James Hetfield wasn't sure about letting his Metallica bandmates hear Nothing Else Matters. Thank goodness he did

Due to the travel bans or restrictions President Trump has placed on the following list of countries, they have returned in kind. I won’t miss vacationing in one of the countries rife with terrorism. In leveling restrictions and bans, the White House states, “It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens […] The post The 39 Countries Where You Can’t Vacation in 2026 appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

After a fairly eventful mission to the Moon's surface, Charles Duke left several items on the Moon, and a message to whoever might find them in the future.

The British socialist newspaper The Guardian is upset that CBS News might become less radical, publishing an article provocatively titled “‘Blood in the water’: Bari Weiss’s chaotic first three months in charge of CBS News.” They want Bari to bleed. This spin announces an agenda: Weiss Must Be Stopped! The Left cannot stand any outlet on their side moving two degrees toward the center. Any tiptoe to the middle is “anti-journalism.”  Any hint at an opposing conservative view is a slippery slope to “misinformation.” Guardian “media & power reporter” Jeremy Barr quoted a pile of anonymous CBS staffers in service to his anti-Weiss agenda. He referred in this story to a previously unreported November 6 “blow-up among staffers about language choices when writing about transgender individuals.” A “prominent correspondent” – which Semafor reporter Maxwell Tani claimed was legal correspondent Jan Crawford – sent an email that said CBS “should refrain from adopting terminology advocated by the movement,” referring to guidance from the Trans Journalists Association’s stylebook. A producer responded angrily to the email, writing: “It’s a TJA style ‘guide’ – that’s what I’m trying to do. Guide us to better coverage.” They define “better” as “accepted by our ideological allies.” Now this is where the rubber meets the road. Wokeness dominates the elitist media. “Style books” are surrender manuals to ideological manipulation of terminology. Facts are shredded in favor of feelings. So you get Orwellian terms like “gender-affirming care” to describe trying to erase your actual gender. This is why Barr & Co. hated new CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil’s proclamation that “we’ve taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you.” Transgender ideology is a perfect example. They believe advocates and elites should tell the undereducated “average American” what to think and how to talk. The Trans Journalism Association demands that “better” coverage means you avoid any reference to actual biological facts in deference to the transgender imagination. Reality is whatever they decide it is, it’s “gender-expansive.” So you get instructions like these: “Avoid references to being born female or born a girl, etc.” That’s too factual. When it comes to removing breasts or penises, “Terms like ‘mutilation,’ ‘sterilization,’ and ‘social contagion’ invoke common misinformation and disinformation.” This is because they are the spreaders of the “social contagion,” but hate the description. They hate the term “culture war,” because they aim to win it without a real battle. Don’t mention biology. “Noun phrases like biological men, biological males, biological women, or biological females are often used by anti-trans groups to invoke a person’s assigned sex at birth as their ‘real’ gender, in contrast to their gender identity.” You have to love “real” in quotes. Don’t say the ideologues are ideological. The term “gender ideology” is described as “a charged term commonly deployed by anti-trans commentators and activists that implies trans people, merely by being trans, are participating in a political activity or have a political agenda.”  They are. That’s obvious. That’s why they are intimidating the media into a political lingo. Then they double down: “There is no such thing as transgenderism any more than there is a ‘gay agenda’; the -ism as used in transgenderism implies that a trans person’s gender is a political philosophy, not a demographic characteristic.” But it is obviously a philosophy, which seeks to dominate by insisting it’s not. Their own messaging on Instagram boasts of “shaping journalism into the industry we deserve” and “transforming the journalism industry” and urging people to “Support The Movement.” But don’t call it ideological! 

