President Trump’s latest Executive Order on the H1-B visa program is one of the most significant things he has done. It is America First. The H1-B visa has been used to import cheap labor, but companies won’t be doing that any longer. They have to pay $100,000 per year to bring in a foreign high-skilled […] The post Trump Killed the H1-B Visa Scheme appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Palestinians took over Gaza in 1993. Israel had been in control since the six-day war but gave it to Palestinians to establish a Palestinian state. It was rife with fighting and misery. They claimed it would be better if Israel pulled out completely and they did. In 2006, they voted Hamas into office and spent […] The post Macron: Best Way to Isolate Hamas Is to Create Another Palestinian State appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Russia unleashed a major drone and missile attack on Ukraine overnight, killing three people, injuring dozens more, and damaging infrastructure and residential buildings, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Saturday. Despite diplomatic efforts to find ways to end the war that began when Russia invaded in February 2022, the fighting has intensified in recent months. In a statement on the Telegram app, Zelensky said Russia had launched around 580 drones and 40 missiles targeting infrastructure, civilian manufacturing companies and residential areas in different parts of the country. Air defences shot down 552 of the drones and 31 missiles, Ukraine’s air force said. RUSSIA IS ‘TERRORISING’ CIVILIANS, SAYS ZELENSKY “All night, Ukraine was under a massive attack by Russia,” Zelensky said. “Every such strike is not a military necessity but a deliberate strategy by Russia to terrorise civilians and destroy our infrastructure.” Russia denies targeting Ukrainian civilians. In the central city of Dnipro, a missile with a cluster munition hit a residential apartment building, Zelensky said. One person was killed, and at least 26 people were injured in Dnipro, regional officials said. Two people were also killed in the Chernihiv region in the north and the Khmelnytskyi region in the west of the country, regional officials said. Reuters could not independently verify the battlefield reports. “I could hear the ‘Shahed’ (drone) getting closer and closer. I understood it was flying towards us. My child and I were very frightened,” Yulia Chystokletova, a resident of Kyiv, told Reuters. “It should not be happening in the 21st century. We are all people. Agree… sit down at the negotiating table.” Kyiv faces increasing pressure in eastern Ukraine, where Russian troops are keeping up their grinding advance, devastating villages and towns and claiming new territory. BOTH SIDES STEPPING UP DRONE ATTACKS To hit Ukrainian cities far from the frontline, Russia appears to have changed its tactics and now launches swarms of hundreds of drones in one strike, compared with dozens early in the war. Ukraine typically responds with drone strikes of its own, aiming to reach deeper into the Russian territory, hitting refineries, fuel depots, and logistics hubs. Ukraine hit two Russian oil refineries in the Saratov and Samara regions in attacks overnight, causing explosions and fires, the Ukrainian General Staff said. “Regarding refineries: we have drones, we know how to produce them. It all depends on the number of drones we use per day,” Zelensky told reporters. “As soon as the number of drones is comparable to that of the Russians, they will feel it in terms of fuel shortages and the number of queues at petrol stations.” Russia’s Defence Ministry said its forces had successfully carried out strikes with high-precision weapons on Ukrainian military-industrial facilities overnight. Polish and allied aircraft were also deployed early on Saturday to ensure the safety of Polish airspace after some of Russia’s airstrikes targeted western Ukraine near the border with NATO member Poland, the Polish military command said. (Additional reporting by Yuri Kovalenko; Editing by Kirsten Donovan, Hugh Lawson and Gareth Jones)

Zohran Kwame Mamdani has had a fantastic week. The Democratic Party’s nominee for mayor of New York City, a self-avowed democratic socialist, secured the endorsement of Kathy “the Hack” Hochul, the Empire State’s bland, witless governor. As colorless as nitrogen, Hochul discovered that Mamdani is her man to occupy Gotham’s City Hall. And it took her only 11 weeks since the Democrat primary to do so. That’s leadership. Meanwhile, a Marist University survey of 885 likely voters found that Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman from Queens, enjoys 45% support. Mamdani is the tallest bush in a grove of shrubs. Former Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent, earned 24% in that survey. Guardian Angels founder and Republican hopeful Curtis Sliwa stood at 17%. Finally, incumbent Democrat Mayor Eric Adams, also competing as an independent, brought up the rear at just 9%. (Error margin: plus or minus 4.1%.) Given the cheerful, photogenic Mamdani’s front-runner status, enviable ground game, dominance of social media, and genuine charisma, it’s a shame that his ideas are trapped in 1917. Too bad that such an appealing vehicle carries a load of rusty, crumbling goods. On the economy alone, Mamdani’s approach is simple: tax, spend, and expropriate. Zohranomics is fueled by what he told the Democratic Socialists of America in 2021. Their “end goal” should be “seizing the means of production.” This idea is as fresh as the Bolshevik Revolution. Indeed, with clenched fists in the air, this concept marches triumphantly from the pages of V.I. Lenin’s “The State and Revolution.” Mamdani’s economic brain waves should