Senate Republicans Lobbying For Green Energy Tax Credits Raked In Donations From Industry

Michigan’s 2028 Senate race is already in full swing as former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers eyes an opportunity to be the state’s first GOP Senator since 2001. Winning the race to replace the retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., would help Republicans hold on to their thin majority in the Senate and would be a powerful showing of support for President Donald Trump’s ambitious agenda. Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., in 2024, is already touting his door-knocking efforts for the coming election. This is impressive. @MikeRogersForMI had an impressive ground game before and it looks like he’s repeating it. https://t.co/UA0GedZf7V— Garrett Soldano (@GrassrootArmy) June 16, 2025 “Our campaign is running full steam ahead, and I’m honored to have the early support of these incredible community leaders,” he said in an announcement of over 100 campaign co-chairs spread across Michigan’s 83 counties. In Washington, Senate Republican Leadership has also been sure to bolster Rogers’ second Senate bid, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., endorsed Rogers shortly after his campaign announcement.  This is likely due to the late date of Michigan’s Senate primary, which occurs in August of 2026—just a few months before election day.  Early endorsements, in theory, could give Rogers the extra bit of momentum needed to flip the Senate seat red, since he lost to Slotkin by under 20,000 votes in 2024. Endorsements might also boost early fundraising for Rogers, who, despite having been outspent by Slotkin in 2024, nearly won a Michigan Senate seat for the GOP for the first time in over a quarter century. Rogers on election night 2024 (left) alongside then-Michigan GOP Chair Pete Hoekstra. (Sarah Rice/Getty Images) If Rogers were to secure the Republican nomination, he might face off against Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., who represents the state’s wealthiest congressional district in Detroit’s affluent northern suburbs around Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills.  Stevens led Rogers in one May hypothetical matchup poll conducted by Glengariff Group, which showed Stevens at 45.2% and Rogers at 43.8%.  Another possible matchup is against State Senator Mallory McMorrow, who also happens to represent the same area as Stevens. This matchup is much more favorable for Rogers, who in the Glengariff Group poll holds a 45.9% to 41.6% lead over McMorrow in a hypothetical matchup. In this matchup, Rogers has been homing in on McMorrow’s image as a coastal elite, referring to her as  “New Jersey transplant Mallory McMarxist” and “a glorified influencer.” McMorrow, who is originally from New Jersey, attended Notre Dame University and later worked in creative design in Los Angeles and New York before moving to Michigan. Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) takes the DNC podium with a large, printed copy of Project 2025."They went ahead and wrote down all the extreme things that Donald Trump wants to do in the next four years. And then they just tweeted it out…" pic.twitter.com/yaAqHq9ycc— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) August 20, 2024 She gained some national prominence at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, where she slammed a super-sized copy of the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” onto a lectern as she criticized the Trump campaign. The post Michigan Senate Race Ramps Up Early appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Social Security turns 90 this year, and as the Social Security Trustees’ 2025 annual report makes clear, the program is on shaky ground. If policymakers fail to act before 2033, every single Social Security recipient’s check will be cut by 23% across the board—regardless of whether that recipient is a 68-year-old multi-millionaire or a 93-year-old widow living on Social Security alone. As the program stands today, with Social Security’s trust fund set to run dry in just eight years, everyone from Generation X to Generation Beta will never receive a single full benefit. That’s because Social Security has come to function like a Ponzi scheme. In each of the past 15 years, Social Security paid out more in benefits than it collected in taxes. Those imbalances have been whittling away at the program’s trust fund. And once the trust fund runs dry, the law prevents Social Security from paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes—ultimately resulting in the 23% benefit cut. On average, that cut will result in a loss of $5,300 per year for a typical beneficiary. The prospect of 23% benefit cuts is a hard pill to swallow, both for the 61 million retirees who paid into the Social Security system their whole lives and for the 184 million workers who are currently paying into a system that doesn’t set aside their taxes for the future but instead immediately sends them out the door to current retirees. This wasn’t what Social Security’s creators intended. And it’s not what America’s retirees deserve. But raising taxes to maintain scheduled benefits would deal a significant blow to current workers and younger generations—who are already struggling to buy homes or pay for ordinary expenses. According to the Social Security Trustees, if policymakers were to raise taxes immediately to maintain current benefit levels, workers’ payroll taxes would have to rise by 3.65 percentage points from 12.4% to 16.05%. That would mean a $2,400 tax hike, amounting to a total of $10,700 in Social Security taxes per year for a median worker earning $66,600 per year. On the other hand, if policymakers wait until Social Security’s trust fund runs dry and try to maintain scheduled benefits through tax hikes alone, they’d have to raise the Social Security tax to 16.67%—$3,500 more per year in Social Security taxes for a typical worker. But higher taxes wouldn’t