Money Issues, Paranoia, And A Hurled Phone: Blistering Reports Detail Ken Martin’s Collapsing DNC

The Democratic National Committee is running on fumes, and chairman Ken Martin is headed for a full-blown mental breakdown, according to a pair of blistering reports.

A New York Times report published Sunday revealed that the committee is $2 million in the hole and begging vendors to sit on their invoices until after the midterms.

The DNC quietly put the Southeast Washington building up as collateral last year to land a $15 million line of credit and bankroll off-year races, according to DC deed records not previously reported, according to NOTUS. The party has pawned the property, which it only partially owns, in past cycles. But going back to the well ahead of 2026 for the biggest off-year loan in committee history set off alarms among members who saw it as one more flashing red light.

“Ken gaslighting us about the DNC’s finances and not being transparent about the financial situation makes us doubt if he can oversee the DNC during the most important primary of our lifetime,” an unnamed DNC member told NOTUS.

The Republican National Committee is sitting on $128.5 million, and President Trump’s main super PAC, MAGA Inc., closed out June with roughly $400 million in the bank.

The DNC has downplayed the alarm. Roger Lau, the committee’s executive director, told the Times that the request for vendors to hold their invoices was “nothing more than standard negotiations with vendors over contracts and payment processes.”

Meanwhile, the pressure mounting on Martin is showing, according to the Times:

In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.

The fallout from the phone-throwing episode was described by half a dozen people familiar with the incident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal party matters. None of them witnessed the encounter, and there was some dispute over how aggressively the phone was tossed. Mr. Martin was said to have thrown the phone at the desk, rather than at the aide.

Unsurprisingly, the DNC refused to comment on the incident.

To make matters worse, Martin has reportedly developed a “growing sense of paranoia” about a possible push to dump him and is “paralyzed by the idea of leaks.”

“It pisses me off when I see leaks out of this building,” Martin lamented during a meeting in May. “No more of that shit. No more.“

“My success is your success,” he added. “So the weaker I am, the weaker all of you are.”

Keep reading

Listen: As Islamists Slaughter Christians, Democrat Candidate Warns Christians Feel ‘Very Threatening’ to Her – She’s a Christian Minister

In almost all of the world, in multi-religious societies, we all know who is getting threatened by who.

Just look at Nigeria, for instance. If you’re a Christian, or even a secularist, you know full well who is threatening you, and it’s generally people of one certain faith.

But in America, if you’re significantly shielded enough — at least if you’re not one of the people in one of two twin towers some 25 years ago — you can believe that the real threat is from Christians.

In that vein, meet Sarah Trone Garriott. She’s a member of the Iowa Senate who’s running as the Democratic nominee in the state’s 3rd Congressional District.

She’s also, like another prominent Democrat we see trying to flip a congressional seat, a nominal Christian figure. Instead of “Presbyterian seminarian,” however, this time she’s a Lutheran minister.

It’s something the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee touted when they started spending money on her campaign to oust Rep. Zach Nunn, a Republican.

“Sarah Trone Garriott has spent her life showing up for her community, and now she’s running for Congress to continue that service: standing up to protect health care, get costs down, and always do what’s right for Iowa,” DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene said back in February, according to the Des Moines Register.

Keep reading

DSA Co-Chair Romer Defends Proposals to Abolish Senate, Borders, Prisons

On this week’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Megan Romer defended their proposals to abolish Senate, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and prisons.

Partial transcript as follows:

SHANNON BREAM: We’re going to put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform. And I want to ask you, just give me sort of a true or false on these. Abolish the Senate?

ROMER: True.

BREAM: OK, replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them?

ROMER: Yep

BREAM: Abolish ICE?

ROMER: Absolutely.

BREAM: Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally?

ROMER: As a long-term plan, yep.

BREAM: Defund the Pentagon?

ROMER: Absolutely.

BREAM: Abolish prisons, at least in large part?

ROMER: Yeah, again, as part of a long-term program, yeah?

BREAM: OK, so no prisons. Government or public ownership of most large corporations?

