Arkansas whites-only community sues UK media giant for defamation

(Screenshot/Sky News)

Matthew Rozsa

July 27, 2026 

ALTERNET

The owners of an Arkansas whites-only community that critics have described as “evil and reprehensible” is now striking back by suing a British-owned broadcaster for defamation.

“The men -- Eric Orwoll, Peter J. Csere and Scott Hallowood -- seek $2.7 million in punitive and compensatory damages from the broadcasters over a July 21, 2025, documentary on the community near Ravenden,” Arkansas Online reported on Monday. “The group says Sky UK doctored a photo to create a ‘whites only’ sign on a tree and that the sign doesn't exist, as well as attributed to them a comment made on X stating, ‘We started a Whites only community,’ when the comment was posted on an account they do not control.”

Orwoll, Csere and Hallowood filed the suit in a U.S. District Court in Little Rock in which they claimed they suffered from the supposedly defamatory claims.

"We don't know whether we're going to win or not," Csere explained during a July 23 podcast. "We do think we have a very good case." Orwoll and Csere said they also plan on filing suits against other groups and people.

"As promised, we're going on the offensive," Orwoll argued. "There are lots of people who have behaved in unwise ways."

In their Arkansas residential project, known as Return to the Land, the three men purchased tracts of land and planned on dividing it up among like-minded people who did not want to be in an area where Blacks, Jews and other minorities were told they were not welcome.

“The men claim the broadcast includes a photo of a sign tacked to a tree on the community's property that says ‘Whites Only,’” Arkansas Online reported. “They deny that any such sign has existed on the property and say Sky UK doctored a photo of the Return to the Land logo to produce the image.”

They added, “They also claim that interviews done by Sky UK's reporters were edited in a misleading way, selectively choosing responses from Orwoll without context and qualifications.”

Last year The New York Times reporter Debra Kamin reported that President Donald Trump’s policies have emboldened people like the Arkansas racists to act in ways that are technically illegal.

“Racism is, as you know, definitely not anything new. But definitely ‘why now’ is because there is a feeling among the architects of this community and the people who created it that they can get away with it now, because even though the laws obviously very explicitly make it illegal to discriminate, a lot of things that we took as rules and norms just a few months ago no longer really apply,” Kamin wrote. “They feel that at the highest levels of government, they will be allowed to do this.”

Reporting on the community last year, Wired's David Gilbert argued that “the online histories of the group's leaders tell a different story” than their claims to being peaceful. “Members have espoused virulently racist and antisemitic views and repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. One of the leaders says he is currently under criminal investigation in Ecuador. (Return to the Land President Eric) Orwoll himself has spoken about the coming of a second Hitler and praised KKK leader David Duke."

Gilbert added, "He is also closely aligned to an international network of far-right influencers, extremists, and white supremacists, including Thomas Sewell, a neo-Nazi living in Australia who was the founder of a group that influenced the Christchurch, New Zealand, shooter. Despite this, the Return to the Land community has been lauded by far-right influencers and has already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations."

Trump admin rubber-stamps absurd plan to make sky '100 times brighter'

(REUTERS)

Jim Hightower 

July 27, 2026 

COMMON DREAMS

Executives climbing the corporate ladder to the top seem to lose IQ the higher up they get.

That might explain why John Deere's top corporate bosses have imposed an astonishingly stupid policy on America's farmers. For years, they've decreed that while a farmer "technically owns" a tractor or other John Deere product, the owner is prohibited from making any repairs when the machinery breaks down, stalls out, etc. Instead, owners must call an authorized Deere dealer to fix what most farmers could handle by themselves.

The monopolistic profiteer refuses to make its repair manuals available to customers or local repair shops, so ... gotcha.

But in 2020, Walther Schweitzer rallied with other mad-as-hell farmers and ranchers to rebel. The Montana rancher's tractor had gone kaput in hay baling season -- but, "no," said a Deere dealer, a technician is not available; and "no," you can't have access to the diagnostic computer to do it yourself. So, he had to wait weeks before Deere finally got his tractor running -- a fairly basic job worth about $600 ... but they billed Walter nearly $4,000.

That's what's called "a monopoly fix." But they messed with the wrong farmer. Schweitzer, president of the Montana Farmers Union, mobilized grassroots pressure from five states, forcing federal officials to sue Deere. This month, Deere's aloof executives settled that suit, finally letting its farm customers take charge of the equipment that -- hello! -- they own!