chill anyone who has taken an economics class or balanced a checkbook. Consider these public comments: Mamdani says he is “running to freeze the rent, make buses fast + free, and deliver universal child care.” “NY should exercise eminent domain & acquire the 4k+ unsold luxury apartment in NYC for homeless families.” “We need to abolish private insurance.” Mamdani wants a $30/hour minimum wage. (Why not $100/hour?) “When we tax the rich, we’re reclaiming the wealth bosses & corporations steal.” In some of his most notorious remarks, Mamdani told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker on June 29 that he hopes “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” But don’t worry! “That is just a description of what we see right now,” Mamdani said. “It’s not driven by race.” Of course not. Mamdani advocates a 51% tax increase on New Yorkers who earn $1 million or more annually. The Hoover Institution’s David R. Henderson calculates that a married couple filing jointly pays 3.876% on incomes over $90,000. Mamdani falsely claims that his 2-percentage-point tax increase would boost this rate by 2%, from 3.876% to 3.954%. If only. Mamdani’s proposal would slap 2% atop the 3.876% for a total new tax of 5.876%. That’s a 51.6% hike in the tax burden.  To her credit, CNN’s Erin Burnett asked Mamdani: “When you increase someone’s taxes by 51%, aren’t a lot of people going to leave?”  Precisely. As mayor, Mamdani would have one hell of a time paying for his promised freebies after Gotham’s high-end tax refugees flee to friendlier states, along with their hundreds of billions in foregone revenues. Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis predicted that, if elected, Mamdani would become “The Palm Beach Realtor of the Year.” Ladies and Gentlemen,The Palm Beach realtor of the year… https://t.co/jJXavKoOqE— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) September 7, 2025 Mamdani told Welker, “I don’t think we should have billionaires.” And if Mamdani wins, God forbid, he will get what he wants. There will be very few billionaires in New York City, if any. Of course, Mamdani could grab the billionaires’ funds as they rush out of Gotham to zero-income-tax states in the Sunbelt. Since 1848, this has been called “confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” Mamdani might recognize that policy from a book that he surely knows well: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ totalitarian classic, “The Communist Manifesto.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Zohranomics Promises Havana on the Hudson appeared first on The Daily Signal.

PBS News Hour’s weekly Friday segment with New York Times columnist David Brooks and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart focused exclusively on ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel and the idea that censorship and authoritarianism are big problems. Brooks took a sort of centrist position where he condemned Kimmel and the late night industry as a whole but denounced the suspension, while Capehart warned that authoritarianism is already here, claiming, “We’re in it.” Moderator William Brangham cued up Brooks by wondering, “I mean, Kimmel suffered the consequences for his comments, but he's not the only one, certainly. There's — USA Today has got a ticker up. I think it's over 100 people already who have been censured or fired for their comments, some of which those comments were grotesque and horrendous, and others were kind of grounded in fact and not inappropriate. Do you think we have just lost this balance between what is truly dangerous speech and what is protected critique?”      Brooks began with the cringe-inducing fire in a crowded theater idea, but also acknowledged private companies have the right to police their employees, “Yes, we have lost the boundaries. I mean, you're not allowed to say — famously, shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't urge people to go kill somebody. Like, if it leads to violence, that should be prohibited speech, and especially if you're a private company and you care about the integrity of your institution. But that boundary has been blurred.” He then urged PBS’s liberal audience to look at things from the conservative perspective: “Imagine you woke up and every media organization you saw preached Christian nationalism. You sent your kids to school, and they were being taught Christian nationalism. You turned on late night comedy, and it's all Christian nationalism. For conservatives, that's how it feels.” Brooks then condemned the current state of late night comedy “And late-night comedy is the perfect example. You could be right or left. You could watch Letterman. You could watch Carson. And you could laugh. But now late night TV is — it's about laughter, but it's also about making progressives feel good about themselves, making them feel smug. And even I can't watch late night TV anymore.” However, Brooks warned, “the difference is, you fight culture — if you don't like the progressive culture, create a conservative culture. And to his great credit — I rarely get to praise Tucker Carlson anymore — but he went on his show and said, if the Trump administration tries to damage free speech using this as a pretext, it's time for civil disobedience. And so he understands you fight cultural power with cultural — countercultural power. That's how the game plays. To use federal power is definitely breaching the line.” Brangham didn’t seem interested in anything could be considered nuanced, “You used the term authoritarianism before, Jonathan. And do you — I mean, this has been now another one of the very successful efforts that the Trump administration has used with law firms, with universities, with media companies. Where do you see this going? Where do you see this ending?”     