Nearly 100 illegal aliens that we know about on the terror watchlist were released into the United States during the Biden administration. They come from numerous countries. It only took 19 to launch 9/11. The information came from a bombshell House Judiciary report. These are the terrorists we know about. Many who sneaked in or […] The post 100 Aliens on the Terror Watch List Were Allowed Into the US appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Several U.S. personnel were injured in a suspected rocket attack against U.S. and Coalition forces at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Monday, a Pentagon spokesperson said, adding that officials at the base are conducting a post-attack damage assessment. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have said nothing, and the media is seriously disinterested in […] The post Us Personnel Bombed in Iraq, No Response from Harris or Biden appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Tom Hanks and wife actress Rita Wilson’s home in Los Angeles was reportedly burglarized, making the superstar couple the latest celebrities to have their home hit by burglars. Law enforcement sources told TMZ that a few weeks back, the guest home on the property of the 68-year-old actor was broken into in broad daylight by thieves who smashed the glass to get in. Sources said the break-in set off the alarm, but apparently didn’t deter the thieves. Luckily, both the “Forrest Gump” star and his wife were out of town and were not injured in the attack on their property, the outlet noted. The main home was not breached and it is unclear what, if anything, was stolen. Sources said Hanks wasn’t the target, but another victim like many of the stars who have had their homes hit, like Billie Eilish’s family, Drake, and Goldie Hawn, KTVU noted. The LA home of Hollywood power couple Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson was hit by burglars, TMZ reported. https://t.co/2EgoRdDtUQ — FOX 11 Los Angeles (@FOXLA) August 5, 2024 Speaking in June on the SiriusXM podcast “Let’s Talk Off Camera with Kelly Ripa,” the 78-year-old actress said their home had been burglarized twice in four months, as previously reported. LA Police Chief Dominic Choi told the Board of Police Commissioners in July that the burglaries are “happening very quickly,” NBC Los Angeles reported. WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI “We’re not seeing the entire house being ransacked,” Choi said. “These individuals that are conducting these high-end burglaries know what they’re looking for, and they’re in and out in a few minutes.” In March, the LAPD said there had been over 900 residential burglaries across the city since January, some of which were committed by burglars who may be using new technology to circumvent home security systems. On March 4, the Wilshire department of the LAPD acknowledged, “Wilshire area has been subjected to various residential burglaries, involving 3-4 suspects using Wi-Fi jammers as they enter victims’ residences. The Los Angeles Police Department is seeking your help to deter such burglaries.” No arrests have been announced in the reported burglary at the Hanks home as of the time of this publication. Hank Berrien contributed to this piece. Related: Tom Hanks Says With AI, He Could Die And His ‘Performances Can Go On And On And On’

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were among America’s first big Hollywood couples, and the pair shared two children. They divorced when their children were young in 1960, but the siblings remained close. Though their parents have been gone for many years, Lucie Arnaz,73, and her brother, Desi Arnaz Jr., 71, help keep their memories alive. Lucie maintains a presence on social media, but her brother, Desi, likes to keep things a bit more low-key and private. Lucie and Desi attended a family dinner in Vegas, and Lucie shared a snap of the siblings on Instagram. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Lucie Arnaz Luckinbill (@luciearnazofficial) Lucie wrapped her arms around her younger brother and rested her head on his shoulder with a smile. He looked lovingly at the camera, seemingly happy to be with his sister and their family. “Thank you, Nick Luckinbill, (mega producer for EDC) for treating your family to a grand meal at Wally’s in Las Vegas, with our special guest, my recalcitrant brother, Desi Arnaz, Jr.!!! Desi is alive and well, my friends- just likes to stay a bit ‘undercover,’” she wrote. Lucie said she was in Vegas to celebrate her husband, Laurence Luckinbil,  “We are here for the weekend as Larry is being tributed during the 35th Anniversary of Star Trek V celebration at The Treksperts Convention here. He played Spock’s brother, Sybok in that film- and with his autobiography just released, is a very special guest here. He’ll be taking photos, selling and signing books and speaking on two panels.” Seeing Lucie and Desi Arnaz Jr. Together Thrilled Instagrammers It appears life’s been good for Lucie and her brother. Seeing them together made a lot of people smile. Someone wrote, “Wonderful to see the two of you together. Lucie, you look lovelier than ever.” And this person agreed, “Lucie is so cute and Desi has those oh-so-so familiar cute ‘Desi eyes.’” This story’s featured image is by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images. The post Lucille Ball’s Daughter Lucie Shares An Update And Rare Picture Of Brother Desi Arnaz Jr.  appeared first on InspireMore.