Schweitzer points out that this landmark win over the arrogance of Deere executives is just one stepping stone to a right-to-repair law for all products. To help push this right forward, go to repair.org.

IGNORANCE + ARROGANCE + POWER = LUNACY

Some presidents are known as uplifting orators; our present president is known for petulant putdowns.

Periodically, Trump discovers a new pejorative that he considers clever, so he wears it out attacking his endless list of enemies. His current favorite is "lunatic," hurling the slur at women reporters, most foreign leaders, all Democrats, protestors and ... well, everyone who offends him.

But if he wants some real lunatics to belittle, why not that menagerie he's appointed to top government positions? Such as Brendan Carr, Trump's FCC attack dog who keeps yapping that he's going to abolish NPR.

Failing at that, Carr has now gone from silly to ridiculous, pushing a phantasmagoric scheme that truly is lunacy. It comes from some Elon Musk proteges who apparently noticed that our planet gets dark as night falls. Eureka, they exclaimed, we need to "light the night!"

Why? Well, they say, to illuminate all city streets and rural roads, make crops grow faster and stuff like that. But how to generate the light? Easy, the geniuses explain: mirrors.

They want government support to deploy a global network of orbiting space mirrors that could reflect sunlight onto Earth's rotating dark areas. Lots of mirrors -- the schemers propose to put 50,000 in our skies by 2030, with each of the largest ones shining as bright as 100 full moons!

Nothing could go wrong with that, right? Bedazzled, Carr didn't ask. Instead, with no public input, he just rubber-stamped an initial launch of this "novel technology," blandly assuring us that "harms are unlikely to occur."


To oppose this lunacy, connect with the American Astronomical Society: aas.org

Is the US Ready for Radical Change?

Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today’s United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way.

(L-R) U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Michigan Democratic candidate for Senate Abdul El-Sayed, and US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) greet the crowd after El-Sayed spoke at The People V. The Powerful rally at the Detroit Opera House on July 18, 2026 in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo by Sarah Rice/Getty Images)

C.J. Polychroniou

Alexandra Boutri
Jul 28, 2026

Common Dreams

The US is the richest country in the world, yet an international outlier on many measures. Among industrialized nations, the US spends a lower percentage of its GDP on public social expenditure, has no universal healthcare system, union density is at an all-time low, and the average American’s standard of living is in decline, as “nearly half of US households can’t make ends meet.” Of course, delusional President Donald Trump continues to say that the US is the “hottest country in the world.” Is the US, however, ready for radical change? After all, isn’t there evidence that Americans are losing faith in capitalism and that socialism is gaining ground among voters?

Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these issues in an interview with the French-Greek writer and journalist Alexandra Boutri. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today’s United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way and regards the Democratic Party itself as the graveyard of radical change undertakings.

Alexandra Boutri: Recent polls indicate that capitalism is in trouble in the US, as there is a growing loss of faith in the system, apparently even among Republicans, while socialism is gaining mainstream appeal. So, I want to start this interview by inquiring about your own impression regarding political and ideological trends in the United States. Indeed, is the country on the verge of radical change?

C. J. Polychroniou: I am now old enough to take any talk of radical political change with a grain of salt. That being said, there is no doubt that the US version of capitalism has been an utter failure for the majority of Americans. In contrast to European or Asian versions of capitalism, capitalism in the US has always been structured around what we might call the Sopranos version of doing business, which is the Trump administration’s way of actually running the whole country today. But Trump aside, what kind of civilized society denies its citizens access to universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, guaranteed long-term parental leave, 4-6 weeks of guaranteed paid vacation, and robust unemployment benefits? The US does!

Only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.

The younger generations in the US seem to have awakened to the realization that the US economic system is brutal and thus detrimental to their well-being, even if they may not have an alternative socioeconomic system in mind that they would like to see instituted. They have indeed taken notice of the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system and that the standard of living has declined to the level of developing countries. Truth be told, even if North America remains the wealthiest on average, the quality of life in many European countries, which are, of course, still fully capitalistic, is superior to the US. There are stronger social safety nets and greater work-life balance in capitalist Europe than there are in the capitalist United States of America.

