In 2006, HIM were at the peak of their powers –and frontman Ville Valo was living the rock star life to the max

Oscar winning actor Gene Hackman was living with his dead wife’s body for an entire week before his body gave into complications from heart problems and advanced Alzheimer’s disease, officials stated on Friday. 

China hit Canada with 100% tariffs on certain agriculture products. It was in retaliation for their tariffs on China’s EVs. China on Saturday announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on Canadian rapeseed oil, oil cakes and peas, adding that a 25% levy would be placed on aquatic products and pork originating in Canada. The […] The post China Tariffs Canada 100% on Certain Products appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Some thoughts spring to mind after President Donald Trump’s 100-minute address to Congress. The first is that this 78-year-old man has amazing resilience and perseverance. Consider that in the past 12 months, he has had to spend hours listening to a kangaroo court proceeding before a hostile judge in New York, has maintained a campaign rally schedule that would daunt candidates half his age, has participated in planning sessions for a detailed set of executive orders he might never have an opportunity to issue, has faced the former president and vice president of the United States in televised debates with moderators he had reason to believe were biased against him, and suffered a bullet wound that came within 1 inch of killing him. Around minute 98, he made mention of the last. This inspired sympathizers in the House chamber to echo the cries of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” he made as he rose above his Secret Service protectors. A second thing to say is that, long before minute 98, his speech was almost entirely about what he has been doing, saying, proposing and persuading others to do. Four paragraphs near the end gracefully evoked themes from history, but he otherwise spoke about his orders withdrawing from United Nations institutions, eliminating government censorship (while renaming the Gulf of Mexico), overturning racially discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and his Department of Government Efficiency’s identification of dubious U.S. Agency for International Development programs. Instead of an overarching vision of where the world stands in history, he quoted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s letter apologizing for his comments the previous Friday and promising to sign the mineral rights deal he had criticized in the televised exchange that for once showed the public what leaders look and sound like in what diplomats call “a full and frank exchange.” My third observation is that, as the Zelenskyy letter suggests, Trump is mostly getting his way. It was surely no accident that the narrow and previously fractious Republican majority in the House elected a speaker and passed a budget resolution with just one dissenting vote. Similarly, Trump’s top-level appointees have all been confirmed by the Senate. Neither foreign leaders nor domestic partisans want to defy this aggressive man with three years, 10 months and two weeks left in his term. Fourth, there was no return to norms of civil discourse. Trump called former President Joe Biden “the worst president in American history” and condemned “the open-border, insane policies that [Biden had] allowed to destroy the country.” Democrats have a point when they say Trump started this with his derogatory nicknames for 2016 opponents. Republicans have a point when they say Democrats escalated this with the Russia collusion hoax and baseless post-presidential prosecutions, unprecedented since former President Thomas Jefferson’s treason prosecution of former Vice President Aaron Burr. But neither Trump’s speech nor the Democrats’ childish behavior (that Trump predicted) in the audience moved to de-escalation. Fifth, Trump continues to disregard free-market economists’ (in my opinion, wise) advice. True, he is encouraging congressional Republicans to reup the tax-cut-for-all legislation they passed eight years ago, but with political payoff addons such as no tax on tips. However, he also devoted multiple paragraphs extolling his imposition of tariffs, notably on Mexico and Canada. Economists point out that the tariffs will likely raise the U.S. prices of many products, not just eggs. Voters won’t welcome something that looks like the Biden inflation, which could overshadow the Trump administration’s genuine successes. This leads to my sixth observation: that he’s aware that the Constitution and calendar set limits on his time. Early in his speech, Trump noted that measures of illegal crossings on the southern border have immediately dwindled to almost nothing. Smugglers and potential illegals clearly got his message, even as Democrats and much of the press argued that only new legislation could stop the flow. His only problem is that solving a problem can deprive you of an issue. Former President George H.W. Bush’s deft handling of foreign policy problems left voters concluding they didn’t need him after the Cold War. Success can breed failure. But for a time, it can breed success. The first words of Article II of the Constitution state, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Those words, plus recent Supreme Court decisions, suggest that most decisions limiting Trump’s administrative powers will not stand. Current polls show that Trump’s disapproval is rising, but his approval rate is steady at just under 50%, while Republicans keep making gains in party registration. What is Trump planning for years two, three and four? I’m not sure, and I suspect he’s not, either. Trump knows the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prevents him from running again. He must know that’s likely to reduce his clout with foreign leaders and American politicians. More importantly, he’s aware his time may be cut short. In the House chamber, as in his convention speech on July 19, he remembered how he had narrowly escaped death on July 13. “I believe my life was saved that day in Butler,” he said, “for a very good reason. I was saved by God to make America great again–I believe that. I really do.” Like him or not, he is a formidable man. 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 A Formidable President Storms Ahead appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With Trump’s presidential victory in the rearview mirror, many people have begun asking questions about the future. What is the world going to look like in five, 10, 20 years? Luckily for everyone, the United Nations is proposing a mandatory, unsolicited solution for the future of digital technology, which includes digital IDs, censorship, and mass surveillance. According to a report from Reclaim the Net, a committee of the United Nations has adopted two resolutions, “one of them aimed at the [U.N.'s] Department of Global Communications establishing and strengthening ‘partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives.’” While the United Nations may not seem like an immediate threat at present, it has posed itself as a forum for these types of ideas to be flushed out and developed. Reclaim the Net reports that the resolution of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee reaffirms the U.N.’s commitment to “Our Common Agenda” and the “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Pact for the Future, and Global Digital Compact,” all of which are plans for the vision of the future proposed by the United Nations. “Our Common Agenda” reportedly “proposes bank account-linked digital ID.” One of the goals of this resolution is “promoting a trustworthy Internet by introducing accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.” The bank account-linked digital ID is one of the proposed solutions for combatting misinformation. Another policy brief related to Our Common Agenda makes this even more explicit: “Digital IDs linked with bank or mobile money accounts can improve the delivery of social protection coverage and serve to better reach eligible beneficiaries. Digital technologies may help to reduce leakage, errors and costs in the design of social protection programmes.” Essentially, the digital ID would serve as a deterrent for the further spread of “misinformation.” The resolution was met with various degrees of enthusiasm. For example, Reclaim the Net said Italy’s representative advocated for “the use of AI in combatting ‘misinformation and disinformation.’” The U.K.’s representative was likewise on board with increased U.N. censorship, according to Reclaim the Net: “The U.K. remains committed to digging its heels in when it comes to characterizing ‘misinformation’ as a major threat.” The U.K.’s support of these policies is unsurprising in light of the national effort to pass speech codes and digital policing frameworks, such as the Online Safety Bill, which Reclaim the Net says gives “sweeping new censorship powers to the UK’s Secretary of State and its communications regulator, the Office of Communications.” Some representatives also proposed solutions for the punishment of individuals who disseminate what is deemed to be hate speech and misinformation. For example, Pakistan’s representative not only wanted a system of deterrence, but also a system for “censoring and demonetizing content algorithmically,” according to Reclaim the Net. A digital ID linked to bank accounts would serve as a solution to both of these demands. On the other hand, Argentina’s representative expressed concern that “the term ‘hate speech’ can be abused by those wishing to stifle ‘pluralistic debate,'” according to Reclaim the Net. This did not sway any opinions, however, and the resolution was passed. Argentina’s representative was only able to “dissociate himself” from the parts of the resolution relevant to the attacks on free speech. It is easy to dismiss the United Nations and its plans for global governance. They often sound far-fetched or way too extreme to put into action. However, even supposedly free countries like the U.K. are beginning to implement hate-speech laws and guards against misinformation of their own accord. While the United Nations may not seem like an immediate threat at present, it has posed itself as a forum for these types of ideas to be flushed out and developed. Therefore, the recent triumph of free speech figures in the United States should not be taken for granted, and we must remain vigilant in this age of increasing censorship and surveillance.