Untitled

Matt Cohen at Democracy Docket:

Mike Lindell, a pillow magnate and prolific election denier who helped mainstream the conspiracy theory that compromised voting machines were used to steal the 2020 election, lost Minnesota’s Republican primary for governor Tuesday.  Lindell, who founded the company MyPillow in 2004, frequently touted his close ties to President Donald Trump throughout his campaign. But he couldn’t leverage his personal relationship with the president enough to win over GOP voters in the North Star State. Instead, Lindell’s campaign was marred by his political baggage and legal debt, a muddled message and scandals — including potentially violating campaign finance laws by handing out free pillows in a July 4 public event. 

MyPillow founder, LindellTV creator, and far-right election denier Mike Lindell lost in the Minnesota Gubernatorial primary for the Evil Elephants, as Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth advanced to face off against Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) in the general,

Klobuchar is heavily favored to win in the general.

See Also:

Phil Williams at Confront The Hate/Find The Hope:

This much seems indisputable: Donald Trump’s administration viewed the Southern Poverty Law Center as an enemy, and officials were ecstatic in their celebrations of the indictment of the legendary civil rights organization on federal fraud charges. “This is another Democratic hoax,” the president declared after his Justice Department indicted a group that had often been critical of his policies. As a result, SPLC lawyers had argued the administration’s often-hyperbolic statements justified a motion to dismiss the indictment for vindictive prosecution—or, at least, to allow the defense to dig into prosecutors’ motives. But in a 39-page opinion released Friday, U.S. District Judge Emily C. Marks rejected the SPLC’s motion—in essence, because there are no DOJ fingerprints on Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson’s decision to seek the indictment. And, to continue the metaphor, defense attorneys will not be able to dust the case for any such prints.

“The Court has little trouble concluding that the SPLC offers insufficient objective evidence that Mr. Davidson or any other prosecutor in the Middle District of Alabama was vindictively motivated to indict the SPLC for the exercise of its First Amendment rights,” Marks wrote. “Nor does the SPLC provide evidence that Mr. Davidson was directed to bring the present charges by a superior with a vindictive motive.”

At the center of the indictment are questions about millions of dollars the group spent to operate an informant program that, Attorney General Todd Blanche argued, was “manufacturing racism to justify its existence.” The SPLC has emphatically rejected such allegations. In her opinion, Judge Marks—a Trump appointee and Federalist Society member—blasted both the government and defense for legal briefs that read “like much of our modern political discourse, heavy on heated rhetoric, better suited for cable news, or a podcast”—ignoring the normal admonitions that prosecutors must be held to a higher standard in order to protect the rights of the accused. Marks even gave Attorney General Todd Blanche credit, in his announcement of the SPLC indictment, for saying: “The indictment speaks for itself. I’m not going to talk outside the four corners of the indictment.”

Jack Winstanley, Gideon Taaffe, and Hanne MacDonald at MMFA:

Last week, Turning Point USA’s Andrew Kolvet's post about a college student noting the high price of a burrito sparked a debate among conservative commentators over whether food affordability is a real issue for voters.  While some dismissed concerns over an expensive burrito, advising those complaining to “cry me a river” and cook food at home, other right-wing personalities noted such responses were equivalent to “giving the finger to voters” and accused those commentators of “trying to gaslight us into being happy that it's unaffordable.” In reality, food and grocery prices have risen under President Donald Trump, with beef prices spiking by 11.8% from June 2025 to June 2026 and the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service estimating that grocery prices will increase by 2.7% along with a 3.5% increase in restaurant prices for the remainder of 2026. In comparing food prices in June 2025 to food prices in June 2026, the ERS also noted that pork prices have increased by 2.4%, vegetable prices have increased by 9.9%, and fruit prices have increased by 2%. (Only eggs have decreased in price following historic 2025 price spikes due to avian flu outbreaks.)

Joseph Gedeon at The Guardian:

The US Department of State has canceled more than 175,000 visas since Donald Trump returned to office, quadrupling the pace of revocations under Joe Biden’s final year in the White House, according to a new tally released by the department this week. The announcement said the revocations targeted foreign nationals who allegedly broke the terms of their visas, committed crimes, called for violence against Americans, defrauded US citizens, abused the immigration system or endangered national security. Many followed run-ins with law enforcement, the department said, with assault, drunk driving, theft and drug offenses the leading causes, alongside reckless driving, sexual assault, child abuse and fraud.

The state department published some anecdotal cases to bolster its revocation campaign. They included a man charged with felony rape and sexual battery of a victim with a mental disability, and another accused of kidnapping, trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor. Also cited were a man arrested on charges including drunk driving and domestic violence, and another accused of driving with heroin in his system while more than three times over the legal blood alcohol limit.

