'The next scary thing'

'It was our Super Bowl'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to return, if I could, to the brutal murder of the Ukrainian immigrant, Ms. Iryna Zarutska, who was killed on a light rail, as we saw from the video, in Charlotte, North Carolina. I think the way to look at this, this was a horrible scab—this incident—but once it was pulled off, we saw a putrid wound underneath. And all of our pathologies that we really have to deal with were apparent and led to her death. The first thing, of course, is she was blamed—I could not believe it—in some of the videos that she was not situationally aware. That she walked into an area where there was a suspicious-looking individual with a hoodie on—black Americans, that maybe they meant by their analyses that they have, statistically, higher propensity in that particular demographic to commit violent crimes. But wait a minute. Why should she have to worry? This is the United States. She’s a Ukrainian immigrant. She’s a young woman. She doesn’t know the customs and traditions as we do. She should have an expectation that when she comes here, that she will be safe. That’s our job as Americans. The public officials of Charlotte have to ensure the safety. They didn’t do it. They didn’t even charge admission. They did it by an honor system. They had no security. More importantly, then we were told, “Well, we can’t really blame the three or four bystanders that didn’t jump to her aid because, you know, I mean, how did they know that they wouldn’t be stabbed?” Well, if you look at the video very carefully, they looked at Mr. Decarlos Brown Jr., and they, in the corner of their eye, saw what he was doing. There were three or four of them. I think if Daniel Penny can stop one person from harassing and probably violently attacking others, four people, together, could have stopped him. But put that aside. He walked out, Mr. Decarlos Brown, after he executed her. And in her death throes, he wasn’t there. All they had to do was step aside. I don’t know if they could have staunched such a horrific wound and saved her life, but they made no effort. In fact, they looked out of the corner of their eye and they walked by. What callousness in the country have we inculcated? Now there’s a big controversy over whether he said, “I got the white girl” or “Got the white girl.” He said it twice on the video. I don’t know if the video was doctored or not, but if it was not doctored, it hasn’t been in the mainstream press because there’s another pathology that people do not want to talk about the truth. The truth is that we have a crime problem in the United States in the African-American inner city. Not in rural African-American communities. Not in African-American women. Not necessarily in African-American men over 40 or 50. But from 15 to 40, that demographic comprises about 3% of the country, and they’re committing about 50% of the violent crimes, as we saw with Iryna. And yet, we didn’t talk about it. In fact, we were told by the mayor not to politicize this. She politicized this by saying that arresting people would not solve the problem. Had you arrested Mr. Decarlos Brown, it would’ve solved the problem. She said, “We can’t demonize the homelessness.” If demonizing the homelessness means that they’re not going to slit somebody’s throat, I will prefer that Iryna be alive and I will demonize Mr. Decarlos Brown for having 14 felonies. And finally, another pathology or another wound was revealed. The magistrate, Teresa Stokes, allowed him, with 14 felonies, up on another felony of misusing the 911 system. That in itself may not have been an existential crime, but given his record of violence, why didn’t she keep him in jail? Why wasn’t there an indictment and a trial and conviction? You know why there wasn’t? Because Teresa Stokes herself was a magistrate. And what place in America allows a judge to have a courtroom and adjudicate guilt or innocence or sentencing when she has no law degree? She never even passed the bar. She didn’t take the bar. She just had a bachelor’s degree. More importantly, when in America does a judge who sentenced criminals to various treatment programs, alternative sentencing, jail have a vested financial interest in a particular alternate treatment? She did both in, allegedly, in Charlotte, North Carolina, and she had one in Michigan. So, you had a judge without a legal degree who would not pass the bar, had not taken the bar, letting out a career felon and sentencing him to alternate treatments, of which, in the past, she’s had a financial interest. Only in America, today, could that happen. Why did it happen? Because apparently, people feel that it’s somewhat not diverse or not equal or it’s not inclusive to require someone to have a law degree to be a judge. And therefore, you have Teresa Stokes. And therefore, you have no sentencing, no confinement for Decarlos Brown. And therefore, you have him not having to pay anything to get onto the light-rail car with no security there. And then he comes in with a knife. You’re not supposed to have a hidden weapon, but who cares in America? And he mutters as he walks out that he, supposedly—it’s not proven, but you can hear it on the video—that he “got the white girl.” And then only in America will the commentary say, “Don’t mention race, don’t mention homelessness, don’t mention having people arrested. That wouldn’t make any difference.” It made all the difference. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Only in America Do We Blame Victims Like Iryna Zarutska appeared first on The Daily Signal.