Protesters swear at the camera, while another made a 'trigger-finger' gesture, before the channel cut back to the studio.

'A win for the rule of law'

'Gov. Shapiro’s administration pressured state licensing boards to adopt the policy statement'

'We are deeply saddened'

It’s difficult to make substantive arguments against the Democrats’ Supreme Court “reform” proposal, since everyone knows it’s just a cynical ploy to delegitimize both the court and the Constitution. Ask yourself this: Would any Democrat support the president’s court-packing scheme if they believed Republicans would win both houses of Congress and the presidency? Of course not. It’s Calvinball all the way down. And it is a court-packing scheme. An unconstitutional one. One imagines the term “court-packing” hasn’t polled very well with the public, so President Joe Biden—or whoever’s running the White House these days—signed off on a backdoor plan. An 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices would, very conveniently, turn a 6-3 originalist majority into a 6-3 “living and breathing document” majority that would overturn many recent decisions, and rubber-stamp a slew of federal abuses. One might argue it’s all just an election gimmick, since the chances of the reform package passing are close to nil. That’s not the point. The Left has normalized the notion that the Supreme Court is both illegitimate and corrupt if it fails to bend to the will of partisans. After all, none of the Left’s objections are grounded in anything resembling a legal argument. The entire case is centered around the specious idea that the court is failing because it does not adhere to the political vision of Democrats. The Left doesn’t even pretend to care about neutrality in law, much less the law itself. The contemporary leftist is a consequentialist with no limiting principles. Speaking of authoritarians, Vice President Kamala Harris contends that packing the Supreme Court is necessary because “there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.” Is there? First off, we find ourselves here because of decadelong attacks on the institution. Wealthy progressive activist groups began cooking up pretend scandals and laundering them through faux journalistic operations. The media can now affix the phrase “plagued by ethic scandals,” or some such nonsense, to every mention of the court. If there is any crisis of confidence, it’s because the Left concocted one. Even still, Gallup finds that 30% of Americans say they have a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court. The number has risen slightly in the past two years. Another 31% say they have “some” confidence in SCOTUS. So, let’s set aside that pesky Article 3 of the Constitution for a moment. If polling is the excuse for stripping the independence of a branch of government, why would we allow Congress, with its 9% confidence rating, to do it? Justices already enforce a code of judicial conduct. There is zero evidence any of them have engaged in unethical behavior on the bench that personally benefited a third party, much less themselves. And there is no evidence justices have deviated from their long-held legal philosophies because they vacationed with a rich friend or any other reason. It’s also worth remembering that Democrats invented a bunch of new standards to smear Clarence Thomas that they would never follow themselves. Most members of the Senate Judiciary Committee leading the charge to delegitimize the court have traded in on their position to enrich themselves, including Sens. Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Peter Welch. Come to think of it, maybe the Supreme Court should be writing ethics rules for Congress. Democrats want to institute their ethics code to create a system that allows partisans—armed with the newest garbage churned out by media—to slander justices in another congressional show trial and bogus investigations. Sorry, the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is free to threaten justices, but they still don’t answer to him. “What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach,” Biden says. The president, whose family became wealthy peddling a shady influence racket, has a 26% confidence rating with Gallup. The media, deservingly, is near the bottom of the list. Americans, in fact, have more trust in the Supreme Court than they do in state-run schools or unions or big business or banks or the criminal justice system. The president is correct in noting that the high court has abnormally upheld the Constitution in recent years. Even then, majority concurrences are quite diverse. And the notion that the textualists walk lockstep more than the Left is a complete fantasy, as the court’s last session showed. Lifetime appointments for justices are meant to shield the high court from the vagaries and fleeting pressures of political debate. That is exactly what bothers the Left the most: the Supreme Court doing its job. If we knew exactly when confirmation votes were going to take place, the process would degenerate into an even uglier partisan mess. That, again, is exactly what the anti-norm leftist desires. Indeed, the Democrats’ plan to pack the Supreme Court, the last properly functioning institution in D.C., is an attack on the constitutional order. COPYRIGHT 2024 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 Democrats Promise to Save ‘Democracy’ by Destroying Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris supports reparations, but Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee has yet to publish her plan to get them done. Whatever her plan, it will have to answer a bunch of thorny questions. First, who gets reparations? Harris has left open the possibility of reparations to black Americans for both slavery and what she calls “systemic racism in the system.” Slavery reparations, by definition, may go only to people who suffered because of slavery. Of course, no one alive today has suffered under legal slavery (although human trafficking is a serious problem). So supporters of reparations for slavery say that payments should go to the descendants of those who were enslaved before the Civil War. But how would Harris figure out who those people are? She can’t use the racial category “black” as a proxy for descendants of slaves, because a large and growing percentage of black Americans are recent African and West Indian immigrants or their descendants. What’s more, according to Pew Research, only 41% of black Americans say that their ancestors were enslaved in America. Most of them must base that conclusion on family lore, because we have few reliable family records of slaves from so long ago. To date, no proponent of slavey reparations has provided a good answer to these problems with the idea.  Still, if there’s one thing that’s certain about slavery reparations, it’s that they shouldn’t go to descendants of slaveholders. So what would Harris do about people such as former President Barack Obama, who are descendants of both? No good answers to that one either. Who would get “systemic racism” reparations? To answer that question, Harris first would have to define “systemic racism.” People use a lot of different definitions of that term, all of which have suffered under withering criticism. But set that aside and assume that, whatever it is, systemic racism exists. The next question is: Who has suffered from it? Again, Harris can’t give “systemic racism” reparations to everyone who is black. An African immigrant who arrived here yesterday hasn’t suffered anything. And if we’re assuming that systemic racism exists, are we also to assume that it affects only black Americans? What of Chinese immigrants during the California gold rush who suffered discrimination and segregation? Or Japanese Americans whom President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put into internment camps? While we’re rattling off all these racial groups, just who qualifies for group membership anyway? If reparations go to “black” people, do you qualify if you’re one-half black, or one-eighth, or one-drop? Should the government issue certificates of blood quanta? Do you qualify if you merely “identify” as black, like Rachel Dolezal? No good answers to any of these questions. But let’s assume that reparations supporters such as Kamala Harris do have good answers. The next question is: Can Harris trace the harm that reparations must remedy? Some black Americans whose ancestors were slaves or lived through segregation are poor. Would they be rich but for slavery or systemic racism? Many black Americans whose ancestors were slaves or suffered through segregation are rich. What accounts for the difference?  Likewise, what accounts for the difference between native-born black Americans and African immigrants? These immigrants often arrive in America with close to nothing, but within one generation end up at the top of the socioeconomic chart. Harris must account for these differences if reparations are to go to those who ostensibly deserve them. Proponents of reparations in Harris’ home state of California have suggested that politically liberal organizations claiming to represent black Americans should hand out reparations as they see fit. But that wouldn’t solve any of the problems we’ve identified. These organizations don’t have good answers to who gets the reparations, who has suffered, how much they have suffered, or who counts as “black” or whatever other category is used. To give those organizations the power to dispense reparations would create a system of unaccountable cronyism. Another question that Harris’s reparations plan must answer: How much? Assuming that anyone is entitled to anything, different people will be entitled to different amounts. For example, a black American whose grandparents came to America after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has suffered less than someone whose grandparents lived through segregation. But how much less? No reparations proposal has developed a framework to account for those differences. The next question is legal: How can Harris make a reparations proposal constitutional? Every reparations proposal has failed to give a good answer to any of the questions asked above, which makes all the proposals arbitrary. The Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids arbitrary, race-based programs, so courts would strike down such a reparations plan.   Harris’ rejoinder might be that a reparations plan isn’t based on race, but based on harms. But to support that argument, she would have to identify with specificity the harm and who has suffered it. And she couldn’t use race-based proxies or rough approximations. In other words, she’d be back at square one. The final question is a civics question: Is Harris willing to tear the country apart for this? A racial spoils system—and that’s all these proposals really are—is the surest way imaginable to enflame race hatred in America. The cost would be immeasurable and the benefits imaginary. The post Tough Questions for Kamala Harris’ Reparations Plans appeared first on The Daily Signal.