We have some extreme Islamists who plan to take advantage of the anger toward ICE, which anarchists and communists whipped up.  Imam Abdullah said that if ICE attempts to “kidnap” anyone, they should take out their gun and kill them. The imam is referencing normal arrests and detention. This imam’s son is a Las Vegas […] The post Tulsa Imam Tells Islamists to Kill ICE If They Try to “Kidnap” You appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Many of the homeless in sanctuary cities are drug addicted and/or mentally ill. They are hurting innocent people and need to be off the streets. Homeless and drug-addicted felons live on the streets in these cities with drug dealers supplying them with the poison right in the “open air.” That isn’t liberalism; it’s far-left ideology. […] The post Finally! A President Who Will Bring Back Insane Asylums appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who hosts the weeknight program “No Spin News,” told followers on Wednesday that he is ill. He said the condition, which he did not name, would temporarily limit his appearances “Hey No Spin Nation. Sorry, I am dealing with a malady. We have great doctors, so we’ll fight the […] The post Bill O’Reilly Is Sick appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

On Tuesday, there was a hearing at the Supreme Court regarding a law in Hawaii that bans guns from being carried into supermarkets, gas stations, and other public locations without the property owner’s permission. Instead of property owners issuing a statement saying, “You can’t come in here with a gun,” the idea would be that you wouldn’t be able to walk in with a gun unless the shop owner gives you explicit permission.   This is the opposite of how the Second Amendment is supposed to work. It is quite possible under the Second Amendment for people to say, “You can’t come into my establishment carrying a gun,” but this argument would reverse that presumption. Justice Samuel Alito said the state was relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status. The Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to carry outside the home for self-defense in 2022, but now lawmakers are attempting some sort of back door to prevent people from doing that. The law is similar to restrictions that already exist in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey as well.   A truly bizarre moment in the hearing came when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who’s become infamous for making dumb comments in the middle of oral arguments — decided that she was going to talk about the “Black Codes.” The codes were legitimately created by racists in order to prevent black people from owning guns. She was talking about them as precedent. SCOTUSBlog noted the argument against the law made by its opponents: In upholding Hawaii’s ban, they say, the court of appeals relied on two laws, neither of which is analogous. The first was a 1771 New Jersey law that barred poaching on lands that were closed to the public. But that law, the challengers wrote, “simply codified the American rule that hunters could hunt on unimproved lands not their own, while improved lands remained off limits. That is a trespass law,” they concluded, rather than a law that – like Hawaii’s – generally prohibits “carrying firearms on any and all private property without advance express consent.”  And the second, the challengers continue, was an 1865 Louisiana law, enacted as part of that state’s Black Codes to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people, that barred the carrying of guns on “premises or plantations” – that is, private property – without the owner’s consent. Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined, themselves, to be unconstitutional, doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make. So, can you say more about that?” Sarah Harris, the U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General, responded, “Absolutely. Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception, because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly-freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.” Jackson: “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted. They were part of the history and tradition of the country. And when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.” Harris: “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional.” Jackson: “Afterwards, not at the time. And if the test says what is happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?” Harris: “Respectfully, a law is always unconstitutional from its inception.” Jackson: “So the history doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t care about the history, then.” Jackson seems to be making the argument that when Dred Scott was ruled unconstitutional, the reversal of the decision doesn’t mean that Dred Scott was ever wrong. This is a truly bizarre agreement she’s making. She’s implying that Plessy v. Ferguson, which said that segregation under the Equal Protection laws was fully legal, was good constitutional law, and only later was reversed. That means that if there was a subtextual or secondary part of that law, we should look to it as good law even though the Supreme Court’s ruling was a bad decision. This is absolutely incoherent and nonsensical.