Political violence in the United States no longer lives in the realm of theory. We are watching it unfold in real time. Assassination attempts, targeted harassment, and violent disruptions have become disturbingly common. The chaos at Berkeley in November offers a bracing reminder.A majority of Americans now believe a political candidate will be assassinated within the next five years. We have already witnessed two assassination attempts against President Trump, the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, and a foiled plot to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Increasingly, this violence draws fuel from activist organizations that exploit tax-exempt status to advance their agendas through intimidation rather than debate.If the government is serious about de-escalating political violence, it must lawfully deploy every available tool.That exploitation must end. The federal government already has the tools to act. It should use them — starting with the IRS.We cannot tolerate nonprofits mobilizing radicals under the banner of free speech while trampling the First Amendment rights of others. At Berkeley, activist groups operated as coordinated foot soldiers. One organization, “By Any Means Necessary,” lived up to its name. Protesters circulated flyers depicting Charlie Kirk’s assassination, labeled attendees “fascists,” and openly called for President Trump’s removal.This is not debate. It is coercion.Growing numbers of activists no longer seek persuasion but submission. Polling reflects the danger. Roughly one-third of Americans under 45 now say political violence is sometimes justified. Berkeley showed what that belief looks like when put into practice.The moment demands a firm, whole-of-government response. As a former state criminal prosecutor and Senate chief of staff, I understand that crises require decisive action. Protecting citizens and enforcing the law are core functions of government. The time to act has arrived.The first step toward dismantling the nonprofit infrastructure that enables political violence is straightforward: The IRS should revoke tax-exempt status from organizations that finance or coordinate violent activity. Cutting off these funding streams deprives radical networks of oxygen.Critics will claim this amounts to political targeting. That claim collapses under scrutiny.RELATED: Trump declared war on leftist domestic terror. The IRS didn’t get the memo. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty ImagesThe real problem is that the IRS has lost focus. For years, the agency engaged in overt political targeting — scrutinizing conservative groups while leaving ideologically aligned organizations untouched. That imbalance allowed certain nonprofits to operate with near impunity while exploiting the protections of tax-exempt status.Restoring evenhanded enforcement does not mean ignoring violations on the left. It means applying the law as written. The IRS has both the authority and the obligation to act when nonprofits facilitate violence. Looking the other way is not neutrality. It is abdication.Consider Antifa, which has been designated a domestic terrorist organization yet continues to benefit indirectly from nonprofit support structures. That contradiction should not stand.If the government is serious about de-escalating political violence, it must lawfully deploy every available tool. That includes the IRS. The assassination attempts against President Trump should have been a wake-up call. The murder of Charlie Kirk should have erased any remaining illusions.Subversive actors are gaming the nonprofit system to tear the country apart — using tax-exempt dollars to silence, intimidate, and physically endanger those exercising their most basic constitutional rights.We either enforce the law now, or we accept that the violence will escalate.