make Social Security a better deal for workers. After all, extra money spent on taxes doesn’t grow in value over time as it would if put into a retirement account. Instead, that money would immediately be used to pay retirees’ benefits. That’s the opposite of what Social Security’s founders intended. One of the goals in creating Social Security was to prevent younger Americans from having to financially support older Americans. Confronting Social Security’s $25.1 trillion shortfall—the additional amount required to maintain scheduled benefits for the next 75 years—will not be easy. That amounts to $192,000 for every household in America. But the longer policymakers wait, the larger that amount becomes. Over just the past year, Social Security’s shortfall increased by $2.5 trillion, or an extra $19,000 per household. Over the past decade, Social Security’s shortfall increased by 135%, from $10.7 trillion to $25.1 trillion. The good news is that there are ways to reform Social Security that would increase benefits for those most in need, improve the program for everyone, and even aid economic growth. Those reforms include modernizing the program, gradually shifting towards a more progressive benefit structure, and providing an option for individuals to build personal wealth over time. The post Social Security Trustees’ Report Delivers Bad News for Americans Young and Old appeared first on The Daily Signal.

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. We’re in the midst of about the seventh to eighth day of this Iranian-Israeli conflict and we’re getting all sorts of information. It’s not disinformation or misinformation, it’s just speculation because we don’t really have enough information coming out of Iran or out of the White House or out of Israel to make a firm consensus—a solid consensus—of what’s actually going on. In that lacuna, maybe we should just, very quickly, look at a pessimistic, an optimistic, and a realistic appraisal. Here’s what the pessimists are saying—these are not my views. I’m trying to give an accurate portrayal of what they’re saying. The pessimists, both here in the United States and abroad, are of two types. They are the MAGA base and they are saying: This breaks President Donald Trump’s promise not to intervene in wars that are optional. This is a forever war. If we hit the Iranians, that will not be the end of it. That will be the beginning. They will send cadres all around the world to attack our diplomats, our soldiers. They may try to kill Trump, again. And this is a violation of his campaign oath. Realistically, some military analysts say: Well, wait a minute. Even if you take out some of the more prominent nuclear facilities, doesn’t mean they can’t be rebuilt very quickly. So, then the question hinges on: Are you going to take out the regime? There’s not a lot of evidence in the past that airstrikes will take out a regime. We tried it with Saddam Hussein, as you remember, in 2003. And it did not work. We tried it with Muammar Gaddafi during the Reagan administration. It did not work. We couldn’t quite get rid of Slobodan Milosevic. That was a combined air, in the Balkans, and we had troops on the ground. So, it doesn’t seem that even if the Israelis or us took out the supreme leader, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the government would collapse or that whatever replaced it would be much different, in this pessimistic appraisal. And the pessimist then would say: Why not negotiate and bring back the monitors? And you would have a breathing space of three to four years, given the rubble of the current nuclear infrastructure, whether it be heightened, the tension. And we could negotiate ourselves out of this and stop this war that has ripples throughout the Middle East and involve superpower possible intrusion from China, Russia. Let’s go through the most optimistic scenario, very quickly. There are people who are saying: No, no, no, no, no, no. This is going great. Israel’s taken out 50% of the mobile launchers. If you look at the number of missiles that are reaching Israel each day, they are diminishing. And Israel’s ability, therefore, to knock out these vestigial attacks will increase. And they have wiped out all of the command and control of people in their 50s and 60s in the military. They have taken out a whole generation of nuclear physicists. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is all by himself. And now that he’s hit an Israeli hospital, he can be taken out. And the Iranian people may come up and decide—come out of the shadows and say, ‘We’re tired of them, especially because most of these people that have tormented and directed the torture and the oppression and the destruction of our daily lives are dead.’ And now, Khamenei is under assault. And he may be killed and that would create a revolution. And if you have a revolution, even if you did not hit all of the sites that would be necessary to ensure the end, forever, of the nuclear program of Iran, a new government would be better. And they, on their own initiative, would take it out. That’s an optimistic appraisal. Here’s a realistic appraisal. That Donald Trump is going to wait for at least a week. And he is going to see if the Israelis can come up, on their own, with a formula, in lieu of a bunker-buster, to diminish or actually end all of these nuclear infrastructures, viabilities. And what do I mean by that? Send commandos on the ground. Take F-35s with small bunker-busters just again and again, every day. Send them through the same blast hole. Or maybe get a C-130 and jerry-rig it up to get a—I don’t know—a 30,000-pound bunker-buster. You wouldn’t be at 50,000 feet. It might not have the momentum. But if you came in at 30,000 and you had air supremacy, maybe you could drop two or three of them, four or five of them with a C-130. And the United States would not be involved. And then more importantly, Israel is achieving complete supremacy of the air. And by that I mean not just the ability