Yet the UK police do nothing to the Muslims threatening the man‚ instead they take him into custody. Muslims still won’t admit that marrying a 6-year-old and consummating the marriage when she was 9 qualifies you as a paedophile. British man says Mohammed was a pedophiIe and is almost Iynched by angry Islamic mob. pic.twitter.com/aHWea9NCmA […]

Newsmax reported that New York’s attorney general has moved to enact a judgment to seize Donald Trump’s golf course and estate in Westchester on Monday. She will possibly seize 40 Wall Street as well. She can seize anything he owns. The deadline for Mr. Trump to pay a half-billion-dollar bond in cash is up on […] The post Breaking…NY AG Prepares to Seize Trump Properties Monday appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Republican hardliners are condemning the $1.2 trillion spending legislation to fund various facets of the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2024 that congressional leaders from both parties unveiled early Thursday morning less than 48 hours before a partial shutdown could start. The package combines bills for the Legislative Branch‚ Financial Services and General Government‚ and the Departments of Defense‚ State‚ Health and Human Services‚ Labor‚ Homeland Security‚ and related agencies. It follows a $460 billion “minibus” funding the other arms of the government for a little more than six months. GOP negotiators worked with Democrats to devise a compromise that might pass through the Republican-led House and Democrat-controlled Senate. With blowback from the Right flank‚ the legislation may pass with more Democrat votes than Republican votes in the narrowly divided lower chamber. President Joe Biden has signaled that he would sign the package if it reaches his desk. Some Republican critics of the $1.2 trillion spending legislation took issue with the timing of the text’s release‚ which happened overnight and less than two days before a partial shutdown is set to begin this weekend. A couple made reference to the House’s 72-hour review period that leadership may choose to bypass. “A 1000 page Swamp spending bill was dropped in the dead of the night by the Establishment. With a $1.2 TRILLION price tag‚” Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) said on X. “Your elected Representatives have less than 72 hours to read this…And no amendments can be offered. Washington is broken‚” he added. “Tell your senators: don’t vote for a spending bill they’ve had no chance to review‚ let alone debate or amend‚” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted to X. “Remind me why even though GOP has majority in the House and filibuster-proof minority in the Senate‚ the power of the purse sits idly by unused and the debt continues to pile higher and higher?” asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). “Business as usual is killing our country‚” added Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO). “Dropping the mini-(1 trillion+)-bus in the middle of the night and forcing us to vote in under 72 hours isn’t acceptable‚ but sadly‚ that’s where we’re at. I’m a no.” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) shared a photo of a large stack of papers. At 2:32 am—when Americans were sleeping—the Swamp released its second half of the omnibus. 1‚012 pages that spend $1.2 TRILLION of taxpayer dollars on disastrous policies. The House is still expected to vote on this monstrosity TOMORROW MORNING. Washington is beyond broken. pic.twitter.com/AlZCDYWBKK — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 “At 2:32 am—when Americans were sleeping—the Swamp released its second half of the omnibus. 1‚012 pages that spend $1.2 TRILLION of taxpayer dollars on disastrous policies‚” he said. “The House is still expected to vote on this monstrosity TOMORROW MORNING. Washington is beyond broken.” Other Republican lawmakers called attention to specific provisions in the legislation’s text that they found to be objectionable. This included sections related to the World Health Organization‚ Ukraine‚ Ecohealth Alliance‚ and “DEI inspired healthcare‚” as noted by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN). Republicans voted to defund the WHO. This Minibus brings it back. #KILLTHEBILL pic.twitter.com/9lHETyx5bm — Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 21‚ 2024 At LEAST $300 million in additional funding for Ukraine in this minibus. This legislation is NOT a win for Americans. pic.twitter.com/Q7fTouE07M — Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 21‚ 2024 The House Minibus enables taxpayer funding of the Ecohealth Alliance‚ a group that performed gain of function research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. pic.twitter.com/DWtwUX44iq — Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 21‚ 2024 SHOCKING. Almost $69 MILLION is appropriated towards “Racial Approaches to Community Health.” What happened to treating everyone the same? The swamp is making you pay for DEI inspired healthcare. pic.twitter.com/0l6NPZZ1Bd — Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 21‚ 2024 Clyde published a thread to X highlighting a number of sections‚ particularly those related to the Homeland Security Department and border security. “The Swamp’s second spending package is finally