Capehart began lamenting, “I would like to think that there would be a media company or a band of law firms or a band of institutions of higher learning who would be willing to push back. It's not enough that Harvard is willing to push back. It's not enough that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are willing to push back.” He added, “And I can't think of a media organization, other than The New York Times — I'm thinking of television — where they have been in the crosshairs of the president's rhetoric and have said, ‘No, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do what you want.’” Capehart concluded by announcing the arrival of authoritarianism, “And that's why this slide, to me, it just — it picks up speed. Every week that we sit here. We're talking about yet another level deeper into what lots of academicians and others have said, you know, the march to authoritarianism. People say we're sliding into it. I say, no, we're in it.” Some of those academics include Heather Cox Richardson, whom Brooks denounced along with Kimmel for spreading conspiracy theories about the political identity of Charlie Kirk’s murderer. However, Brooks’s centrism led him to compare those two liberal and media heroes with unspecified “MAGA people saying this is our Reichstag fire.” Meanwhile, far from authoritarianism, the most recent report strongly suggests ABC and Disney want Kimmel back, but it is Kimmel’s own pride that forbids him from admitting he did anything wrong that is keeping the suspension in place. Here is a transcript for the September 19 show: PBS News Hour 9/19/2025 7:38 PM ET WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Kimmel suffered the consequences for his comments, but he's not the only one, certainly. There's — USA Today has got a ticker up. I think it's over 100 people already who have been censured or fired for their comments, some of which those comments were grotesque and horrendous, and others were kind of grounded in fact and not inappropriate. Do you think we have just lost this balance between what is truly dangerous speech and what is protected critique? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, we have lost the boundaries. I mean, you're not allowed to say — famously, shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't urge people to go kill somebody. Like, if it leads to violence, that should be prohibited speech, and especially if you're a private company and you care about the integrity of your institution. But that boundary has been blurred. Let me try to describe what it feels like for a lot of the folks on the right. So, in their view, I would say to my Democratic friends, imagine you woke up and every media organization you saw preached Christian nationalism. You sent your kids to school, and they were being taught Christian nationalism. You turned on late night comedy, and it's all Christian nationalism. For conservatives, that's how it feels that they— BRANGHAM: To live in our current world. BROOKS: Look in our current culture, and that one of the things that's happened over the last 50 years is that, as progressives who have gotten control of various cultural institutions, they have excluded a lot of conservative and working-class voices. And so a lot of people feel completely shut out. And late-night comedy is the perfect example. You could be right or left. You could watch Letterman. You could watch Carson. And you could laugh. But now late night TV is — it's about laughter, but it's also about making progressives feel good about themselves, making them feel smug. And even I can't watch late night TV anymore. But the difference is, you fight culture — if you don't like the progressive culture, create a conservative culture. And to his great credit — I rarely get to praise Tucker Carlson anymore — but he went on his show and said, if the Trump administration tries to damage free speech using this as a pretext, it's time for civil disobedience. And so he understands you fight cultural power with cultural — countercultural power. That's how the game plays. To use federal power is definitely breaching the line. BRANGHAM: You used the term authoritarianism before, Jonathan. And do you — I mean, this has been now another one of the very successful efforts that the Trump administration has used with law firms, with universities, with media companies. Where do you see this going? Where do you see this ending? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, I don't know. I would like to think that there would be a media company or a band of law firms or a band of institutions of higher learning who would be willing to push back. It's not enough that Harvard is willing to push back. It's not enough that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are willing to push back. And I can't think of a media organization, other than The New York Times — I'm thinking of television — where they have been in the crosshairs of the president's rhetoric and have said, “No, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do what you want.” And, again, I go back to, sometimes, I wonder, is it acquiescence? Is it obeying in advance? Or is it, “I'm kind of down with this, I'm fine with this, and I'm going to ride this wave because, with the president doing what he's doing, maybe we can get some other things that we want?” And that's why this slide, to me, it just — it picks up speed. Every week that we sit here. We're talking about yet another level deeper into what lots of academicians and others have said, you know, the march to authoritarianism. People say we're sliding into it. I say, no, we're in it.