to go into Iranian airspace, but more importantly, to diminish both the number and the effectiveness of Iranian missiles that are landing in Israel. As far as the MAGA base, the fact that Donald Trump said that he would take up to two weeks to make that decision and that he’s talked to people in the MAGA base and he’s assured them there’s not gonna be a lot of boots on the ground, there’s not going to be a long American presence. If he intervened, it would be a one- or two-shot deal. I think he’s pacified most of the criticism because the MAGA base isn’t going to say, “My gosh, you sinned against us. We’re going to look at—” Whom? There’s nobody else there. There’s only Donald Trump. There’s no Republican alternative to him. And so, I think he’s pretty safe there. And finally, are Russia and China gonna come in? I don’t think so. Russia looks at this and it starts to bully. It starts to say, “This is our former patron. We should protect it.” But Russia’s got its hands full in Ukraine. It’s lost over a million wounded, dead, and lost. It is in a wartime mode against Ukraine. And more importantly, when they look at the Middle East and they see all this turmoil and oil prices creeping up, they think it’s wonderful. How about China? China, for just the opposite reasons, is not going to intervene. It looks at this and says, “Oh my gosh, we used to get 70% to 80% of the oil from Iran, 50% of all the Middle East oil goes to us. We don’t want any turmoil. Please just cool it. Stop it. It’s not in our interest to encourage this conflict to continue.” And more importantly, China is in a trade war with us. And the last thing it wants is to get on the wrong side of a still military-superior United States. Sum it up: The war seems like it’s going well for Israel, in their point of view. There’s a 50-50 chance there might be a regime change. There’s probably a 25% chance, if there were, it would be something much, much better. The United States may have to intervene but it’s holding back because it still thinks that the Israelis, as brilliant as they are, will come up with some sort of new solution to destroy these underground facilities. That is the realistic appraisal. And it’s somewhere in between, as I said, the pessimistic and the optimistic outlook that I reviewed. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Optimistic, the Realistic, and the Pessimistic Scenarios for Iran appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Over 2,000 “No King” protests erupted around the country as demonstrators objected to a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday celebrating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, calling it a multimillion dollar “birthday party” for President Donald Trump.  The Army anniversary coincided with Trump’s 79th birthday. But Democrats and others had said for weeks that Trump had organized the parade to celebrate his own birthday in a move reminiscent of Third World dictators. The event became a hot-button subject for debate among Democrats and Republicans alike.   Congress mostly split along partisan lines over the military parade. While Democrats largely denounced the Army celebration and Republicans generally praised it, both sides also had notable dissenters.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it a “vulgar demonstration,” comparing Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin. During a press conference the day before the parade, he said, “What an embarrassment. Honestly, that’s about as small as it gets.”  Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz compared it to “Pyongyang on a Saturday,” referencing the capital of communist North Korea and calling the sight of military apparatus “horrific.”  Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the lone Democrat voice in support of the 250th celebration. During a Fox News interview, he defended the military presence in the nation’s capital, saying, “Stop ever comparing anyone, anything to the Nazis and those kinds of things. That’s crazy. … I’m not sure why it’s outrageous to have a parade to celebrate the Army.”  Two Republican senators publicly expressed their criticism of the celebration, citing concerns about costs and the Soviet-like image projected by the parade. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “If you asked me … I wouldn’t have done it. … I’m worried about the image, that it isn’t necessarily the best image to show.”   Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told a reporter, “I wouldn’t spend the money if it were me.”  Despite the rainy weather in the nation’s capital, several Republican members of Congress attended the Army celebration. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., told The Daily Signal, “I fully support and was happy to attend the military parade. … I think it is shameful that the Left chose to protest the event rather than celebrate 250 years of Americans who have laid their lives on the line for our freedoms.”  Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told The Daily Signal, “Leftist media will do anything to paint this administration as authoritarian. They’ve even twisted an event honoring the first branch of our military—the reason why we won our independence from a monarchy—into a narrative suggesting it glorifies the president as a king.”   Republicans said they felt optimistic about the Trump administration’s efforts to revitalize the military. “President Trump is reigniting pride in our country and bringing back a sense of patriotism,” Fine said. “Democrats have repeatedly used rhetoric that criticizes America and have made it seem criminal to express national pride. … Rather than tearing America down, events like this parade focus on lifting the nation up and advancing the ‘America First’ agenda.”  Stutzman added, “Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth has brought our military back from the failed woke tactics of recruitment that took hold during the Biden administration. I think this celebration, and hopefully others like it in the future, will only continue to create interest from our young men and women to join the armed forces and fight for the American values that we hold dear.”  The post Members of Congress React to ‘Vulgar’ Army Parade, ‘No Kings’ Protests  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This Whole Obama Marriage Thing Is Getting Awkward