Michelle Obama joined the sex and dating podcast “Call Her Daddy” to criticize society’s fixation on women’s appearances while promoting her new book, “The Look,” which explores her outfits as the former first lady. Without a hint of irony, Obama told podcast host Alex Cooper that she wished the press focused less on what she wore and more on her education and professional background. “The top of the article would be ‘she was wearing…’” Obama lamented. “Not my education, not my professional career.” Cooper agreed with Obama, though both women seemed to forget that the interview had opened with, “Talk to me about your outfit. How did you pick it?”  The irony continued when, instead of delving into her professional accomplishments, Obama highlighted the personal toll of being overlooked “as just Barack Obama’s wife.” “All of that just disappeared in the course of this whole [2008] election,” she said after listing her professional accomplishments as an attorney, assistant to the Chicago mayor, nonprofit leader, and vice president for community relations at the University of Chicago Hospitals. “You now see me as just Barack Obama’s wife … my shoes became the most important thing about me,” she added.  While she declined to say more about her past careers, Obama was clear about one path she would not take: Politics. “Don’t even ask me about running,” she said. “Because you all are lying. You aren’t ready for a woman. You are not.”  Obama explained that Donald Trump didn’t win because Americans favored him over Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, but because the nation is not yet ready for a woman in the Oval Office.  “Let’s look at the fact that we’ve had two really qualified female candidates,” she said. “One who was first lady, secretary of state, well educated, you know, my husband beat her… And now we just had the former vice president, you know, we’ve had qualified women and they just, you know, again, if they’re not perfect and they don’t cross every T and dot every I, there’s a falling shortness that is happening.” Still, she urged young women — especially those interested in public service — not to be discouraged. “We need you,” Obama said.  Podcast host Cooper asked the former first lady, “How could a woman hold the highest seat in the government when she has less rights than half the population?” Obama responded, “Yeah, yeah,” before shifting to a message of encouragement. She emphasized that women should not give up just because the glass ceiling hasn’t been broken.  “That doesn’t mean that women should roll up their sleeves and call it a day… prove us wrong. I would love that. The young women we’ve been talking to keep climbing. We need you. You may come up short, but keep going.” 

“The Pendragon Cycle” features bards and legends whose power is immediately visible. But one intriguing figure in the series presents a more subtle, yet undeniable power. Ganieda, portrayed by Brett Cooper, is not a character who draws attention through outward magic. Instead, her presence changes the lives of those who surround her. In Stephen R. Lawhead’s saga based on the Arthurian legend, Ganieda is both a seer and an emotional anchor. The series introduces her in glimpses and flashbacks as the story unfolds, leading to the full reveal, which contributes to the character’s overall mystique.  Cooper is described as having a natural “chemistry” with her on-screen love interest, Tom Sharp, which helps add authenticity to their scenes together. While speaking with The Daily Wire, Sharp mentioned Merlin meeting Ganieda as being one of his favorite scenes.  The pair met in full costume, with her clad in the gown of a regal princess and him presenting as a mud-covered Merlin as they both encountered a giant wild boar. “This is not your traditional romantic setting,” he joked. Cooper’s performance is revealed gradually over the course of the series, but because she’s described by others, her image emerges from perception rather than being defined by actions the audience can immediately see. Cooper plays the role with humor and joy, but also maintains the otherworldly essence of Ganieda. Silent-hearted and steadfast, Ganieda is the calm within Merlin’s storm, a guiding light whose quiet strength anchors the fate of Britain’s greatest prophet. Ganieda’s strength is in her moral clarity. She does not seek to control or manipulate; instead, she serves as a grounding presence. The character is not physically present in every episode, but her impact is felt throughout the series. Through Cooper’s measured performance, Ganieda emerges as one of “The Pendragon Cycle’s” most essential and memorable characters. “The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin” premieres January 22, 2026. Early episodes are currently available for DailyWire+ All Access members.

A watchdog group is urging Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to restrict classified access for the so-called “Seditious Six” Democrats while they are under federal investigation. The Center to Advance Security in America sent a letter to Gabbard’s office on Tuesday warning that the continued access of two Democratic senators and four Democratic congressmen to sensitive U.S. documents risks national security. The lawmakers in question teamed up in a controversial video posted online in November, in part claiming that the Trump administration is “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.” “Given that these members are now all under federal investigation, their access to classified information should be suspended for the duration of the investigation. We are requesting this restriction to mitigate the risk of unauthorized disclosure or misuse of classified material during the investigation,” CASA Director James Fitzpatrick told Gabbard in the letter obtained by The Daily Wire. The Democrats in question are Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Jason Crow of Colorado, and Chrissy Houlahan and Chris DeLuzio of Pennsylvania. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the “Seditious Six” over their November video. War Secretary Pete Hegseth coined the nickname for the lawmakers, saying the video “undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion.” The lawmakers said the investigation is an example of the administration “using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.” The letter notes that each lawmaker likely handles sensitive U.S. national security information through their committee assignments. “The members of Congress who appeared in the November 2025 viral video insinuating that military orders from the Trump administration are illegal and not to be followed were purposefully attempting to sow confusion and undermine good order and discipline in our armed forces,” Fitzpatrick told The Daily Wire in a statement. “Given the ongoing federal investigation concerning all six subjects, we believe it is appropriate to restrict their access to classified information for the duration of the investigation.”