ROMER: Yeah, absolutely.

BREAM: Okay, so then let’s go back through some of those, then, abolish the Senate. There are people who are in the Senate now who are very supportive of DSA. They lose their seats?

ROMER: Well, the Senate is an anachronistic institution, and it comes from the British House of Lords. It is meant to protect power. You know, the Senate was part of the, the system that was made to make sure that the people didn’t have too much of a say. So we want to expand the Congress significantly, but make it a unicameral legislature.

Keep reading

The Empire’s Mirror – How Western Imperialism has Alienated the Planet

The Democracy Perception Index 2026 is a global survey covering over ninety percent of the world’s population. It has produced results that confound nearly every assumption underlying the Western foreign-policy consensus. The United States, self-declared champion of the rules-based international order, now ranks among the most negatively perceived countries on earth. When the world is asked to choose sides in active geopolitical conflicts, it sides against Washington again and again – overwhelmingly with Palestine over Israel, and almost unanimously against American military bases on foreign soil. China is seen more favorably than the United States across most of the planet. And none of this, the study finds, reflects a turn against democracy itself – support for democratic governance remains strong globally. What the world is turning against is the behavior of the states that claim to lead it.

There is a moment in the history of empires when the internal logic of power becomes visible to everyone except those exercising it. That moment, documented with clinical precision in the ninth edition of the Democracy Perception Index (DPI), published in the spring of 2026 by Nira Data in collaboration with the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, has now arrived for the United States and its closest allies. The study – the largest annual survey of its kind, drawing on nationally representative interviews with more than 94,000 respondents across 98 countries representing over ninety percent of the global population – was designed, one suspects, to demonstrate the enduring appeal of the democratic model promoted from Washington and Brussels. What it demonstrates instead is a historic collapse of American prestige, a profound disenchantment with Western-led institutions, and a global public opinion that has quietly but unmistakably reordered its moral loyalties. The United States now ranks among the five most negatively perceived countries on earth, alongside North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran – and Israel, its closest military client. It loses three of the five geopolitical conflicts the survey puts to the world’s citizens. In 86 of 97 countries, majorities oppose hosting American military bases. For the first time in the survey’s history, the United States is seen slightly more negatively than Russia. China, meanwhile, is viewed more favorably than the United States in 63 of 83 surveyed countries, including across most of Europe.

The Alliance of Democracies Foundation, which co-publishes this index, was founded by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister, and exists explicitly to advance Western-style liberal democracy. Nira Data, the Danish firm that conducts the research, describes its mission as giving voice to the global public in service of democratic values. This is not a study produced by critics of the West. It is a study produced by its institutional advocates, and that fact lends the findings a peculiar authority: they arrive not as a verdict from outside but as an involuntary confession from within. Rasmussen’s own foreword acknowledges the data while reaching, almost desperately, for an explanation that absolves Western policy – blaming “threats” that Europeans are not perceiving clearly enough, urging democratic leaders to offer “a vision of optimism and hope.” What the study’s authors cannot bring themselves to say plainly, the numbers say for them: the world does not trust the West, and the reasons are not a mystery.

Unlike conventional democracy indices that rely on expert assessments of laws and institutions, the DPI asks citizens directly how they experience political life. It surveys eight dimensions – the impact of elections, freedom of speech, political pluralism, civic education, separation of powers, rule of law, government transparency, and peaceful transitions of power – then tracks how populations across the globe perceive the United States, China, Russia, and one another, and asks which side respondents support in five live or latent geopolitical conflicts. The result is a portrait of the world as billions of people actually see it, not as Western governments and their affiliated think tanks wish it to be seen.