Blue States Are Shrinking and New York Democrats Are Worried

With U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continuing to fulfill their job, the liberal media cannot stand to hear the truth of why the arrests needed to be conducted, especially from Latino Trump supporters. On Friday’s segment of MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports, Latino Trump supporters were maligned for standing with Trump’s policies regarding the arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants. Contributor Paola Ramos’ blamed “Trumpism magic” for those Latinos being “anti-immigrant.”  On Thursday, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles had Border Patrol agents standing outside the facility after they were not allowed in. This has opened the door for entertainment and sporting events to have the possibility of encountering ICE agents. To left-wing media, this was a great time to press into fearmongering illegal immigration as a tactic to stand against the Trump administration’s policies.      Ramos, the daughter of Spanish-language journalist activist Jorge Ramos, went on a spiraling tangent claiming:  I mean, look, I think the terror is real. No, I think that the fear is palpable. But I think that the most interesting part is the way that this is once again reawakening people...People that in the face of force and in the face of this sort of militarization, are doing something.  The host, Cabrera, then challenged Ramos with a reality check asserting, “But who are the people who are waking up?”  Cabrera proceeded to play clips of Latino Trump supporters on NBC who backed up Trump’s orders. The supporters made comments saying, “For the last four years, we’ve had millions of people that have crossed the border illegally,” and “It’s being handled with care. And for an order for something to be fixed, you got to, you know, clean up the mess.”  She pointed the question back to Ramos to see if people were “waking up” after watching the supporters. Ramos scrambled as she tried to find her words, essentially accusing those Latino Trump voters to be race traitors:  This is fascinating, Ana. Probably not with Latino Trump vote supporters...I believe that so long as the moral outrage does not outweigh this very real anti-immigration sentiment that a lot of Latinos hold, so long as that is not true, we will continue to be in the same situation we were in 2024, where it’s that is Trumpism’s magic, that is able of convincing a lot of Latinos that they are part of his movement and not like those other immigrants.  The reality was people who voted for Trump wanted arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants, even if they were Latino. “Trumpism’s magic” was not a tactic to sway people to be on his side. It was the truth of an insane problem that had gotten out of control in this country and was made worse due to the previous administration’s poor border policies.  When Cabrera asked Ramos if there would be “any breaking point” for the Latino Trump supporters to be against the arrests of illegal immigrants, Ramos mustered up to encourage Latinos to use the victim card:  And because I think this is where we fall into this trap of, oh, you know, to be a Latino and to be an immigrant means that we are also immune of anti-immigrant sentiment.  And the reality is that, I don’t know. I do think that perhaps the breaking point can be for those Cuban and Venezuelan Trump supporters that are seeing the images in the streets, that reminds them of the political trauma that they carry from Venezuela. That political trauma looks exactly like what we’re seeing, which is the militarization of communities in the face of people that simply want to protest that type of oppression.  That “political trauma” on display in Los Angeles was law and order, not the kind of jack-booted thuggery and corruption of the dictatorial and communist regimes many of them fled from.  Click here for the transcripts. MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports 6/20/25 11:15 a.m. Eastern ANA CABRERA:  Welcome back. Just in the last hour, the White House announced Vice President J.D. Vance will head to Los Angeles today, a city that has become the epicenter of protests against the administration's sweeping immigration crackdown. Vance is expected to meet with Marines there and tour federal facilities. It comes just hours after an appeals court ruled that the president can maintain control of the California National Guard in the wake of those recent protests. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Dodgers say the federal agents, federal immigration agents specifically, were blocked from entering the ballpark grounds yesterday. But ICE denies it was even there. Joining us from Los Angeles is NBC's Camila Bernal, and also with us, Paola Ramos, a journalist, author and MSNBC contributor. Camila, so what do we know about what happened outside Dodger Stadium yesterday and why the team and ICE are saying different things right now?  