out. Follow along for all the policy wins that were SURRENDERED during backroom negotiations‚” he said. ❌ Surrendered: Prohibiting DHS funds from being used to damage or remove President Trump’s border wall. pic.twitter.com/rrk9ceyZw7 — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Prohibiting DHS funds from being used to diminish current immigrant law that allows ICE to work with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify and remove illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/m6iKOZb4wx — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Requiring Secretary Mayorkas to prioritize ICE funds to detain illegal aliens &; ensure illegal aliens on the non-detained docket are enrolled in the ATD program with GPS monitoring. pic.twitter.com/XxR7bp1C7n — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Prohibiting ICE funds from being used to pay for or perform abortions. pic.twitter.com/CiPJj3EDcu — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Defunding DHS’ DEI executive orders &; CRT initiatives. pic.twitter.com/1HA18az82B — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Defunding DHS’ government-by-proxy censorship. pic.twitter.com/EHTQjo7GJA — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Defunding DHS policies that severely limit Border Patrol agents’ ability to chase illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/YHHyW4ZAlP — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Prohibiting DHS funds from being used to issue employment authorization documents to illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/VTDLVOfhfn — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024 ❌ Surrendered: Prohibiting DHS funds from being used to amend the U.S. Oath of Allegiance. pic.twitter.com/5KYqrKnnyf — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024   ❌ Surrendered: Defunding DHS’ asylum rule. pic.twitter.com/dMjU8Dxusz — Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) March 21‚ 2024   Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” show and encouraged his GOP colleagues to oppose the legislation. “A vote for this bill is a vote against America‚” he said. The congressman’s office also posted a thread on X citing various provisions‚ including money for FBI headquarters. House Republicans defunded the WHO in their appropriations bills Democrats are bragging about REMOVING that prohibition in the $1.2 trillion swamp-bus pic.twitter.com/ViEWSztG83 — Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) March 21‚ 2024 Giving CBP MORE money to process MORE illegal aliens? We are giving Mayorkas a raise to accelerate the downfall of our country pic.twitter.com/diawV6GzlW — Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) March 21‚ 2024 This #SwampOmnibus sets aside taxpayer money to give to sanctuary jurisdictions that enable illegal immigration pic.twitter.com/Q07loXXeLk — Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) March 21‚ 2024 We are funding the dystopian United Nations Population Fund. Conservatives defunded it last summer. pic.twitter.com/mfqcxgecsL — Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) March 21‚ 2024   A post to X from the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday offered some estimates on the spending legislation after the release of its text. “$1.2 Trillion. ~216‚000 words. The #SwampOmnibus spends $5.5 million for every word. ~32 hours before the vote. That’s 112 words a minute just to finish reading (not real analysis) before the vote… That’s signing off on over $600 million per minute‚” the post said. It then asked if former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still “in charge.” $1.2 Trillion. ~216‚000 words. The #SwampOmnibus spends $5.5 million for every word. ~32 hours before the vote. That’s 112 words a minute just to finish reading (not real analysis) before the vote… That’s signing off on over $600 million per minute. Is Pelosi in charge? — House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) March 21‚ 2024 Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-TX) released a statement upon the release of the text‚ touting what she characterized as wins for Republicans in the final product. “House Republicans made a commitment to strategically increase defense spending‚ make targeted cuts to overfunded non-defense programs‚ and pull back wasteful spending from previous years. I am proud to say that we have delivered on that promise‚ and this bill is proof‚” she said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Given that the world is becoming more dangerous‚ we wanted to send a strong message that we will do everything in our power to protect the American people and defend our interests‚” Granger added. “This bill funds our highest national security priorities – it invests in a more modern‚ innovative‚ and ready fighting force‚ continues our strong support for our great ally Israel‚ and provides key border enforcement resources‚” the congresswoman said. “At the same time‚ we made cuts to programs that have nothing to do with our national security and pulled back billions from the Administration‚” she continued. “With the odds stacked against us‚ House Republicans have refocused spending on America’s interests‚ at home and abroad‚ and I urge support of this bill.”