Which countries are best on women’s well-being? According to the latest Women, Peace and Security Index, European countries occupy all nine of the top positions while the US ranks 31st, below countries like Serbia and Malta. So, we do need to take into account different versions of capitalism. In that context, it is safe to say that many Americans have finally awakened to the realization that the US version of capitalism sucks! Anything more than that, however, is open to speculation. Socialism is gaining ground, but the challenges of building a unified socialist movement on a national scale and having a socialist political party that can contest power at the federal level are enormous in the United States of America.

Alexandra Boutri: Is the rise of socialism in the US the reason why Trump is reviving the boogeyman of communism?

C. J. Polychroniou: Absolutely. However much of a shallow man Trump happens to be, he is nonetheless a mastermind politician who has the pulse of today’s Republican voters. He is the greatest bullshitter of the modern age, but that’s only because of his audience. He knows how to stir fear. He also knows that he can normalize cruelty because his fanatical and racist fanbase simply loves it. Have his policies worsened economic conditions in the country to the point that even some of his own followers are beginning to doubt him? He only has to raise the volume on culture wars and then becomes again, in the eyes of his own supporters, the nation’s savior. Of course, such tactics have an expiration date even for the most popular authoritarian leaders. Look, for example, at what happened to Viktor Orbán in Hungary. After 16 years in power, even his own core supporters grew tired of his cronyism and corruption. I believe we will see something similar happen to Donald Trump and to the Republican Party, perhaps as soon as this coming November, in spite of how deeply the anti-democratic tradition has entrenched itself in all branches of government. In the end, only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.

Alexandra Boutri: Are you also saying that the Democrats have been responsible for Trump’s rise to power?

C J. Polychroniou: Of course, and it was the Democrats, with their ability to destroy trust in government by siding themselves utterly and shamelessly with major corporate and financial interests, that rolled out the red carpet for Trump’s arrival on the nation’s political scene. The country had been moving further and further to the right since the early 1980s. In fact, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as moderates had been declining since the Clinton years. Democrats still talk about Bill Clinton’s achievements, such as turning deficits into surpluses and making the economy more globalized, but his policies ushered in a new era of inequality while he transformed the welfare state by ending social policy. Essentially, the welfare state was dismantled under the Clinton presidency and was largely replaced in turn by volunteerism.

Neoliberalism (embraced by both parties in the US) and cultural relativism (a late obsession of liberals and segments of the left) have been at the core of the political turn to the far right in the US. The main point, though, is that the Democrats failed to advance a meaningful alternative whenever they found themselves in power. The Obama administration also had the chance to make a meaningful impact on the future of the country but opted, instead, to align itself with the status quo on all major issues, both on the domestic and foreign front. The Biden administration did make some progress on economic policy, mainly thanks to pressures from the progressive wing of the party, but failed miserably on foreign policy. As to why Kamala Harris lost to Trump, that’s an issue that will forever be debated.

Alexandra Boutri: In a recent campaign speech in Michigan, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the Trump administration is “hellbent on tearing down in four years what it took this country 250 years to build.” What did she mean by that, and how likely is it that she will be the Democratic 2028 nominee?

C. J. Polychroniou: Naturally, the country has made progress over the past 250 years. Don’t you think it would have been unnatural if it hadn’t done so? But how do we measure progress? Wars existed in the past, and it appears that war will never end. By the same token, we have taken major steps toward protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, but economic inequality is greater today than it has ever been in the modern era, while women, people of color, and minorities continue to face economic disadvantages. In any case, it is beyond dispute that Trump is destroying whatever social and economic progress has been made so far. He is a wrecking ball, an unhinged sociopath, but one who is still being treated as America’s savior by something like close to 40% of voters. That’s simply mind-boggling, but it says something noteworthy about the persistence of a particular component of American political culture—one that rests on possessive individualism, anti-intellectualism, and the paranoid style. Richard Hofstadter addressed some of those aspects of American political life long before the rise of Trumpism. But we need to add racism, as it also remains a profound component of American political culture.

If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens.

I don’t know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will decide to run for president in 2028. I hope she does. Recent polls indicate that she is more popular with Democratic voters than the likes of Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris, none of whom offers hope for a brighter future, although any one of them would be an improvement over Trump. What I do know, though, is that if AOC does decide to run for president in 2028, not only will she have at least half of the country react with extreme fear and paranoia attacks, but she will encounter massive opposition from the Democratic establishment itself. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee derided the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) campaign. I expect something similar will happen to AOC. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is the graveyard of radical change in the US.