Biden’s state department revoked about 40,000 visas in 2024. The Trump administration canceled more than 100,000 in 2025 alone, and the monthly pace has kept climbing this year, from roughly 8,000 revocations a month in 2025 to more than 10,000 a month in 2026. The department has not said how the 175,000 figure breaks down by category, leaving unclear how many revocations stem from serious crimes as opposed to lesser infractions such as overstaying a visa.

Several revocations touched on political speech. The best-known case is that of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University whose visa was pulled after she co-wrote an opinion piece criticizing the university’s stance on the war in Gaza. She was detained by immigration authorities, though a judge later dismissed the case against her, and has since moved back to Turkey. But the department said it had canceled the visas of multiple foreign nationals who commented on the killing of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk last September, including one who said Kirk had “died too late”. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, has also determined that a number of foreign nationals are deportable on foreign policy grounds, the department said, naming a Cuban national linked to an influence campaign tied to Havana, Iranian nationals connected to Tehran’s government and a Kuwaiti national accused of voicing hostility toward the US president.

[...] The pattern has continued into this year: applicants for temporary visas worldwide are now required to affirm they have not experienced harm and do not fear returning home, under a separate state department cable obtained by the Guardian. Answering yes, or declining to answer, sharply increases the odds of denial, a screening step critics say could filter out domestic abuse survivors, threatened journalists and persecuted minorities before they ever reach US soil.

Paul Waldman at Public Notice:

Six days after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington DC to send a message to the public that as the country prepared for what would become a decades-long Global War on Terror, Islam and Muslims were not the enemy. “Islam is peace,” he said at a moment when Muslim Americans were experiencing a wave of intimidation and bigotry. “Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.” Given the way that long war was prosecuted both at home and abroad, one can question Bush’s sincerity on this point — and much of his party never agreed. Nevertheless, the fact that the president reinforced foundational notions of pluralism and religious liberty at such a fraught moment showed that a principled opposition to anti-Muslim bigotry still existed within the Republican Party. Back then, supposedly serious people argued that radical Muslim terrorists represented a genuine threat to the safety of all Americans, something almost no one claims any longer. Yet today, naked statements of animus toward Muslims — all Muslims — are not only more accepted than ever within the Republican Party, they’re coming right from the White House. Now the alleged threat is less about safety than about culture and power: Let American Muslims have truly full citizenship — including the ability to serve in public office — and the country’s character will be contaminated. This latest wave of bigotry started when Zohran Mamdani became mayor of New York last year, and has accelerated since Abdul El-Sayed won the primary for a Senate seat from Michigan. Whatever hesitation there was to tolerate the ugliest statements of racial and religious prejudice from Republican officeholders and advocates has disappeared.

[...]

The veil is off — if it was ever on

The mainstreaming of bigotry is one of the central pillars of Donald Trump’s political project, and has been from the beginning. Trump turned himself from a gossip-pages fixture and reality show star into a political figure by becoming the nation’s foremost advocate of the racist “birther” theory which said that Barack Obama was not in fact an American citizen. Then he announced his presidential run with an ugly speech claiming that immigrants from Mexico were “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” and that the threat originated from non-white countries around the world.

[...]

While a small number of Muslims have been elected to the House, they all hail from heavily Democratic districts, so they don’t offer much insight into how a Muslim candidate’s religion will affect their ability to win statewide. Obviously, there is plenty of prejudice still around — but it’s far more prevalent among Republican voters, most of whom won’t be voting for any Democrat. One illustrative campaign just occurred in the closely divided 8th district of Michigan. One candidate, a Navy veteran, seemed on a glide path to the nomination when not only did he get President Trump’s endorsement, his opponent suspended his campaign. Trouble was, the Trump-endorsed candidate was named Amir Hassan, and the guy who all but dropped out was named Tom Smith. Despite no longer campaigning, Smith won 50 percent of the vote to Hassan’s 33 percent. Hassan is a Christian; it’s hard to believe he would have gotten Trump’s endorsement otherwise. But his name was clearly too much to overcome.

In that House primary, most voters had likely barely heard of the candidates, which will not be the case with Abdul El-Sayed. It would be foolish to assume that El-Sayed’s name won’t carry a penalty, but how big of one is unclear. One 2024 poll from the University of Maryland found that 57 percent of Republicans said they wouldn’t vote for a Muslim presidential candidate they agreed with on the issues, compared to 27 percent of independents and 16 percent of Democrats. But the combination of El-Sayed’s charisma and the fact that his populist message is perfectly timed for this moment may mean that he can overcome the hurdle.