Ousted CNN anchor Don Lemon had a tentative deal to host a new show on Elon Musk’s X platform — but according to a recent report‚ the whole thing might have fallen apart over Lemon’s “diva demands.” The New York Post reported that‚ among other things‚ Lemon had demanded some control over other news content that might make its way onto the platform — and had aspirations of hosting the “first podcast in space.” The alleged list of demands‚ according to The Post‚ included “a free Tesla Cybertruck‚ a $5 million upfront payment on top of an $8 million salary‚ an equity stake in the multibillion-dollar company‚ and the right to approve any changes in X policy as it relates to news content.” Lemon also reportedly wanted to helm the “first podcast in space‚” suggesting that Musk use SpaceX to make that happen. Lemon had also set up an interview with Musk — which was initially set to air as his debut episode — and had reportedly attached another list of demands to their planned meeting in Las Vegas. Among those were a suite‚ drinks‚ and massages for Lemon and his fiancé — and a private jet flight on X’s dime. Despite knowing about the demands at the time of their interview‚ Musk agreed to do it anyway — but cut ties with Lemon afterward‚ calling him “underwhelming.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP In the days since‚ Lemon has blown off claims that he had asked for such things – but he didn’t deny them outright. “That is nonsense. People negotiate all the time‚ but that’s‚ come on‚” Lemon told Mediaite’s Aidan McLaughlin. “It’s obviously a deflection. Because it has nothing to do with the interview‚ and I’m not going to fall into that. I don’t read the New York Post‚ but I do love their horoscopes. It’s great. I’m a Pisces‚ by the way‚ so you can read my horoscope to know what’s going on in my life.” A number of clips of the interview have since been released and gone viral.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk voiced his confusion over political partisanship in a post shared via his X platform‚ saying that while he believed himself to be more of a centrist‚ his critics seemed certain that he was “right-wing.” Musk was inspired by another post from Sophie (@netcapgirl) that read‚ “Going back in time to try to explain how crazy it is that we have a guy who makes electric cars and rocket ships and brain computer interfaces yet a bunch of people hate him because they don’t like his politics or whatever &; having them show me a cave drawing of the astronaut meme.” going back in time to try to explain how crazy it is that we have a guy who makes electric cars and rocket ships and brain computer interfaces yet a bunch of people hate him because they dont like his politics or whatever &; having them show me a cave drawing of the astronaut meme — sophie (@netcapgirl) March 21‚ 2024 Musk replied with a list of things that he believed were important to support in society‚ explaining that what he saw was a “battle to the death” between the rational and “the anti-civilizational woke mind virus.” “My positions are centrist‚” Musk explained‚ adding‚ “Secure borders; safe &; clean cities; don’t bankrupt America with spending; racism against any race is wrong; no sterilization below age of consent. Is this right-wing?” And‚ although it shouldn’t need to said‚ I believe in the Constitution and freedom of speech — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 21‚ 2024 Musk replied to his own post with an addendum a short time later‚ saying “And‚ although it shouldn’t need to be said‚ I believe in the Constitution and freedom of speech.” An X account tied to the Rasmussen Reports polling site responded to Musk’s assessment with recent data showing that a majority of Americans agreed with him. “Luckily‚ most of America still does‚ too. 74% say protecting freedom of speech is more important. 16% say protecting people from offensive speech is more important‚” the post read. Luckily‚ most of America still does‚ too. 74% say protecting freedom of speech is more important. 16% say protecting people from offensive speech is more important. — Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 21‚ 2024 Musk debated the issue with ousted CNN anchor Don Lemon‚ emphasizing his belief in free speech and accusing Lemon of wanting censorship so badly he could “taste it.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “We don’t agree on this‚” Lemon said‚ and Musk agreed. “You want censorship and I don’t‚” he replied. Lemon attempted to push back‚ claiming that what he wanted was not censorship but “responsibility” — but Musk disagreed. “You desperately want censorship. You want censorship so badly you can taste it‚” Musk continued. WATCH: Elon Musk to Don Lemon: “You want censorship and I don’t… You want censorship so bad you can taste it” pic.twitter.com/IwWThvlUEi — ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) March 18‚ 2024

