficiaries of using these cheaper alternatives are the retailers, who lack a vested interest in cardholder safety. Meanwhile, smaller institutions — including community banks and credit unions — would see revenue streams dry up.RELATED: SCARY: President of European Central Bank admits 'digital Euro' is ready for launch dem10 via iStock/Getty Images Retailers insist these alleged “cost savings” would trickle down to their customers. That’s about as likely as the claim that businesses absorb tariffs or taxes without raising prices. History suggests otherwise.Worse still, the bill would also end the ability of banks and credit unions to operate popular credit card rewards programs. These programs are funded largely by the interchange fees charged by payment processors. When Durbin succeeded in passing his debit card price controls, consumers lost card benefits and experienced no savings. A Wall Street Journal article highlighted this history: Debit-card rewards programs have nearly disappeared since the Durbin amendment, part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that cut retailers’ fees nearly in half. Stores didn’t pass the savings to customers, while the banks that issue the cards found other ways to recoup revenue.A failed Trojan horseLike a one-trick pony, Durbin and Marshall have not given up — despite the bill neither gaining traction nor receiving a committee markup. As they have done previously, the senators once again tried to tuck their proposal into a “must-pass” bill. Their first target in the 119th Congress was the GENIUS Act, a bipartisan bill focused on stablecoin regulations. Thankfully, Senate leadership saw right through this ploy.Polling confirms that Americans are largely content with the current credit card marketplace. In fact, 77% of respondents trust credit card companies to handle key responsibilities, such as fraud prevention. Three-quarters of respondents trust that their private payment networks will handle the protection of personal data. The poll also showed that 79% of cardholders use rewards cards, and more than half (58%) use those rewards regularly. Rewards are a tool many families and businesses rely on to make purchases while also earning cash back.Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken — which is why they rightly rejected the addition of Durbin’s credit card mandates to the GENIUS Act.Consumers can breathe easierIt is a relief the bill didn’t slip in as an amendment with no opportunity for debate. Any legislation with sweeping financial implications deserves full congressional scrutiny — and the voices of constituents must be heard. Still, Durbin and Marshall are reportedly eyeing the National Defense Authorization Act as their next legislative vehicle. Taxpayers must remain vigilant to hold their representatives accountable. Policymakers must also be vigilant in defending the interests of their constituents. But for now, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.

OOPS! Looks Like Jake Tapper 'Missed' Another Story, This Time About Zohran Mamdani