CAMILA BERNAL: Hey Ana. So, they're saying different things because it was actually Customs and Border Protection agents that were at Dodger Stadium. But still, these are federal agents. Still these are agents that detain migrants and still these are agents that eventually their actions lead to deportation. So, you see why it's so easy to make that mistake because the outcome at the end of the day is the same. So, it's not just the Dodgers, but really a lot of people that commonly make that mistake. Normally, Border Patrol agents are at the border. Clearly that is not the case anymore. Here's what we know, Border Patrol agents had a number of operations here in Los Angeles yesterday. They went to at least two different Home Depots, one in Hollywood, the other one in San Fernando, and they detained a number of people. It's unclear exactly how many, but sources familiar with all of this telling NBC that these agents went to Dodger Stadium to process some of these migrants. They were not allowed into the stadium, so they processed the migrants right outside of the stadium. You're seeing those images on your screen. And as soon as immigration activists learned about this and knew that this was happening, they immediately went to Dodger Stadium to try to protest. And yes, they were screaming things like “ICE out of L.A.,” and “ICE go home.” And these were not ICE agents, they were Border Patrol agents. But again, the advocates here saying that the outcome is also the same. It's creating that fear of people going out to a Home Depot or street vendors, people who have been here for 20-plus years who are now getting detained. And so, that is really what they were protesting yesterday. But it's also what started all of these protests two weeks ago today, it was agents going to a Home Depot and detaining people there. Now, in terms of what happened yesterday, LAPD escorted those agents out of there. Things did not escalate. But what you're left with is that fear, Ana. CABRERA: Yep. Paola, we have seen ICE conducting operations in neighborhoods. And again, not just ICE, but other immigration officials, in neighborhoods, at work sites, now apparently baseball stadiums. What does this evolution tell you? What is it doing to immigrant communities? What are you hearing? PAOLA RAMOS: I mean, look, I think the terror is real. No, I think that the fear is palpable. But I think that the most interesting part is the way that this is once again reawakening people. And I think what you're seeing in LA, in the Dodger Stadium, to me, and from LA to New York City, what you're seeing is the beginning of what seems like a movement. No? People that in the face of force and in the face of this sort of militarization, are doing something. That something can look like denying ICE access, that something can look like ordinary Americans pulling up their phones and really filming these ICE raids. And that's something can look like a celebrity, like Bad Bunny that is suddenly going to social media, going publicly and publicly denouncing ICE raids. And so I think that as you're seeing this terror and this fear, people are waking up now and I think no one is being deterred. And I think that says something about the moment. CABRERA: But who are the people who are waking up? Because, Paola, NBC News sat down with a group of Latino Trump voters specifically and discussed the President's handling of the border and immigration issue. Here's some of what we heard. [TRANSITION TO CLIP] SUPPORTER 1: For the last four years, we’ve had millions and millions of people that have crossed the border illegally. [Transition] He’s got to take big steps, and that’s what he’s doing.  SUPPORTER 2: It’s being handled with care. And for an order for something to be fixed, you got to, you know, clean up the mess. SUPPORER 3: If there are those politicians that don't like what he's doing, change the laws. I've not seen one person come up with any idea or any new legislation to change what is already on the books. [BACK TO LIVE] CABRERA: Paola, again, these are Latinos who voted for Trump. So, is he changing any minds at this point? RAMOS: This is fascinating, Ana. Probably not with Latino Trump vote supporters. And I think the question that is overshadowing everything is, is there a true realignment among Latino voters, right? Is what we saw in 2024, was that just an anomaly or is it something deeper? And I think the best way to start measuring that answer is right now, when we asked Latino Trump supporters if they feel something in the face of mass deportations. I have talked to Cuban Americans in Miami that are outraged around the idea that he is suddenly taking away legal status of Venezuelans and Cubans. I have talked to Latino evangelical Trump supporters that are also outraged at this idea that suddenly churchgoers are too scared to go to church. In the Bronx, I talk to people that truly believe that farmworkers shouldn't be deported. However, and this is where I am skeptical. I believe that so long as that moral outrage does not outweigh this very real anti-immigrant sentiment that a lot of Latinos hold. So long as that is not true, we will continue to be in the same situation that we were in 2024, where it's that that is Trumpism's magic, that it is able and capable of convincing a lot of Latinos that they are part of his movement and not like those other immigrants. And I think that is what we still have to see. CABRERA: In this focus group, we did hear a lot of support for the concept of deporting individuals that have a criminal record. And I think that even beyond that focus group, there's a lot of support for that idea. But now that we're seeing in reality this crackdown is going much further than that, do you foresee any breaking point down the line, even with these Trump voters? RAMOS: I have to be honest, I'm not sure. And I think it's okay to not know. And because I think this is where we fall into this trap of, oh, you know, to be a Latino and to be an immigrant means that we are also immune of anti-immigrant sentiment. And the reality is that, I don't know. I do think that perhaps the breaking point can be for those Cuban and Venezuelan Trump supporters that are seeing the images in the streets, that that reminds them of the political trauma that they carry from Venezuela. That political trauma looks exactly like what we're seeing, which is the militarization of communities in the face of people that simply want to protest that type of oppression. That, to me, could be a breaking point. CABRERA:  Paola Ramos and Camila Bernal, ladies, great conversation. Thank you. 