A first grader who made a drawing that included the words “Black Lives Mater [sic]” with “any life” underneath was punished by her school. Her mother sued the school‚ arguing her daughter’s First Amendment rights were violated‚ but a California district court ruled that the drawing was not protected speech because educators are given “substantial deference as to what speech is appropriate.” The little girl‚ referred to only as B.B. in the court documents‚ drew the picture and gave it to another student‚ referred to only as M.C.‚ who is apparently a student of color. M.C.’s mother saw the drawing and emailed the school‚ saying she trusted that the school would address the drawing. The background provided in the judge’s ruling said that on the day M.C.’s mother emailed the school‚ B.B. was approached by the school’s principal during recess and told the drawing was “inappropriate” and “racist‚” though the school disputes telling her it was racist. B.B. was told she could not draw anymore and that she must apologize to M.C.‚ which B.B. did‚ twice. After recess‚ B.B. was told by her teachers that she would not be allowed to play during recess for two weeks‚ but was not told why‚ according to the documents. There is also no evidence the principal directed the teachers to further punish B.B. B.B.’s mother insisted that the punishment violated B.B.’s constitutional right to free speech‚ but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s Southern Division ruled the opposite. Citing previous case law‚ the court said that students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate‚” but that their rights also are “not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Further‚ the court cited case law arguing that the First Amendment must be “applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment” and that educators understand those needs best. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The court cited Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist.‚ which held that schools could restrict speech that “might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” or that infringes on “the rights of other students to be secure and let alone.” The court also said that educators have “greater leeway” in regulating speech “directed at a ‘particularly vulnerable’ student based on a ‘core identifying characteristic‚’ such as race‚ sex‚ religion‚ or sexual orientation …” The court argued that by giving the drawing to M.C.‚ described as a “particularly vulnerable” student because of her skin color‚ the school acted reasonably in regulating B.B.’s free speech. The court also said that the drawing interfered with the school environment. “Younger students may be more sensitive than older students‚ so their educational experience may be more affected when they receive messages based on a protected characteristic‚” the court argued. “Relatedly‚ first graders are impressionable. If other students join in on the insults‚ the disruption could metastasize‚ affecting the learning opportunities of even more students.” The California court argued the phrase “any life” to be “similar to ‘All Lives Matter‚’ a sentence with an inclusive denotation but one that is widely perceived as racially insensitive and belittling when directed at people of color.” In her own testimony‚ B.B. said she gave the drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after learning about Martin Luther King Jr. in class. It is also unclear how M.C. felt about the drawing‚ given that it was her mother who emailed the school after finding the drawing in M.C.’s backpack. Eugene Volokh‚ a UCLA law professor‚ wrote that he found the court’s ruling “unconstitutional‚ even in first grade.” “[T]he court’s view here seems to be that this viewpoint—simply because it ‘can be seen’ as dissenting from what some see as the only proper response to racial problems—is stripped of First Amendment protection‚” Volokh wrote. “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan is accepted as the one orthodoxy‚ and any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden.”

A University of North Carolina researcher was fired after three women made vague‚ non-sexual allegations against him — he’s now suing‚ alleging that the university violated its own policies when firing him and provided him little to no chance to defend himself. Christopher Wretman received his undergraduate‚ master’s‚ and doctorate from UNC and was hired as a senior data analyst for the university in 2017. His main job was research‚ but he also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the university’s School of Social Work. His work focused on the disadvantages of the young and old‚ and economic and social inequities. While obtaining his doctorate‚ Wretman says he fell in love with faculty member Dr. Rebecca Macy‚ and the two have owned a home together since 2020. The school approved their relationship‚ and the two worked on research projects together once Wretman was hired by the university‚ his lawsuit says. In 2020‚ Wretman‚ Macy‚ and others were working on a plan to develop a research center‚ and the university hired Jia Luo as a research program manager to work under Macy. This team also collaborated with other faculty and students at UNC‚ including doctoral student Sarah Godoy and former student Erin Meehan. During the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement that year‚ the School of Social Work adopted policies to root out alleged inequalities‚ leading to what Wretman described as a “call-out-culture” advocating for the community to report any suspected discrimination. This‚ combined with universities already existing Title IX policies regarding sex discrimination‚ created a system where people could accuse others of indiscretion without having to provide evidence to back up their claims‚ almost always leading to punishment of the accused. According to the court filing‚ in April 2021‚ Godoy‚ the doctoral student who occasionally worked with Wretman and Macy‚ told UNC’s associate