Alexandra Boutri: What would constitute radical change in today’s United States?

C. J. Polychroniou: That’s a very important question, and I’m glad you raised it. Political, economic, and even sociocultural settings must be taken into account whenever we speak of demands for radical change. Take something like universal healthcare. Almost every country in Europe has universal coverage, and it can also be found in many countries around the world. But in the US there has always been staunch opposition to universal healthcare policies by powerful private entities like the health and insurance industries. If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens. No question about it. Radical change should not imply the transformation of a country’s entire system of government. That would constitute a revolution. Even then, we would need to distinguish between a political revolution and a social revolution. For instance, the American Revolution was a political, not social revolution. It did not alter the fabric of society; it did not change wealth distribution and left the class system intact. On the other hand, the French Revolution that began in 1789 and the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia were truly social revolutions in that they transformed property relations and changed radically the class systems in both countries.

Alexandra Boutri: Today’s left focuses too much on cultural issues without really challenging capitalism. Indeed, in the recent past, issues like multiculturalism and even certain variants of feminism have functioned like ideologies of capitalism. In addition, some segments of the left have a knack for spreading ideas that are either not well thought out or simply impractical. For instance, and I believe this also captures your own sentiments, I find talk about “degrowth” and “wealth tax” schemes that fail to address the dynamics of unfettered capital accumulation while making in addition ludicrous claims that their implementation would solve the climate crisis as rather wishy-washy responses to capitalist crises and thus by no means game-changing strategies. My question then is this: What sort of new ideas would qualify, in your view, as game changers for the contemporary capitalist environment in the United States?

C. J. Polychroniou: I have already mentioned universal healthcare. In any case, it would be rather easy for anyone, I think, to simply suggest ideas to improve the state of the US economy and to create a better society but that would be meaningless if the ideas themselves weren’t accompanied by concrete steps and specific policy proposals on how to erect alternative socioeconomic arrangements. But we need expertise for that to happen. That being said, a new project has been launched by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst called Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. It’s a project that was conceived of and is being directed by Gerald Epstein, a world-leading progressive economist who also happens to be PERI’s co-director. The issues addressed range from health and the environment to trade and finance. The policy briefs produced by different economists contain the sort of policy proposals that are desperately needed for rewriting the rules of the US economy in a manner that caters first and foremost to the needs and interests of American workers. I recommend everyone interested in progressive ideas on how to create a fairer, greener, and sustainable US economy to study some of the policy briefs that have been posted on PERI’s website.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


C.J. Polychroniou
C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His latest books are The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic and the Urgent Need for Social Change (A collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky; Haymarket Books, 2021), and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (Verso, 2021).
Full Bio >

Attacks on Mamdani Prove Israel’s Supporters Can’t Even Tolerate Criticism of Netanyahu

It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.


New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers an address on July 21, 2026.
(Photo by NYC Mayor’s Office/YouTube Screengrab)

Edward Ahmed Mitchell
Jul 28, 2026
COMMON  DREAMS

The United States should not roll out the red carpet for a foreign leader who has systematically starved and slaughtered thousands of people, including children.

This simple principle is what led New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to declare that Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in the Big Apple and call on the federal government to honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.

By publishing this speech, which is now the most popular video he has ever posted on social media, Mayor Mamdani did what no mayor before him dared: speak the truth about American complicity in the Israeli government’s human rights abuses.

For decades, New York City’s leaders have gone out of their way to embrace all things Israel. From Eric Adams to Rudy Giuliani and beyond, past mayors have praised Israeli leaders, traveled to Israel, encouraged the purchase of Israeli bonds, and supported policies designed to suppress criticism of the Israeli government, including unconstitutional anti-boycott orders.

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him.

Rather than engage honestly with the substance of Mayor Mamdani’s change in course, most Israel advocacy organizations responded to his speech by effectively claiming that criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu is somehow equivalent to criticism of Jewish people. The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent pro-Israel groups even tried to blame the mayor, without any evidence whatsoever, for an attack on an Asian man and Jewish man that occurred in the days after the speech.