An illegal alien advocacy group called on the city of Phoenix to amplify its efforts to oppose deportation operations from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but was soundly rejected.In a vote of 8 to 1, the Phoenix City Council voted against adopting the suggested policy changes to law enforcement from a social justice nonprofit organization called Poder in Action.'These racist stops feed people directly to incarceration and immigrant detention; our communities are done with police violence and racial profiling.'Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, a Democrat, said she voted against the demand because activists had been lying about police actions.“I’ll be voting against this petition because of the redundancies, misconceptions, and misinformation," she said, according to KSAZ-TV. "And frankly, I’m concerned that approving this petition would result in an increase in crime."Gallego was personally criticized by Miros Mejia of Poder in Action for not living up to a promise to keep law enforcement from aiding in mass deportation efforts from the Trump administration."Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing," said Mejia, according to the news station.Activists accused Phoenix law enforcement of allowing ICE agents into jails to target minor, nonviolent offenders."These are members of the community that have been here for a very long time, and when they are stopped and detained by police and handed over to ICE, unfortunately, it comes to the point where families are being separated," Mejia added.In a post on the group's Facebook page, they said they had the following four non-negotiable demands:BAN pretextual traffic stops for broken taillights and window tinting,END arrest quotas that criminalize our communities,STOP police harassment of unhoused people for sleeping at bus stops, andREQUIRE citations instead of arrests for nonviolent offenses."These racist stops feed people directly to incarceration and immigrant detention; our communities are done with police violence and racial profiling," the group added.The City of Phoenix apparently disagreed and released a statement opposing the adoption of the demands."The citizen petition ... recommends sweeping policy changes that differ from recent city council direction, creates potential conflicts with state law, and requires extensive research and vetting regarding the potential implications of such changes," reads their statement, according to KSAZ.The group encouraged people to voice their opposition to ICE at the city council meeting.“We’re being treated like we’re nothing,” said one woman, according to KTVK-TV.“I want Phoenix to be a thriving, safe, and sustainable place for my family to stay for generations to come,” said another person.“If you don’t support this resolution, we will know that while you’re on your vacation with your happy families relaxing, our families will continue to be ripped apart and traumatized by your city,” said another.RELATED: Illegal alien activist patrol group claims to have disrupted and prevented ICE raids One woman did speak out against the resolution.“This petition perpetuates the violence we’re seeing against police, and I don’t appreciate that we’re continuing to talk about federal and state law when this has nothing to do with what the city can actually do,” she said.Activists said the fight was not over.“We’ll be back with more folks, and we’re going to make sure that we do protect our community in spite of the mayor and City Council,” said one man to KTVK. The group's mission statement said their goal was to "disrupt and dismantle systems of oppression" to help people of color and working-class communities.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Practically a modern classic, Vampire Survivors has inspired countless imitators. But the upcoming Skull Horde actually looks like a novel take on its roguelike inspiration. While in Vampire Survivors you gain new abilities to upgrade your avatar, in Skull Horde you’ll build a massive army of fellow skeletons and lead them to victory through a dank dungeon. The game has an earnest and goofy tone, like a Tales from the Crypt episode that hits just right. You can give the game a try right now. Continue reading Blending Vampire Survivors and Diablo, Skull Horde has a brand new demo MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best fantasy games, Best roguelike games, Best games like Diablo