What that portrait reveals, at its most fundamental level, is a global public that believes in democracy – across virtually every region and culture – but defines it in terms that diverge sharply from the definition promoted by Washington and its allies. More than two-thirds of people worldwide say it is extremely or very important for their country to be a democracy. The demand for self-governance, for fair institutions, for the peaceful transfer of power, is not in retreat. But when the survey asks what people consider democracy’s most important purpose, the answers reorder the priorities that Western leaders typically invoke. In 62 percent of countries surveyed, the top answer is improving living standards and well-being for everyone. Only 18 percent of countries prioritize promoting a fair and peaceful society, and a mere 9 percent – a figure that should give pause to every speechwriter who invokes “protecting individual rights and freedoms” as democracy’s defining purpose – place that goal first. Only in the United States itself, along with Germany, Italy, and Canada, does the protection of individual freedoms rise to the top.

This is not, as Western commentators tend to assume, evidence of authoritarian conditioning or political naivety among the global poor. It is evidence of rational prioritization. For billions of people across the Global South, in South Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa, in the Middle East and Latin America, the question of whether one can freely criticize the government on social media is less pressing than whether one’s children will have food, healthcare, and security from violence – including the violence that frequently arrives with Western “assistance.” The DPI data make this legible in a single, devastating comparison. The most positively perceived countries in the world are not the largest democracies or the most militarily powerful: they are Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Italy, and Norway – countries associated, in the global imagination, with neutrality and the absence of aggression, social provision, good education, health care and security. The least positively perceived, in descending order of loathing, are Israel, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, and the United States. What distinguishes the top from the bottom is not the presence or absence of elections. It is the presence or absence of violence.

Keep reading

“Don’t Flock Me”: Massie Readies Bill To Yank Federal Cash From Cities And Police Departments Running Flock Cameras

On Saturday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced he’ll soon sponsor “a bill to withhold federal money from municipalities and police departments” that deploy Flock-style cameras to surveil law-abiding citizens. He attached a Gadsden flag parody: a coiled rattlesnake wrapped around an automated license plate reader on a pole, over the words “don’t flock me.”

Rather than regulating or litigating the cameras, Massie’s bill would cut off federal funding to every city and police department that installs them. Flock’s business model runs on local government contracts across roughly 6,000 communities, so a funding-withholding bill aims directly at its customer base.

Third Strike In A Week

Massie’s bill is the third Republican move against Flock in a matter of days.

On July 21, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) filed H.R. 9800, the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, which would bar federal agencies from purchasing, funding, or accessing automated license plate readers – Flock is named explicitly – along with biometric tracking tech covering fingerprints, iris, voice, and gait. Any data a federal agency obtained would have to be deleted within 30 days and would be inadmissible in court. Burchett’s pitch: “We gotta ban these dadgum things.”

Earlier this month, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) tried to attach an amendment restricting the readers in committee. It failed, and Perry responded that the fight wasn’t over: “STOP THE FLOCK.”

In April, Massie teamed with Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) on the Surveillance Accountability Act, which would require a probable-cause warrant before federal or local agencies surveil Americans, ban warrantless facial recognition in public spaces, block the government from buying its way around the Fourth Amendment via third-party data brokers, and make individual federal employees personally suable for violations. Boebert’s framing: the government is building a “digital footprint of your entire life” without a warrant or probable cause.

Keep reading

Rotterdam Officially Creates A No-Go Zone — Dutch City Bans Nighttime Entry To De Esch Neighborhood After Years Of Migrant Gang Disorder

The city of Rotterdam has taken an extraordinary and, by its own admission, unprecedented step: imposing a nighttime exclusion zone on an entire residential neighborhood, making it a criminal offense to enter the De Esch district between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. without a demonstrable reason for being there. The order took effect Thursday evening and will run for three months before evaluation, according to Remix News and the Dutch public broadcaster NOS.

Under the new rule, anyone stopped in De Esch during nighttime hours who cannot explain their presence to police is liable for a fine and a criminal record. Residents, workers, visitors attending events or dining at local restaurants, and people visiting family homes are exempt. Everyone else — which in practice means the large groups of outsiders who have descended on the neighborhood after dark for nearly three years — is not.