The argument that criticizing Israel is inherently antisemitic—which has been used to silence college students, elected officials, and other critics of the Gaza genocide—is both dishonest and dangerous.

It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.

Conflating Netanyahu with Jews around the world undermines the fight against real antisemitism. It also insults the many Jewish Americans who have vocally criticized Netanyahu’s war crimes in Gaza and called for an end to US support for those crimes.

What the Israeli government’s worst enablers have revealed through their hysterical response to Mayor Mamdani’s speech is that they simply cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli government, even criticism focused exclusively on Benjamin Netanyahu, and that they are willing to conflate the entire Jewish community with Netanyahu in a bid to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.

As for those who try to justify the antisemitism smear by claiming that Mayor Mamdani gives an inordinate amount of attention to Israel, this claim ignores three important points.

For one thing, Israel is actively committing its crimes with billions in American taxpayer dollars and weapons, which is why it warrants so much attention from the American people.

Second, the Israeli government’s supporters are the ones who insisted that mayors of New York City embrace Israel’s policies, defend Israel from criticism, and make Israel their first foreign visit. Mamdani has given Israel far less attention than Eric Adams, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani.

Third, national and local reporters keep asking Mamdani about Israel, sometimes the exact same questions about whether Israel has a right to exist. Don’t blame Mamdani for answering the questions

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him. So do many Americans; a recent poll showed 46% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be arrested if he comes to the United States. Another poll showed that Mamdani has a higher favorability rating among Jewish Americans than Netanyahu.

The claim that criticizing Israel’s human rights abuses is antisemitic no longer works on the American public, and it is long past time for Israel’s supporters to stop telling it.

Edward Ahmed Mitchell
Edward Ahmed Mitchell is a civil rights attorney who serves as the national deputy executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States.
Full Bio >

'Project much?' Mockery as Stephen Miller rants about 'losers and crazies' on Fox News

Robert Davis
July 27, 2026

RAW STORY

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller delivers remarks, as he and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attend a presentation ceremony of the Mexican Border Defense Medal (MBDM) to service members participating in the Trump administration's Operation Ardent Vanguard, at the Pentagon in Washinton, D.C., U.S., July 27, 2026. 

REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein


One of President Donald Trump's top aides was ridiculed on Monday after he went on Fox News to rant about "losers and crazies" in the Democratic Party.

Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, joined Sean Hannity on his eponymous show on Monday to discuss the upcoming midterm elections. During the interview, Miller took a swipe at some of the most popular Democrats in the party, one that didn't land well with some people in the audience.

"The names you mentioned — AOC, Bernie, [Ilhan] Omar—these are people who, even 10 or 15 years ago, would have been relegated to the outermost fringes. They are now the heart and soul of the party," Miller said. "The Democrats have become the party of freaks, weirdos, losers, and crazies," Miller said. "But you can't laugh it off because it's deadly serious."

Miller's comments were swiftly mocked online.

"Project much? Ten years ago, Miller was a fringe staff member for a fringe senator. Now he’s in the White House," Ray Locker, a journalist and author, posted on X.

"10 or 15 years ago we would have rightly condemned Stephen Miller's policy of turning away persecuted Christians who were brown while welcoming only white South African refugees as a Nazi idea," Jaid Jilani, author of "The American Saga" on Substack, posted on X.

"The king of the 'freaks, weirdos, losers, and crazies' party wants to call out some of the most popular politicians in the country," Hemant Mehta, a "Jeopardy!" champion, posted on X.

\\

Trump's 'white-supremacist wonderland' about to face 'humiliating implosion': analyst

Kathleen Culliton
July 26, 2026 

RAW STORY


White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller looks on as he stands behind reporters during a press conference with U.S. President Donald Trump, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The Trump's administration's efforts to turn the world into a "a white-supremacist wonderland" will suffer a "humiliating implosion" for one darkly funny reason, a Salon columnist argued Sunday.

Executive editor Andrew O’Hehir skewered the fragile egos of many a MAGA minion in his lengthy editorial on President Donald Trump's failed foreign policy which he asserted was doomed by a fatal flaw.

"We should be grateful for the epic and reckless corruption of this administration," wrote O'Herir. "Ambitious schemes to reshape America and the world as a white-supremacist wonderland are consistently undercut by the enormous levels of graft."

Yes, graft.