China says it welcomes industry talent following President Donald Trump’s announcement of the introduction of a new hurdle to deter H-1B visa applicants.   On Friday, Trump issued a proclamation adding a $100,000 fee to H-1B visas, which employers are responsible for paying. Foreigners seeking to come to America to work in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and math are commonly required to obtain a H-1B visa. Until Sunday, the fee for an H-1B visa ranged from $2,000 to $5,000.   “The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program was created to bring temporary workers into the United States to perform additive, high-skilled functions, but it has been deliberately exploited to replace—rather than supplement—American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor,” according to the White House.   The new H-1B visa fee is higher than the average salary for a visa recipient, creating a significant disincentive for U.S. tech companies to hire foreign workers over Americans. Following the move, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun was asked about the change to the U.S. visa program.   “China welcomes outstanding talents from all industries and fields globally to come to China, take root in China, and jointly promote the continuous progress of human society while achieving personal career development,” Guo said, according to a translation from China’s state-run Global Times.   On Oct. 1, Beijing’s K visa will take effect. The K visa aims to attracts young science and technology talent to China.   Though China is further opening its doors to foreign STEM talent, Jeff Smith, director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, says he does not foresee young people who had planned to apply for a H-1B visa in the U.S. now seeking a K visa in China.   “If foreigners seeking a U.S. work visa lose access to that option or it becomes prohibitively expensive, they are likely to look to Canada, Europe, or Australia next. For most, China will not be their next option,” Smith told The Daily Signal.   About 70% of H-1B visa holders are from India, and China is not interested in absorbing millions of foreign workers, according to Simon Hankinson.   “The H-1B visa is far more important—politically, economically, and socially—to India than to the United States,” said Hankinson, who spent more than 20 years as a Foreign Service Officer serving in India, Fiji, Ghana, Slovakia, Togo, France, and Kenya.  “India’s labor market cannot absorb its millions of annual graduates,” he said, adding that the “majority of Indians coming to the U.S. are average workers and paid below-average wages. Only a few are exceptional and worth that extra money.”   “The threat of students or workers going elsewhere due to Trump tightening of rules is a tactic to try and keep the student-work visa-permanent residence pipeline wide-open,” according to Hankinson, who now works in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center.   The H-1B visa, which is valid for three years, was begun in the 1990s to bring top talent to America to work in the growing field of technology.   From 2000 to 2019, the number of foreigners working in the U.S. in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math has grown from 1.2 million to about 2.5 million, according to the White House, adding that “overall STEM employment has only increased 44.5% during that time.”   Over the years, the H-1B visa program “has been widely abused by major tech companies to misrepresent the labor market and import cheaper foreign labor for jobs that were never truly high-skill,” Wesley Hodges, acting director of the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.   The “H-1B program has failed both American workers, who increasingly struggle to find jobs in technical fields, and genuine high-skill immigrants, who are crowded out by misuse of the system,” according to Hodges.   The rapid advance of artificial intelligence is also expected to “automate many of the low-skill information jobs that H-1B visas have historically filled,” Hodges said.  The average H-1B salary is $60,000, according to economist Peter St Onge, and because the salary for the visa has not been adjusted for inflation over time, he says, the program has gone from being an attractor of top talent to a “sweatshop” model.   Trump slaps $100,000 fee on H1B’s.It’s a great start to ending Big Tech’s 2.5 million worker sweatshop.Still, there’s another 2.3 million visas — including 350,000 “intern visas” — that replace Americans with low-wage foreigners. pic.twitter.com/3fYgVmRXGz— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) September 22, 2025 The $100,000 H-1B visa fee will only be applied to new visas and not existing visas. The post China Responds to America’s New $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Congress approaches an end-of-September deadline to fund the government and avert a shutdown, Democrats are trying to get their pound of flesh in exchange for any deal. On Friday, the House of Representatives passed a continuing resolution (CR) to extend Biden-era funding for seven weeks and buy time for a more long-term funding deal. Every House Democrat, except for Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, voted against it. In the Senate, where seven Democrat votes in favor would be required to end debate, an initial attempt to advance the stopgap funding bill failed Friday when every Democrat voted against consideration of the CR, except for Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. On the Republican side, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also voted against moving forward with the CR, with Murkowski arguing the CR should be attached to appropriations bills and address expiring health care tax credits. Paul opposed it because of its lack of spending cuts. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Now, Democrat leaders are demanding a meeting with President Donald Trump and are asking for major concessions that would extend expiring health care tax credits and hamstring the administration’s ability to rescind appropriated funds in the future, in exchange for the seven-week funding deal. “We write to demand a meeting in connection with your decision to shut down the federal government because of the Republican desire to continue to gut the health care of the American people,” reads a letter to Trump from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, both D-N.Y. The letter, which includes a laundry list of demands relating to health care, says that “it is now your obligation to meet with us directly to reach an agreement to keep the government open and address the Republican health care crisis.” Trump, thus far, has indicated he does not think granting Democrats concessions would lead to any progress. .@POTUS says Democrats stand for chaos, confusion, and anger: "They're angry… They're doing very badly. I think they stand for chaos. They stand for nothing." pic.twitter.com/hnwO4o4cfg— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 22, 2025 “They’re deranged. If we gave them everything they wanted, they wouldn’t accept, in my opinion. You know, they say, oh, they want to meet with me. It’s nonsense, but I’ll meet with them,” Trump recently told reporters aboard Air Force One. For now, it appears that this funding fight will be a protracted staring contest to see which side blinks first. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said he is open to negotiation on the issue of expiring health care premium tax credits, but has rejected the idea of a seven-week CR being the vehicle for the extension. The Republican tactic may be to proceed with a last-minute vote to see if Democrats have the guts to shut down the government. The Senate is scheduled to return on Sept. 29, just a day before the end of the fiscal year and funding runs out. The House is scheduled to return on Oct. 1, essentially forcing Senate Democrats to take or leave a CR. “If they want to shut down the government, they have the power to do so, but if they think they are going to gain political points from shutting down the government over a clean, nonpartisan CR, something they voted for 13 times under the Biden administration, I would strongly urge them to think again,” Thune has said of the Democrats in opposition. The post Congress’ Shutdown Stare-Down Begins. Who Will Blink First? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As the federal government cuts funding for Planned Parenthood, some liberal states are stepping in to keep the nation’s largest abortion provider in business.  Washington, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Colorado are among those pledging to use state dollars to fill the “gap” left by federal funding cuts.  Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, says his state will contribute more than $11 million to Planned Parenthood to replace the funding it’s losing in the state thanks to President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which put a year-long ban on federal Medicaid funding for abortion providers.   “The real victims in the Trump administration’s political, cruel attack on reproductive rights are Washingtonians who will lose their health care provider. I will not allow that to happen,” Ferguson said in a statement.   “Washington will step into this temporary gap to ensure women continue to have access to critical health care,” he said.  The federal funding ban went into effect earlier this month after an appeals court overturned a district judge’s order that had required the federal government to continue issuing Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers.  Planned Parenthood said the ban could put as many as 200 of its centers at risk of closure nationwide.  Despite the halt to federal Medicaid reimbursements, one New York Planned Parenthood says it will provide free “health care” to any patients on Medicaid.   And other states are taking their own steps to ensure their abortion providers stay open.  Like Washington, New Mexico has said it will cover the lost funding for abortion providers in the state—an estimated $3 million.  “New Mexico will not abandon women and families when Republicans in Washington fail them,” said Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in a statement.  “Access to comprehensive reproductive health care is a fundamental right and a public health necessity. That’s why we’re directing state resources to ensure Medicaid patients continue receiving the full spectrum of reproductive health services through Planned Parenthood and other qualified providers without interruption,” Grisham said.  In a special session in late August, Colorado’s legislature passed a bill requiring the use of state funds to reimburse Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to make up for their loss of federal Medicaid reimbursements. Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed that bill into law on Aug. 26.  In July, Massachusetts approved $2 million for Planned Parenthood to cover what Democrat Gov. Maura Healey called Trump’s “assault on women’s access to essential health care.”  That same month, a coalition of liberal attorneys general sued the Department of Health and Human Services over the cuts to funding, calling them “retribution” for Planned Parenthood’s “constitutionally protected advocacy.”  The post Inside States’ Fight to Keep Planned Parenthood’s Lights on appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Drones Are Disrupting Flights in the Airspace Over Copenhagen

