Hundreds show up at immigrant rally in Springdale
Irvin Camacho, co-founder of the organization Alliance for Immigrant Respect and Education, says it's important to value each other, rather than judging someone for their citizenship status.
'If you ever have a conversation with someone who's undocumented, or an immigrant, and you build that personal relationship with them, you'll understand why you should care for them on a human-to-human level,' said Camacho.
Protests over immigration raids pop up across the US as more planned
Mayela Hernandez and her family were one of the first supporters to show up at the demonstration. She says it's constantly teaching them to give back to the community.
'We have to help one another. Color doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're white, African American, or Mexican, we have to help out one another,' said Hernandez.
Which is exactly what Nathan Bogart showed up to do.
'There might be a lot of people who might be afraid to get out. They have a greater risk if they encounter the police or someone else at these kinds of events, so getting out and raising your voice so they don't have to, I think, is important,' said Bogart.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barbara Kay: How Islamists hijacked leftist oppression narratives
In March 2008, revelations surfaced of past anti-American and antisemitic rhetoric by Barack Obama's longtime pastor and friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright, including Wright's accusation that the U.S.'s own terrorism helped motivate al-Qaida's 9/11 attack. Knowing his political credibility depended on it, Obama abruptly severed ties with Wright. Post-inauguration, Wright blamed 'them Jews' for Obama's continuing frostiness. Seventeen years on, Zohran Mamdani, newly-elected Democratic contender for New York's upcoming mayoralty race, appears to have (correctly) calculated that public allyship with an imam who lionizes Hamas, reviles Jews and Christians, and encourages anti-American pedagogy would not be a political liability in America's most Jewish city. Apart from smartphones spreading an oil slick of disinformation across Gen Z, strongly supportive of Mamdani, what explains such a momentous change in our political culture between the two campaigns? Principally, the symbiotic merger of three already active ideological streams that swelled into an impassable river: multiculturalism (all cultures equally deserving of respect), Islamism (Islamization of the West is inevitable) and intersectionality (all oppressed identity groups must stand together against a common enemy of white imperialism). Islam is a religion, not a race. Nevertheless, the merger allowed the Muslim Brotherhood — Islamism's C-suite in the West — to exploit the ideological overlap to align Islamist claims for oppression with Black Lives Matter, bestowing 'racialized' status on Muslims. The crossover permitted Islamists to promulgate false notions that are widely accepted as true: that 'brown' Palestinians are the world's most oppressed people, that 'white' Israel represents a uniquely evil form of colonialist oppression meriting violent elimination ('Globalize the Intifada') and that Islamophobia — a trope popularized in 1994 by a Runnymede Trust report, but almost invariably associated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — is, allegedly, a far greater problem than the actual global scourge of Islamism-driven terrorism. Since then, combatting an alleged 'Islamophobia industry' has been a principal focus of all Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated advocacy groups, as well as some academics and political actors. Their campaign of 'perception management' to ensure a reflexive, society-wide association between Muslims and victimhood has succeeded. I plucked the strikingly apt trope 'perception management' from journalist and Muslim Reformer Asra Nomani's enlightening 2023 book, Woke Army: The Red-Green alliance that is destroying America's freedom. In it, Nomani argues that the partnership between the hard left (red) and Islamism (green) exploits America's freedoms to wage disinformation and propaganda campaigns against critics of political Islam. Politicians and mainstream media learned over the years that it was easier, following news of jihadist violence, to acquiesce to the shibboleth that the 'religion of peace' had been 'hijacked' than to endure accusations of Islamophobia by insisting on more objective terms like 'radical' or 'political' Islam. A former Wall Street Journal reporter, Indian-born Muslim Nomani was a friend and colleague of Daniel Pearl, the WSJ's South Asia bureau chief who was kidnapped and publicly beheaded in 2002 by rabidly Judeophobic al-Qaida operatives. Pearl's gruesome death galvanized Nomani to political activism as a Muslim 'Reformer,' a Muslim who supports an interpretation of Islam that is compatible with human rights, gender equality, religious (or atheist) pluralism and secular governance. Irritated by her criticism, Muslim Brothers' machinations drew Nomani into a world of grief orchestrated by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), nominally a 'civil rights' organization but in Nomani's account, 'a front for an extremist form of Islam.' But she persevered, and Woke Army is, therefore, not only an enlightening exposé of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, but the absorbing story of Nomani's personal near-martyrdom and eventual triumph. To silence Nomani, CAIR foot soldiers cooked up a years-long character assassination campaign through 'the deadly underbelly of cyber jihad' — specifically Loonwatch, a GoDaddy website that protected their users' anonymity. Her foes there labelled her a 'Zionist media whore' amongst other slurs, and accused her of being funded by Israel. In 2018, Nomani responded with a defamation suit that halted Loonwatch harassment and permitted her to subpoena internet service providers for the real identities of 48 'John Doe' anonymous stalkers, most of them outed in Woke Army. The 'perception management' campaign found low-hanging fruit in left-leaning political leaders. President Obama, who flinched at Black anti-Americanism and antisemitism, was eager to please on the equally phobic Islamist file. When CAIR issued a statement Nomani described as advocating for 'separating the brutal actions of ISIS from the faith of Islam,' Obama obliged, she writes, with his government agencies giving in to pressure to scrub terms like 'jihadist' and replace them with 'extremist.' Although Nomani's research treats Islamism in the U.S., her themes map neatly onto Canada. Following the Islamism-driven 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Justin Trudeau, asked to identify the bombing's 'root causes,' reflexively saw, heard, and spoke no Islamist evil, responding: 'there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.' The Muslim Reform Movement, in which Nomani and Canada's own heroic Raheel Raza play prominent roles, has been stalwart in its resistance to Islamist bullying, but their members are in a David-and-Goliath relationship with what Nomani describes as Muslim Brotherhood's well-funded machine. They get worn down by what Nomani's young son articulated as a 'terrorism of the mind.' It would help if politicians cold-shouldered Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups and instead elevated Muslim Reformers' public status, seating them 'above the salt,' so to speak. Active pushback against institutionalized Islamism is in motion in the U.S. But in Canada, alas, 'perception management' rules at the desk where the buck on a threat to our cultural health is supposed to stop. kaybarb@ X: @BarbaraRKay National Post Adam Zivo: With Iran defeated, Israelis look for peace in Gaza Colby Cosh: Mark Carney's unstable environment
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: We still rely on gasoline. Why is California adding to the cost and the pollution?
California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas. Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California's $3 trillion economy — but that's the first 8%. 'If you don't get that first 8%,' I tell my students, 'You don't get the rest of our economy.' Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can't build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don't make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state's total refining capacity. California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world's cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections. All of this is enabled by a supply chain that's more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn't get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising. This isn't just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It's also a national security issue. Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states. And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we've built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline. This isn't just unsustainable. It's also borderline irresponsible. California's energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can't pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can't afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof. We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way. But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State. Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax. According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you're a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you'd need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it. That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can't easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View. The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state's policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that's not yet built. It's a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action. Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state's lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable. The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules. At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don't calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math. No wonder we're seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock. And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we've simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them. If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it's unjust. These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They're crushing the working class. They're forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They're also outsourcing jobs overseas. And they're being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven't calculated the real-world impact. The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won't be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped. The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future. Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC's Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
CNN
43 minutes ago
- CNN
Will your baby qualify for $1,000 from the Trump administration?
A part of Trump's mega bill includes a national "baby bonds" program that will provide every newborn in the U.S. with $1,000 to get ahead in life. But many critics argue this program does not properly resolve generational child poverty for working families.