O'Herir's argument for this claim centers on Trump's White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, a man he compares to one of Adolf Hitler's most devoted followers among the Nazis.

"As I see him," he wrote, "Miller is a true believer whose corruption is moral rather than financial, one of many traits he appears to share with Joseph Goebbels."

This moral corruption stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Trump administration whose financial corruption he argues have effectively undermined Miller's goals.

Why? O'Herir predicts Trump's grafts have delivered a fatal blow to his popularity, and the MAGA movement is headed for a nasty midterm surprise.

"As the Trump administration veers unsteadily into its lame-duck phase and a likely midterm wipeout, its quest for a legacy achievement becomes increasingly pathetic," he wrote.

"Meanwhile, the search for something that can be pitched to last-ditch MAGA loyalists as a victory, no matter how petty and insignificant, continues."

Despite O'Herir's assertion that the humor of the situation is marred by the horrific consequences — "this might be amusing if real human lives weren’t at stake, and if billions in taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress for aid to impoverished countries like Mali weren’t being diverted to right-wing nationalists, white supremacists and anti-LGBTQ groups" — O'Herir concludes with one last dark silver lining

Wrote O'Herir: "Trump’s return to power has, at the very least, finally confounded all the doofuses who ever took anything he said at face value."

RED BAITING
Internet firestorm erupts as Wall Street Journal editorial targets 'radical' group

Robert Davis
July 26, 2026 

RAW STORY


U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hold up hands as they attend the Get Out the Vote rally in Brooklyn, New York, U.S., June 18, 2026. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board issued a scathing editorial on Sunday targeting what they called a "radical" left-wing group.

"The Democratic Socialists of America are gaining strength in the Democratic Party, so it behooves voters to know what they’d do with political power," the editorial reads in part.

And one position that the editors singled out is the party's calls to "abolish the Senate" to create a government "with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

"The left loathes the Senate because it is also a restraint on temporary majorities," the editors added. "The Senate’s design, with two Members from each state, gives an equal voice to small and large states. This prevents dominance by California, New York, and Texas. And it buttresses the federalist principles at the core of the Constitution’s design, which preserves certain powers to the states as a check on Washington, D.C.’s commandments."

"The common denominator in all of these DSA proposals is eliminating barriers to rapid, radical change," they added. "The socialists want a single-branch legislature that can sweep into power in a single election, dominate the President, and neuter the judiciary as a check on that power. With those checks gone, they can impose their agenda that will be nearly impossible to undo."

The editorial was published on the same day that DSA Chair Megan Romer told Fox News's Shannon Bream on "Fox News Sunday" that the party's plan to abolish the Senate was "true," which set off an internet firestorm.

MAGA fans had a field day with Romer's comments.

"This is the new Democrat Party; their agenda is incompatible with Western civilization," Benny Johnson, a popular MAGA influencer, posted on X.

"The Democratic Socialists of America co-chair just confirmed they are full-blown communists," Jonathan Choe, senior journalism fellow at the Discovery Institute, posted on X. "If you need any more proof, listen to what she had to say about their plans for this country."

The comments also sparked sharp pushback from some Democrats as well.

"This isn’t a big tent—it’s anarchy," Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) posted on X in response to a clip of Romer's interview.

"This is the kind of crazy, stupid, just plain wrong s--- that Republicans will tag the whole Democratic party with and cause independents & moderates to not vote Democrat," Joe Walsh, a former Republican lawmaker who switched party allegiances, posted on X. "So please, Democrats…condemn this s---."

FETTERMAN IS A REPUBLICAN IN DINO COSTUME

FIFA boss summoned to testify about Trump ties in aftermath of World Cup

Travis Gettys
July 27, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump looks at the golden glove trophy next to FIFA president Gianni Infantino after Chelsea won against Paris St Germain in the FIFA Club World Cup final, at the MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S., July 13, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has formally asked FIFA president Gianni Infantino to appear before the committee, escalating scrutiny of FIFA's relationship with President Donald Trump in the aftermath of this summer's men's World Cup.

In a letter sent Sunday night, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked FIFA to turn over records of anything of value given to Trump, his administration, or the Trump Organization, along with visitor logs from FIFA's Miami and New York offices and preserved communications — including messages sent on platforms like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp — between FIFA staff and anyone connected to the Trump administration or transition, reported The Athletic.