CNN anchor John Berman reluctantly stepped in to save Cameron Kasky after the Parkland activist-turned-commentator defamed President Donald Trump — twice — during a Monday evening broadcast. Berman was goaded into covering for Kasky — who twice claimed that Trump was “provably” involved in a “global sex trafficking ring” tied to the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — by conservative commentator Scott Jennings, who had to ask whether Berman was going to let the accusation stand. WATCH: Activist Cameron Kasky DEFAMES President Trump live on CNN, accusing him of being a part of a global Epstein trafficking scheme. It gets intense when Scott Jennings has to force the CNN host to begrudgingly say anything at all. This is CNN pic.twitter.com/gpGF65umPH — Cash Loren (@Cashloren) January 20, 2026 “I am appreciative that the president is being transparent about this,” Kasky said in reference to Trump’s designs on Greenland and his anger at not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can’t win them all.” “Cameron’s grateful that the president is being transparent about the Nobel Peace Prize and his desires for Greenland, Scott, what do you think about that?” Berman asked, ignoring Kasky’s assertion. “You’re going to let that sit? Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring? Or —” Jennings pushed back. “Well, we’re going to talk about the Epstein files, Scott, I will do the fact-checking as we go along here,” Berman protested, and then turned back to Kasky: “Repeat what you said about the global sex trafficking ring.” “That Donald Trump was provably very involved with it,” Kasky declared. “Okay, we’ll get to that later,” Berman said, eventually adding, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein, but we will talk —” “Yeah, but let’s be adults here —” Kasky kept digging as Berman quickly scrambled to get him out of the hole. “We’ll talk about the Epstein files later,” he said to Kasky, before turning back to Jennings and asking, “Satisfied? Now answer the question about Greenland.” Sometime after the broadcast, Kasky apparently realized the gravity of what he’d said on air and offered an apology in which he also claimed he had twice made the accusation “by accident.” “I would like to retract my comments from CNN last night and truly apologize. Donald Trump was obviously not involved with a giant international child sex trafficking ring where women and children were systematically raped by elites,” Kasky said in an X post. “I said that by accident and didn’t mean it.”

Federal immigration agents have deployed to Maine as part of a new initiative dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” according to Fox News. The raids reportedly started with more than 50 arrests on Tuesday. “We have approximately 1,400 targets here in Maine,” ICE Deputy Assistant Director Patricia Hyde told the outlet. Hyde said the illegal immigrant targets had rap sheets for “rape of a child” and “drug trafficking,” as well as “sexual assaults, simple assaults,” and “driving while under the influence.” “You name it,” she said. “They’re on the target list.” At the start of the operation, ICE nabbed a Sudanese man with more than a dozen criminal convictions, according to Fox News. He also had a deportation order. Two Ecuadorian illegal immigrants were also caught after they were charged with drunk driving. One of them was released into the country after crossing the border unlawfully during the Biden administration. The sanctuary city mayor of Portland, Maine, Mark Dion, came out against news of the deployment last week. “There is no evidence of unchecked criminal activity in our community requiring a disproportionate presence of federal agents. In that view, Portland rejects the need for the deployment of ICE agents into our neighborhoods,” Dion said. “As a reminder, Portland Police does not cooperate with ICE, and they do not participate in enforcing federal immigration law,” he added. Maine Democratic Governor Janet Mills also condemned the deployment before it commenced, calling out ICE for its tactics. She also mobilized local law enforcement to respond if needed, but it’s unclear what orders they were given. “Maine knows what good law enforcement looks like because our law enforcement are held to high professional standards,” Mills said. “And, I’ll tell you this, they don’t wear a mask to shield their identities and they don’t arrest people in order to fill a quota,” she added. Most recently, the Trump administration has flooded Minnesota with federal immigration agents, arresting more than 3,000 illegal immigrants in the last six weeks, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said this week. Federal immigration agents have also conducted similar operations in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte, Memphis, and Chicago.