If you want a clear picture of where the American auto market is heading, don’t look at political speeches or glossy concept vehicles. Look at where manufacturers are spending — and writing off — real money. Case in point: Ford’s $19.5 billion decision to abandon plans for a next-generation all-electric F-150.Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.The company’s change of direction for its massive BlueOval City complex in Tennessee is one of the clearest signals yet that the industry’s all-electric future, at least as it was sold to consumers and investors, is being fundamentally rethought.Instead of building a new electric F-150 Lightning there, Ford will pivot the facility toward producing lower-cost gasoline-powered trucks while shifting electric strategy toward hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and smaller EVs.Demand in the driver’s seatThis move matters because Ford did not quietly slow production or delay a model year refresh. It wrote down billions of dollars in electric vehicle assets, restructured long-term plans, and publicly admitted that customer demand — not forecasts or incentives — is now driving decisions.Ford expects roughly $19.5 billion in special charges tied to this pivot, most of which will hit in the fourth quarter, with an additional $5.5 billion in cash costs spread through 2027. Of that total, $8.5 billion represents EV asset write-downs. That is corporate language for investments that will not deliver the returns originally promised.Yet Wall Street’s reaction was telling. Ford stock rose about 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement and remains up nearly 40% this year. Investors appear to see this not as failure, but as realism.Sticker shockThe electric F-150 Lightning was once positioned as proof that electrification could conquer America’s best-selling vehicle segment. In theory, the idea made sense. In practice, the numbers never fully added up. High prices, heavy battery packs, range limitations under real-world towing conditions, and charging concerns narrowed the pool of potential buyers. Demand softened even as incentives increased.Ford now plans to transition the Lightning into an extended-range electric vehicle, pairing an electric drivetrain with a gasoline-powered generator. This is not a retreat from electrification. It is an acknowledgment that pure battery-electric power trains do not yet meet the needs of a large portion of truck buyers.Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the shift plainly. High-end EVs priced between $50,000 and $80,000 were not selling in sufficient volume. That reality is difficult to ignore when inventory sits on dealer lots and profit margins evaporate.Hybrid vigorAt the same time, Ford is going all-in on hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, and reinvesting in its core strengths: trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. This reflects a broader industry trend. Hybrids offer meaningful fuel economy improvements without requiring buyers to overhaul their driving habits or rely on charging infrastructure that remains inconsistent in many parts of the country.Ford’s revised outlook projects that by 2030, about half of its global volume will come from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles combined. That is a significant increase from today, but it is far more balanced than earlier projections that leaned heavily toward full electrification.Lightning rodOne of the more curious elements of Ford’s announcement is its plan to build a fully connected midsize electric pickup starting in 2027, based on a new low-cost “Universal EV Platform.” The company suggests this truck could start around $30,000, a figure that raises serious questions.To put that claim into context, Ford’s Maverick Hybrid, which uses a small 1.1 kilowatt-hour battery, already approaches $30,000 in many configurations. A midsize EV pickup would likely require an 80 kilowatt-hour battery or more. Battery costs have declined, but not nearly enough to make that math easy — especially while maintaining margins.Consumers will ultimately decide whether such a vehicle makes sense. Price, capability, range, and charging convenience will matter far more than marketing language. Automakers are learning, sometimes the hard way, that affordability cannot be willed into existence by press releases.Batteries includedFord’s restructuring also includes repurposing battery plants in Kentucky and Michigan for a new stationary energy storage business. This is a strategic move that acknowledges batteries may find more reliable profitability off the road than on it, particularly in data centers and grid stabilization applications where weight, charging time, and cold-weather performance are less critical concerns.The broader lesson here is not that electric vehicles are disappearing. They are not. It is that the one-size-fits-all electrification narrative has collided with economic and consumer reality. Automakers were pushed, through regulation and incentives, to prioritize battery-electric vehicles at a pace the market could not fully absorb.When policy environments change, as they recently have, manufacturers regain flexibility. Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.From a business standpoint, Ford is attempting to stabilize profitability. The company raised its adjusted earnings guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, even as these restructuring charges weigh on net results. It is aiming for a path to profitability in its Model e EV division by 2029, with incremental improvements beginning in 2026.That is a long runway, and it reflects how difficult it has been to make EVs profitable at scale. Traditional internal combustion and hybrid vehicles continue to subsidize electric losses across the industry. Ford is now being more transparent about that reality.RELATED: American muscle-car culture is alive and well ... in Dubai Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesTurning radiusThis shift also has implications for American manufacturing and jobs. BlueOval City was originally pitched as a cornerstone of the electric future. Its revised mission underscores how quickly industrial strategies can change when assumptions fail. Gasoline and hybrid trucks remain highly profitable, and demand for them remains strong.Ford insists this is a customer-driven strategy, not a retreat. In many ways, that framing is accurate. Consumers have shown they value choice, reliability, and affordability more than power-train ideology. They want vehicles that fit their lives, not policy targets.For buyers, this could be good news. A more balanced market tends to produce better products at more reasonable prices. Hybrids, extended-range EVs, and efficient gasoline vehicles all play a role in reducing fuel consumption without forcing trade-offs many drivers are unwilling to accept.For investors, Ford’s announcement may mark a turning point toward discipline and realism. Writing down nearly $20 billion is painful, but continuing to chase unprofitable volume would be worse.For the industry, the message is unmistakable. Electrification is evolving, not ending. But it will happen on consumer terms, not political timelines.Ford’s course correction is not about abandoning the future. It is about surviving the present — and doing so with a clearer understanding of what American drivers are actually willing to buy.The American car industry would be in a much stronger position today had its CEOs not embarked on the EV joy ride with politicians promising subsidies. Next time maybe the brands will listen to the customer.

Two Decades of Socialism Destroyed Venezuela

THE ESSEX FILES: Minnesota Voters Deserve Better Than Fraud, Excuses, and Partisan Blame

Democrats Hold High School Theater-Level J6 Vigil — JD Vance Roasts Them With Just One Tweet

Professor Fired Over Charlie Kirk Posts Is Reinstated – And You Won’t Believe How Much He Got Paid