FIFA created a new "Peace Prize" awarded to the president, took office space in Trump Tower and relocated the World Cup draw from Las Vegas to the Kennedy Center in Washington after Trump allies took over the venue.

Scrutiny intensified during the tournament when Trump personally called Infantino to request a review of U.S. player Folarin Balogun's suspension, which FIFA then reversed — a decision the organization maintains was made independently.

Raskin's letter also questions the Justice Department's decision to drop long-running corruption cases tied to international soccer, suggesting the timing raises questions about whether FIFA's outreach to Trump influenced the outcome.

Additionally, the letter revives concerns about FIFA's World Cup ticketing practices, which are already under investigation by attorneys general in several states over pricing that reportedly reached tens of thousands of dollars for finals tickets — far above the tournament's original promised cap.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the inquiry, defending the administration's role in the World Cup as a major success for the country.

Because Democrats remain in the House minority, Raskin cannot compel Infantino's testimony. But the letter signals the kind of oversight FIFA could face if Democrats retake the chamber in November, when Raskin could gain subpoena power as committee chairman.

The pressure adds to mounting criticism of Infantino abroad, with dozens of European lawmakers and soccer bodies — including UEFA and Norway's football federation — raising concerns about FIFA's political neutrality following the Balogun controversy and the Trump Peace Prize.

Top DHS Statistics Official Resigns, Citing ‘War on Immigrants’ and Trump’s ‘Brazen Corruption’

“Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data,” said one expert of Marc Rosenblum.


Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents walk a detainee out of the Ventura County Government Center in Ventura, California, on July 27, 2026.
(Photo by Blake Fagan/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jul 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


A top immigration policy expert accused a right-wing online news source of spreading an “outrageous lie” on Monday about the US Department of Homeland Security’s top statistician, who resigned over the weekend and cited President Donald Trump’s “war on immigrants” as a major reason for his departure.

America First Post wrote in a post on social media that Marc Rosenblum, who until recently was the executive director of the DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS), “easily could’ve been underreporting deportations or illegal populations, ruining data.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, countered that Rosenblum sought under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration to publish “the most transparent data on immigration enforcement ever; monthly information on [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection] arrests and removals, stuff that had NEVER been published before.”

Such data has not been published since the first days of Trump’s second term in the White House, said Reichlin-Melnick, as the president has ramped up deportation operations and federal agents have violently carried out his anti-immigration agenda—arresting more than 10,000 people in a recent five-day span and killing at least 11 people during enforcement operations.

In a post on LinkedIn, Rosenblum wrote that over 10 years, the team he managed at OHSS grew from 11 people to 45 people under the Biden administration.

“We matured official data processing to update monthly,” wrote Rosenblum. “We launched new lines of daily and weekly internal reports. We massively expanded our analytic capacity.”

“My OHSS co-workers are outstanding career federal civil servants. They are smart, mission-focused experts who produce high-quality results in a challenging and often hostile work environment,” he continued. “But it will come as no surprise that I’m thrilled to end my relationship with the current administration. Between the war on immigrants, the war on feds, and the war on facts (not to mention the crazy war in Iran and the brazen corruption), I just need a change.”

Daniel Delgado, a former DHS deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy, said the department was “far better off for the work that Marc accomplished, no matter how hard the current incompetent leadership try to hide it.”

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute—which has found that the majority of immigration arrests made last year were of people who had no criminal convictions—told NOTUS last November that under the Trump administration, DHS was providing “no accountability, no way to assess, no public understanding about what’s really going on that is not curated by a press release from the agency.”

Reichlin-Melnick has also frequently spoken out about the lack of data being publicly released by DHS to back up its claims about immigration arrests.




While DHS has repeatedly claimed in public statements that its agents are getting “the worst of the worst off our streets,” the agency’s own “Worst of the Worst” database released late last year showed less than 10,000 people who had been arrested—a tiny fraction of the 220,000 people who had been detained by federal agents up to that point.

“Marc Rosenblum was one of the most dedicated civil servants I’ve ever met, a man who spent his career working to get DHS to share more data,” said Reichlin-Melnick. “Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data.”