There is also a possibility that the Republicans’ blatant bigotry will backfire on them — not among bigots, but among voters who are both uncomfortable with Muslims and uncomfortable with the idea that they’d vote against a candidate just because he’s a Muslim. If Republicans make the racism of their appeal impossible to ignore, at least some of those conflicted voters may react against the GOP’s campaign and convince themselves that El-Sayed is “one of the good ones,” and they can support him at least this once. This campaign is the latest expression of the right’s eagerness to reject American pluralism — and their faith that the majority of voters share that goal and will respond to appeals to bigotry. They certainly have reason to believe that what worked before can work again. And they can be counted on to go too far — so far that even some voters who might otherwise have supported them are repulsed. It’s worth noting that in the deep-red district in Tennessee he represents, Andy Ogles just lost his own primary to another Republican, one who is plenty conservative but not so flamboyantly bigoted. So while a Muslim name may carry a penalty, so does acting too much like Donald Trump.

Republicans are going back to their tried and true Islamophobia card to foment anti-Muslim hatred in order to gain an advantage in upcoming elections.

See Also:

The Status Kuo (Jay Kuo): That Guy’s a Commie Muslim!

Chabeli Carrazana at The 19th News:

The Trump administration is pushing a total overhaul of Head Start that could fundamentally reshape the 60-year-old program that has provided childcare and key support for America’s lowest-income families.  A new proposed rule released last week put more than 1,400 regulatory provisions that govern how Head Start is implemented on the chopping block. Across the country, 1,600 Head Start grant recipients provide quality care for disadvantaged children, as well as support for families by connecting them to health insurance, job training, developmental screenings, specialist referrals and postpartum support. 

This latest proposal is aimed at cutting red tape and allowing more flexibility in the programs, the administration said.  “There’s 1,600 providers across the country facing different conditions, and our proposed rule will reduce their paperwork. It will streamline duplicative statutory requirements and give them flexibility for things like personnel and workforce decisions, as well as licensing relief,” said Alex Adams, the assistant secretary at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), on a call with reporters. 

But Head Start providers and experts say the proposal may actually make it harder for programs to operate and transform Head Start to look more like commercial childcare than an anti-poverty program.  “Families lose the assurance that Head Start means the same thing everywhere, and taxpayers lose a clear measure of impact that Head Start funding should have,” said Celena Roldan Sarillo, the president of Start Early, a nonprofit that advocates for quality early learning.  Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on a call with reporters to announce the changes that “it is important to protect” Head Start, which is administered by HHS and was created in part by Kennedy’s uncle Sargent Shriver during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Kennedy wants to see more nutrition and physical activity requirements added to Head Start, and agrees the new rules could streamline it and open seats for more children. 

[...]

Overall, how is this proposal changing Head Start? 

Fundamentally, the changes would have Head Start operate much more like other childcare centers under state and local rules. Because quality is such an important benchmark in Head Start, its rules are more stringent than the rules governing other childcare options — in many places, those differences would disappear.  “States didn’t design their childcare programs to serve the population that Head Start serves. They design those to regulate private businesses and set a floor for safety, like they regulate hospitals or restaurants, not to prepare a high-need community for school,” said Katie Hamm, who oversaw the Head Start program under the Biden administration. 

[...]

How would classrooms change? 

One of the biggest changes in the proposal is eliminating Head Start’s teacher-to-student ratios. One of Head Start’s quality initiatives is that it offers more individualized care — each teacher is in charge of a smaller number of students than in most other childcare settings. The policy is both about safety and support for low-income kids, some of whom need more focused attention. Under the proposed changes, an estimated 80 percent of children currently in Head Start would be subject to worse ratios. The maximum number of toddlers per teacher would more than double in nine states: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. The proposal also removes the cap on group sizes, so it’s likely classrooms would have more children. Another big change: All instruction will have to take place in English instead of offering bilingual support to children who are not native speakers. More than a quarter of children in Head Start come from homes where a language other than English is spoken. 

[...]

Is discipline changing under the new regulations? 

Currently, children generally cannot be expelled from Head Start. The proposed rule would remove that prohibition and allow programs to set their own disciplinary rules, as long as they align with state and local requirements. Head Start would still need to provide children with any behavioral problems with screenings and referral services.  The administration said it made these changes because when the expulsion and suspension rules were first implemented in 2016, many states did not have their own rules governing those issues. Since then, many states have adopted their own.

[...]

Why is the administration pursuing these changes? 

Since the start of the Trump administration, Head Start has faced upheaval.  Project 2025, the policy blueprint for President Donald Trump’s second term, advised eliminating the program, claiming it lacked positive outcomes and was rife with abuse. A leaked White House budget in early 2025 showed the administration was hoping to eliminate it altogether before massive backlash from Head Start parents and alumni persuaded the administration to change course.  But programs continued to face financial challenges. Funding was cut off at the start of 2025 as part of a government-wide freeze, leading some to close their doors. Then in April of last year, the administration closed five of the 10 regional offices that support Head Start programs.  Last summer, the administration released a proposed rule that would bar undocumented children from Head Start entirely. The proposal is on pause due to ongoing litigation.