The backstory is a familiar and depressing one across Dutch and Western European cities that have been slow to name what is happening. Locals told NOS and the regional broadcaster Rijnmond that since shortly after the Covid pandemic, outsiders — identified in Dutch press coverage as predominantly young men of migrant background — began gathering in De Esch on evenings and weekends in numbers that sometimes reached into the hundreds. Activities documented include street racing, drug use, horn honking, prostitution, intimidation of residents, littering, and aggressive responses to anyone who objected. One resident told Rijnmond she had stopped walking her dog alone at night because of the danger; her parents were nearly struck by cars being driven on the sidewalk.

Rotterdam Mayor Carola Schouten authorized the exclusion zone under existing public order powers. “Calm must return to De Esch, and residents must feel comfortable and safe. That is why I am using this power,” she said. Previous interventions — concrete barriers, increased police patrols, community outreach, direct talks with those causing the disruption — had all failed. The first night of the ban was described as immediately and dramatically quieter. “I slept wonderfully,” one resident told Rijnmond. “Now, the street is completely clean.”

Keep reading

Georgia Cops Keep Getting Arrested And Fired For Illegally Using Flock Cameras To Stalk People, But Surely Those 17 Bad Apples Aren’t Representative Of The Entire Bunch

“Another Georgia cop accused of misusing Flock data in growing trend,” the USA Today headline reads. If you remember now-former Braselton police chief Michael Steffman’s arrest on stalking charges last year, it would be understandable if you assumed CBS News meant a second Georgia officer had been arrested for misusing Flock’s license plate data to stalk their victims. There couldn’t be that many bad cops getting arrested in one state, right? Well, that depends on whether your definition of “not that many” because USA Today reports that at least 17 Georgia cops have been accused of Flock-stalking in just the last couple of months. 

Former Sergeant Kabiru Salawu lost the job he’d held with the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office since 2009, after he was arrested over allegations that he engaged in “unauthorized use of the agency’s Flock Safety technology.” Salawu currently faces a felony charge for violating his oath of office, but in Georgia, misuse of license plate data is charged as a misdemeanor. For now, the sheriff’s office hasn’t released any information on how it caught Salawu, nor have they explained what he’s accused of using Flock’s system to do.

According to CBS News, Salawu’s arrest brings the total number of law enforcement officers accused of abusing their access to the private surveillance system that tracks everyone everywhere all the time, even if you don’t drive a car or have a license plate visible, to 10 “in recent weeks.” Not months or years. Weeks. As internal audits continue, don’t be surprised to see those numbers rise in the coming weeks, either. Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, and if internal audits turned up enough evidence to charge 17 officers over the last several months, it stands to reason that ongoing investigations will turn up evidence of even more abuses within the Georgia law enforcement community.

Keep reading

The American Presidency and Perpetual War

One of the defining failures of modern American government has been the steady erosion of Congress’s constitutional authority over war. The Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. Congress decides to go to war. The president wages it.

Over the past several decades, presidents of both major parties have increasingly treated military intervention as an executive prerogative rather than a congressional requirement.

The last six presidents have not reflected distinct foreign policy doctrines but a uniparty continuum of executive overreach. While the particulars differ, each administration has initiated or significantly expanded military action without a formal declaration of war or without clear evidence that the targeted country posed an imminent threat to the United States.

President George H.W. Bush assembled an international coalition following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Congress ultimately authorized the use of military force. However, it was not a defensive war; it fostered the growing post-Cold War assumption that the United States should act as the world’s policeman.

President Bill Clinton likewise employed military force without declarations of war. The 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo conflict proceeded despite Congress failing to authorize it in a clear and lasting manner. The administration argued humanitarian intervention justified military action. But even compelling humanitarian concerns do not erase the Constitution’s allocation of war powers.

President George W. Bush fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy after the Sept. 11 attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan initially enjoyed broad support and congressional authorization in response to al-Qaeda’s attacks. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq remains one of the most controversial and catastrophic military actions in modern American history.

Congress did authorize force, but the constitutional process was undermined by intelligence failures and exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that ultimately proved unfounded. We now know that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States warranting a preventive war. The conflict resulted in enormous human suffering, significant financial costs, regional instability and expanded executive authority that future presidents would inherit.