We’ve got a new interactive series called Worst Media Take of the Week, where you — our loyal NewsBusters visitors and MRC supporters — get to vote on which leftist journalist or celebrity had the worst media take of the week.   Much appreciation to all who voted last week via NewsBusters and the MRC’s various social media sites (Facebook, Instagram and X.com).   The results of the Worst Media Take of the Week are in and the winner is… Jimmy Kimmel! The comedian and late night talk show host won with 53 percent of the vote. Kimmel took first place after he falsely claimed Charlie Kirk’s shooter was MAGA. He was suspended for this horrible take. ABC News correspondent Matt Gutman came in second place with 32 percent of the vote. Punk rock singer Bobby Vylan finished in third place with 15 percent. The following is a montage of all the nominees:      WINNER (53 percent of the vote)   Jimmy Kimmel: MAGA “Desperately Trying” To Portray Kirk’s Killer As Not “One of Them” “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”— Host Jimmy Kimmel on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, September 15.   SECOND PLACE (32 percent of the vote)   Matt Gutman: Charlie Kirk Assassin’s Texts Were “Touching” “The other thing that stood out to me, David, is those text messages….It was very touching in a way that I think many of us didn’t expect — a very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect’s roommate and the suspect himself, with him repeatedly calling his roommate, who is transitioning, calling him ‘my love’ and ‘I want to protect you, my love.’ So, it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd….and then, on the other hand, he was, you know, speaking so lovingly about his partner.”— Correspondent Matt Gutman on live ABC News Special, September 16.   THIRD PLACE (15 percent of the vote)   Punk Rock Singer Bobby Vylan Calls Charlie Kirk a “Piece of S***” “I wanna dedicate this next one to an absolute piece of shit of a human being. The pronouns: was/were. ‘Cause if you talk shit, you will get banged! Rest in piss, Charlie Kirk! You piece of shit!”— Punk rock singer Bobby Vylan on the stage of Amsterdam’s Club Paradiso, September 13.   Thanks again to all who participated!    Funded by James P. Jimirro

After avoiding last week’s looming story of parent company ABC suspending Jimmy Kimmel, The View finally broached the subject on Monday and hours ahead of ABC announcing Kimmel would return on Tuesda. Of course, this didn’t come without a self-righteous lecture on the importance of free speech and how those on the show embody the American principle. Co-host Whoopi Goldberg opened, “Did y'all really think we weren't going to talk about Jimmy Kimmel? I mean, have you watched the show over the last 29 seasons? So you know no one silences us.” That darn First Amendment strikes again. Obviously, the program needed to be cleared of any suspicion that they needed approval from Disney to even mention the suspension. “And when the news broke last week about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, we took a breath to see if Jimmy was going to say anything about it first. We did the same thing with Stephen Colbert,” Goldberg added. Their response to the Colbert cancellation was slow as well. But every far-left talk show is on edge right now. Goldberg then stumbled through her next scripted talking point: “Now, to be clear, you cannot like—now, I want to make sure I got this right. To be clear, you cannot like a show and it can go off the air. Someone can say something they shouldn't and get taken off the air. But the government cannot — cannot apply pressure to force someone to be silenced.”     Any evidence of direct government coercion regarding late night television has yet to surface. The View will be one of the first to tell us if any, in fact, does. To support the “duh” moment, Goldberg cited a supposedly astounding handful of sympathizers: “And you may be surprised to see who agrees with us at this table. Because it blew us away.” A short montage of not-so-surprising dissent directed against FCC Chairman Brendan Carr was shown ahead of resident lawyer and co-host Sunny Hostin. She then proudly self-congratulated herself and her fellow hosts, without forgetting to take a little dig at the President: I remember being in law school in 1991 and my constitutional law professor said that, in 1929, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the greats — one of the greats — said that, “We must protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.” Think about that. “We must protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.” And so, Justice Sotomayor said last week that, “Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech, in some way I think to myself, ‘That law school failed.’” Well, my law school, Notre Dame, didn’t fail. I know very well what the freedom of speech means. I know all of you know very much what the freedom of speech means. And the President of the United States should know what the freedom of speech means. Funnily enough, there was a time when The View was not so staunchly pro-free speech. Back in early 2024, the fussy women fought over whether or not then-candidate Donald Trump should have been allowed to debate President Biden. Apparently the First Amendment does take sides when politically convenient. If the The View is really as proud of the First Amendment and immune from corporate pressure as it claims to be, then this article wouldn’t have been written in the first place. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: ABC’s The View September 22, 2025 11:02:00 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Now, look. Did y'all really think we weren't going to talk about Jimmy Kimmel? I mean, have you watched the show over the last 29 seasons? So you know no one silences us. And to all my friends in Italy who reached out, you have to know, it's okay, we're still here. We're still broadcasting. And when the news broke last week about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, we took a breath to see if Jimmy was going to say anything about it first. We did the same thing with Stephen Colbert. Then our show was on tape on Friday. But we are live here today, and we’re getting into it now. Okay? [APPLAUSE] Now, to be clear, you cannot like—now, I want to make sure I got this right. To be clear, you cannot like a show and it can go off the air. Someone can say something they shouldn't and get taken off the air. But the government cannot — cannot apply pressure to force someone to be silenced. And you may be surprised to see who agrees with us at this table. Because it blew us away. Take a look. [Cuts to video] KRISTEN WELKER [on NBC’s Meet the Press, 09/21/25]: Do you believe that Brendan Carr's comments were appropriate? SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY) [on NBC’s Meet the Press, 09/21/25]: Absolutely inappropriate. [SCREEN WIPE] The government has got no business in it and the FCC was wrong to weigh in and I will fight any attempt by the government to get involved with speech, I will fight. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT) [on ABC’s This Week, 09/21/25]:  We are quickly turning into a banana republic. The President of the United States is now employing the full power of the federal government, the FCC, the Department of Justice, in order to punish, lock up, take down off the air all of his political enemies. [SCREEN WIPE] I think what Brendan Carr has done at the FCC is illegal and unconstitutional. SEN: TED CRUZ (R-TX) [on The Verdict with Ted Cruz, 09/19/25]: He says, “We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way.” And I got to that say that's right out of Goodfellas. That's right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, “Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it. [SCREEN WIPE] I like Brendan Carr, but we should not be in this business. We should denounce it. (…) 11:05:30 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: No, it’s not up to Brendan Carr. It is not up to him. I don't understand how you are the man in charge of the nation and you still don't understand how the First Amendment works. Do you want to remind him? Because you are the lawyer. Please do. SUNNY HOSTIN: I would like to. Thank you, Whoopi. You know, freedom of speech undergirds our democracy, and our Founders were very, very clear on that. Our Founders drafted the First Amendment specifically to protect the rights of citizens to criticize the government. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, said the citizens must be able to criticize officials because “they will try to impose their thinking and modes of thinking on others,” unquote. And the Supreme Court time and time again has reinforced its support for the law of the land, the First Amendment. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In 1929, I remember being in law school — not in 1929 — SARA HAINES: You look amazing. HOSTIN: — thank you. I remember being in law school in 1991 and my constitutional law professor said that, in 1929, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the greats — one of the greats — said that, “We must protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.” Think about that. “We must protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.” And so, Justice Sotomayor said last week that, “Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech, in some way I think to myself, ‘That law school failed.’” Well, my law school, Notre Dame, didn’t fail. I know very well what the freedom of speech means. I know all of you know very much what the freedom of speech means. And the President of the United States should know what the freedom of speech means. (…)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s petition for a stay of a district court order preventing him from firing Democrat Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. “The July 17, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25–cv–909, ECF Doc. 52, is stayed,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. The 6-3 decision also granted a writ of certiorari before judgment, announcing that it will take up the broader topic of any president’s authority to fire members of agencies. It directs Trump and Slaughter appear before the high court in December to argue their positions on the matter. At issue will be whether or not the Supreme Court should overrule its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision that prevented Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing a FTC commissioner. That decision ruled that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty. The Supreme Court will also examine whether “a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.” “On top of granting certiorari before judgment in this case, the Court today issues a stay enabling the President to immediately discharge, without any cause, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),” liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the dissenting opinion. “That stay, granted on our emergency docket, is just the latest in a series,” Kagan wrote, noting that the Supreme Court has issued similar rulings this year allowing Pres. Trump to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merits Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Tuesday’s stay order allows Trump to remove “any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all,” Kagan wrote.