dean for doctoral education that she had concerns about the way her superiors communicated with her‚ in particular‚ Wretman. The dean reported these concerns to the school’s Title IX office‚ but Wretman does not know the actual content of the allegations or how the report was handled. In early May 2021‚ Wretman and Macy were first alerted to these concerns when they were invited to a meeting with the school’s Title IX director of compliance. In Wretman’s lawsuit‚ he says contemporaneous emails show his and Macy’s “communications and interactions with Godoy had been constructive and positive throughout their work together.” When Wretman inquired about the nature of this meeting‚ he was told that if he refused to participate‚ the university would involve his superiors‚ pressuring him to attend. In a separate meeting‚ Macy was told that Godoy was uncomfortable with the team’s close relationships and that she had claimed Wretman made inappropriate comments. Macy was told to restructure the research so that Godoy would no longer have to communicate with Wretman. Because of the information Macy was given‚ UNC violated its policy about keeping such matters private since the meetings concerned Wretman and not Macy. Conversely‚ Godoy’s allegations reportedly referred to the team’s communications‚ but Wretman‚ the only male on the team‚ was the university’s sole focus. During his own meeting‚ Wretman was told he behaved poorly even though no investigation had been done and no evidence was presented to back up Godoy’s allegations. He says in his lawsuit that he was told “to comport himself more appropriately as a straight White male.” Other than that‚ he was told the issue was resolved. Wretman and Macy then worked out a plan so that Godoy wouldn’t have to work with them but could keep her name on all research projects. Godoy indicated in an email that she agreed to this. But later Godoy apparently had dinner with Luo‚ who had been hired as the team’s program manager. During this dinner‚ Wretman alleges that Godoy claimed she was removed from the research team as if it was against her will and not something she agreed to. After this dinner‚ even though she had never raised any concerns about the team before‚ Luo claimed to Macy that she had experienced anti-Asian hate while working with the team. She placed the blame on Wretman’s communication style‚ according to his lawsuit. Luo also claimed that others had concerns about Wretman without offering details. It was Macy who reported Luo’s concerns about herself‚ Wretman‚ and the rest of the team to the university. According to the lawsuit‚ Macy told Wretman about all of this and suggested he step back from work activities to protect himself. Luo also reached out to Macy requesting to work remotely for fear that Wretman would retaliate against her‚ providing no evidence that he would do so. She also claimed to be stressed due to trauma stemming from this alleged “anti-Asian violence.” Several months later‚ a third allegation was made‚ this time by Meehan‚ the former student who collaborated with the research team. Macy was Meehan’s internship supervisor‚ and never raised any concerns with Macy about anyone on the team. Wretman says in his lawsuit that emails show his communications with Meehan were “constructive and positive throughout their work together.” Wretman had provided a reference for Meehan to work at a non-profit organization after her internship ended‚ but after Luo made her allegations‚ he emailed Meehan rescinding his offer to help her get this new job. Wretman’s reason for doing so was that he was afraid of more allegations when trying to help female researchers. Meehan would later make a report against Wretman to the university‚ but it is unknown what allegations she made. Even though the allegations seem vague and thin on evidence‚ the school investigated the claims against Wretman and determined he was responsible and should be terminated. To get to that conclusion‚ Wretman says in his lawsuit that the school ignored its own policies‚ never informing him about the process‚ breaking deadlines‚ and allowing his accusers to discuss matters with other people. Further‚ the vague nature of Luo’s allegations shouldn’t have amounted to an abusive or hostile workplace (she alleged he was overly critical of her work and her in meetings and was passive-aggressive and condescending‚ though she apparently provided no evidence‚ according to Wretman). CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The school also decided to investigate Wretman for bullying based on Luo’s allegations and allowed her feelings to dictate Wretman’s guilt. The school‚ according to Wretman‚ provided no evidence that he had been vindictive or intended to intimidate or humiliate Luo. While much of the information in Wretman’s lawsuit came from the school’s report on its investigation into him‚ he writes that the report lacks substantial information about how it justified its investigations and the evidence provided by the three women. The document‚ according to Wretman‚ provides “no documentation or information detailing a rationale that Meehan provided sufficient allegations or evidence of a University policy violation to warrant an investigation of Wretman.” He writes something similar about the allegations of the other two women. Wretman alleges the school violated its Title IX policies and denied him due process‚ among other claims. He is seeking more than $50‚000 in damages.