President Barack Obama accelerated executive war-making despite his early criticism of the Iraq War. His 2011 intervention in Libya stands as perhaps the clearest example. The United States joined NATO air operations that helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, yet Congress never authorized the intervention. The administration argued that the operation did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because American forces faced limited risk and most of the killing was done by U.S. intelligence assets.

President Joe Biden continued this pattern through military operations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, strikes against Iranian-backed militias — and by funding Ukraine’s war against Russia. The administration justified these actions primarily as force protection, counterterrorism, responses to attacks on U.S. personnel, or defense of democracy and sovereignty. None of these rationales substitutes for congressional authorization.

Moreover, Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. are members of the United Nations. Like the U.N. or not, the U.N. Charter is a treaty written by U.S. officials and ratified by the Senate. Under the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself. The U.N. Charter prohibits all war except for immediate defensive purposes or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council; neither of which is the case with Ukraine.

President Donald Trump famously campaigned against “endless wars,” yet his administration launched missile strikes against Syria in 2017 and 2018 without congressional approval, assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in January 2020, commenced the current unlawful and meaningless war against Iran, now in its third stage of combat, and he has financed Israeli expansion — all without congressional authorization.

He has famously indicated that he rejects the constitutional role of treaties and the international laws written pursuant to them. He has even threatened to annihilate the Iranian/Persian civilization.

Keep reading

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

While Flock claims its system tracks vehicles, not people, the documented record of police chiefs stalking ex-partners through Flock shows otherwise. When the most experienced, highest-ranking officers in law enforcement, the people most responsible for enforcing the rules, demonstrate ongoing abuses, the answer is the same courts have given for each generation of powerful tracking technology: require a warrant first.

The police chief of Holiday Hills, Illinois, and a part-time officer at Prairie Grove Police Department, was arrested June 18, 2026, and charged with two counts of official misconduct, a Class 3 felony.

Prosecutors alleged he used Prairie Grove’s Flock license plate reader system and the Illinois State Police LEADS database to track six people he knew personally.

Three of those people were women the chief had been in romantic relationships with, according to prosecutors at his arraignment. He also tracked an ex-boyfriend of one of those women, running that man’s plate 140 times over several months, a figure the protective order petition put at 178, with 86 of those searches conducted while off duty.

Keep reading

Russian Scientists Search for ‘Cosmic Matter’ Near Site of Tunguska Blast

Scientists in Russia are studying sediment from a Siberian lake in the hope of finding ‘cosmic matter’ which will confirm that the Tunguska explosion was caused by a meteor entering Earth’s atmosphere. While this hypothesis for the mysterious 1908 event, which saw an enormous blast flatten 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles, has already been largely accepted by the scientific community, it remains unproven. Over the years, some rogue researchers have put forward alternative possibilities for what could have been behind the incident, including the fantastic suggestion that Nikola Tesla was somehow to blame for the event.

Now a new expedition reportedly featuring experts from four scientific organizations in Russia looks to put an end to the speculation. “The mystery of the Tunguska Catastrophe worries both the scientists and the public,” said Dr. Arthur Meidus, one of the researchers working on the project, “many of us still hope to unravel the scenario of 1908 disaster.” The focus of the study centers around sediment found at the depths of a remote lake located approximately 25 miles from what is believed to have been the epicenter of the blast. “Spring-autumn wastewaters and the Lakura River brought traces of the Tunguska catastrophe to this lake,” Meidus explained.

By determining which layer of sediment can be connected to the time frame of the Tunguska blast, the researchers hope to examine this material using what are described as “modern methods of microanalysis” using advanced scientific techniques. If the explosion were truly caused by a meteor entering the Earth’s atmosphere, they say, then the study should find “microparticles of extraterrestrial origin” in the sand extracted from the lake. Such a discovery, the research team contends, would finally close the case once and for all. One can only hope that this attempt at solving a decades-old Russian mystery goes better than the reopened Dyatlov Pass investigation from last year that we’re still waiting to be resolved.

Keep reading