Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota cursed a reporter who asked the lawmaker if the democrat party should be deporting members of MS-13. Reporter Myles Morrel of The Daily Caller asked Rep. Omar, “Do you think more of your Democratic colleagues should be traveling to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of Abrego Gracia?” Omar responded, “I think you should f*ck off.” She repeated again, “You should f*ck off.” Watch here: INSANE: Rep. Ilhan Omar tells Daily Caller News Foundation reporter @MylesMorell to “f*** off” pic.twitter.com/cZdn6BmgWj — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 1, 2025 Check out what The Washington Times reported: Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Democrats’ leading figure in the far-left Squad, used a four-letter word to shoo off a reporter who asked whether her party should be visiting a deported illegal immigrant who’s an accused member of the brutal gang MS-13. “I think you should f—- off,” Ms. Omar replied as she strolled past the reporter. The reporter, Myles Morrel of the Daily Caller News Foundation, filmed his Thursday exchange with Ms. Omar, and the footage went viral on social media. He had asked the lawmaker if Democrats “should be traveling to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.” Mr. Abrego Garcia was deported to a prison in his home country of El Salvador in March. Democrats have rallied around his case as an example of Mr. Trump’s aggressive efforts to oust migrants. Four House Democrats and one Senate Democrat, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, have traveled to El Salvador to visit Mr. Abrego Garcia, portraying him as an innocent father and husband swept up in the Trump administration’s lawless deportations. Ilhan Omar just told a Daily Caller video reporter to “f**k off” when he attempted to ask her a simple question about Kilmer Abrego Garcia. This woman has no class, no gratitude to America, and no honor. Truly a disgrace to the US Congress. pic.twitter.com/5sanRI1Oum — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 1, 2025 Per The New York Post: “Squad” Rep. Ilhan Omar told a Daily Caller reporter to “f–k off” Thursday outside the US Capitol after he asked her a basic question about Democrats traveling to El Salvador to show support for deported alleged MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Myles Morrell identified himself as a journalist and asked Omar (D-Minn.): “Do you think more of your Democratic colleagues should be traveling to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of [Kilmar] Abrego Gracia?” “I think you should f–k off,” Omar shot back. “You should f–k off,” the Democrat repeated when a shocked Morrell asked what she was saying.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to attack President Donald Trump’s supposed 100-day approval rate. He said the polls this week show Americans fear Trump’s economic handling will walk us into a recession. As Phil Hartman once said on NewsRadio: “I doubt that sir. But I would die for your constitutional right to make outrageous claims.” Moments later, the tables turned. A reporter pointed out Schumer’s own approval is lower than Trump’s, and is stuck at 17 percent. It’s the lowest among congressional leaders. Suddenly polls don’t count as he quickly replied said “Polls come and go”. Talk about trying to gaslight the people and talking out of the corner of both sides of his mouth. Schumer “ Trumps polling the lowest rating in 80 years of polls“ Reporter “your approval rating Senator is at an all time low of 17% do you feel you are hurting your party?” Schumer “Polls don’t matter” Cannot make this real life comedyGold up pic.twitter.com/pvdHyzL05i — Alison (@justhenews2025) May 1, 2025 The Post Millennial reports: During the same presser, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that “polls come and go” just minutes after pointing out that an approval poll of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office turned out badly. “The polls this week show Trump has the lowest 100-day approval rating since they started polling 80 years ago. The lowest. Even worse, 72 percent of Americans think it’s likely that Trump’s handling of the economy will walk us directly into a recession,” Schumer told reporters. A few minutes later, a reporter asked him, “There’s a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other Congressional leader at 17 percent. Are you concerned that you may be a liability for your party?” Schumer cut off the reporter and declared, “Polls come and go. Our party is united. We’re on our front foot. We’re stepping forward, going after Trump and having real success.” Chuck Schumer says President Trump has the “lowest 100-day approval rating since they started polling.” A few minutes later when asked about his bad poll numbers… “Polls come and go.” pic.twitter.com/scHlgaRrat — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 1, 2025 Who still trusts this person? In February, Chuck Schumer said President Trump “is not going to keep his promise to lower costs.” Today, we found out core inflation is at its lowest rate since March 2021. Trump has been proven right once again! pic.twitter.com/xmx0g49wO3 — Jim Banks (@Jim_Banks) April 10, 2025

'You're right, Laura'

PBS doesn't allow a debate about funding for PBS on the airwaves of PBS. Instead, you only get the pro-PBS side. On Tuesday's News Hour, co-host Amna Nawaz tossed softballs at PBS CEO Paula Kerger about how wonderful they are and how defunding them is an existential threat for some PBS stations. Their overwhelming bias was not challenged.  What is your sense of the effort to rescind those funds? Is it a done deal at this point?... I know you're meeting with lawmakers, speaking to them to make the case. What is the argument you're laying out to them and what are you hearing in response?... We should note there's been Republicans who have long sought to cut funding for public media. So is there something different about this effort this time around? On the last question there, Kerger claimed PBS has always had "bipartisan support," and "for many of our stations...this would be an existential crisis," something that couldn't be fixed if Democrats restored the funding when they regained power.   This is the closest Nawaz came to liberal bias, but she pitched it as conservatives don't like certain issues -- and NOT how those issues are tremendously tilted: There's also a couple of arguments we have heard from the administration as they look to cut those funds. They argue that, by covering issues like race in America and gender issues, that public media is broadly engaging in what they call cultural indoctrination. They also cite, among other things, the former NPR editor Uri Berliner's accusations that he said his network pushed progressive viewpoints. That was at NPR, which is not PBS, to be clear. But do you worry about that? And what's your response to that accusation? Like a politician, Kerger claimed "I think we work very hard, and I'm proud of this broadcast of its focus on bringing the most important stories forward." And then she said news was just 10 percent of what PBS does -- the objectionable 10 percent! -- and pivoted as usual to kiddie shows like Sesame Street and the defunct Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, that PBS is somehow crucial to pre-kindergarten education: "We're parents' first partners. We're deeply involved in providing content for classrooms." Nawaz finished with a polling question, that a Pew poll found 43 percent favor continued funding, 24 percent favor defunding, and 33 percent are unsure. "So that means about 57 percent of Americans are either not sure or don't want to see federal funds continue for public media. What does that say to you?" Kerger referred to internal PBS polling, claiming bizarrely that 65 percent of Trump voters love PBS. Wouldn't it be something to see those polling questions, and who they sampled? 

We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.Yet, here we are again.Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.

Maine Speaker Bans Rep From Voting Until She Recants Her Position on Boys in Girls' Sports

Jemele Hill Declares It Frightening That Children Be Taught to Love America