Ominous ‘shock’ warning from political scientist gets ‘more severe’ with new development

Alexander Willis
July 27, 2026 

RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: The price of gasoline is displayed at a gas station near the highway in Encinitas, California, U.S., April 30, 2026. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo

On July 6, political scientist Robert Pape made an ominous prediction that an "August energy shock" could send global oil prices skyrocketing, but on Monday, a recent development led him to double down and forecast an even bigger shock to come.

Last week, the Yemeni military organization the Houthis implemented a new maritime blockade on Saudi Arabian energy exports through the Red Sea, and over the weekend, Saudi Arabia launched attacks against the Houthis after its oil tankers came under fire.

“After Houthi attacks on Saudi oil tankers, over 40% of Saudi oil bypassing Hormuz via the Red Sea is not hitting the global market. More attacks could reduce this further,” Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago, wrote in an analysis published Monday on his Substack.

“By opening an active Red Sea front through its regional partners while keeping Hormuz closed, Iran [is] no longer presenting Washington with one maritime challenge. It is creating a two-front war problem in strategically linked theaters that must be managed at the same time.”

Pape predicted as far back as June 15 that Iran was well positioned to “exploit the oil inventory clock” and weaponize rising oil prices to its advantage. He reiterated that analysis on July 6 and more explicitly predicted that an “energy shock” could hit global markets in August.

Energy prices have, in fact, increased significantly since Pape’s initial prediction. With the United States having ramped up attacks on Iran starting earlier this month, gas prices have since soared in the United States to an average of $4.10 a gallon as of Friday, and are “poised to climb higher,” per NBC News.

“In my July 6 briefing, I warned that the earlier prediction was on track,” Pape wrote. “The developments of the past week reinforce that strategic logic and likely make the coming shock more severe.”

Trump and Hegseth’s Boat Strike Murder Spree Hasn’t Slowed Cocaine Trafficking: DEA Analysis

“’Bombing boats’ to stop drugs isn’t just cruel and illegal—it’s futile,” said one expert.

US Southern Command shared on social media a 16-second clip of a strike on a boat in the eastern Pacific that killed three people on February 20, 2026.
(Photo: screen grab/SOUTHCOM/X)

Brad Reed
Jul 27, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


An internal government analysis has revealed that President Donald Trump’s campaign of strikes against alleged drug boats off the coasts of Latin America hasn’t achieved its purported goal of diminishing the amount of cocaine being trafficked into the US.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) analysis has concluded that the boat-bombing campaign, which many legal experts and human rights groups consider acts of murder, has not “reduced the amount of cocaine entering” the country.

“DEA analysts found the strikes had failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States,” reported the Post, “and had led traffickers to diversify beyond go-fast boats and to avoid international waters, opting instead for larger boats and hemming close to coastlines, where US forces are less likely to open fire.”

The Post added that US Department of Defense (DOD) officials last month gave a closed-door briefing toe members of Congress where they acknowledged the strikes had not reduced the purity of cocaine entering the US from Latin America.

In an interview with the Post, a DEA official said that drug cartels had several options in addition to smuggling contraband by boats and simply switched tactics to avoid being hit by US strikes, which so far have killed at least 221 people.

“When you squeeze the balloon on one side, it always expands on the other side,” the official said. “They always find the weak spots and exploit them.”

Journalist Alex Horton, one of the authors of the Post report, described the boat-bombing campaign as what happens “when you merge the failures of the war on terror and the failures of the war on drugs.”

The Post’s report on the effectiveness of boat strikes came days after the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) released a lengthy report that similarly found that the boat strikes’ “impact on the trafficking of cocaine, the main drug flowing from South America, has been slight to non-existent.”

Adam Isaacson, director of the Defense Oversight program at WOLA, explained the pointlessness of the boat-bombing spree in a Saturday social media post.

“All cocaine produced in a year could fit on just over 1% of a single container ship,” Isaacson wrote. “Imagine that scattered worldwide across innumerable boats, planes, vehicles, and people. ‘Bombing boats’ to stop drugs isn’t just cruel and illegal—it’s futile.”

Georgetown University Law School professor Marty Lederman noted in a Monday social media post that the boat-bombing spree would be unjustified even if it were successful at reducing the flow of cocaine into the US.

“Another reminder, since no one in Congress appears to care,” wrote Lederman. “These strikes are a campaign of unlawful murders, and the administration hasn’t offered any plausible argument to the contrary.”