Conservative Blogger
Saturday, April 4, 2026
Rep. Miller-Meeks to Newsmax: Bohannan 'Too Extreme' for Congress
 |
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, described her likely Democrat opponent, Christina Bohannan, as "too extreme and radical to be in Congress" during a Friday appearance on Newsmax. Miller-Meeks, a physician seeking reelection in Iowa's 1st Congressional District, called the seat essential for Republicans to retain control of the U.S. House. A June 2025 poll commissioned by House Majority PAC showed Bohannan leading Miller-Meeks 43% to 39% in a hypothetical matchup. The district's June 2 primary and Nov. 3 general election will test that hold in a race that national forecasters in February have now rated a toss-up. "The 1st Congressional District in Iowa is the key to the majority. It is a must-keep seat for us," Miller-Meeks said during an appearance on "Greg Kelly Reports." Miller-Meeks, who grew up in humble circumstances, left home at age 16 to attend junior college, enlisted in the Army at 18, and worked her way through medical school, said she understands the struggles of working families. She emphasized support for tax cuts that let people keep more of what they earn and contrasted that with Democratic votes to raise taxes. Turning to Bohannan, who has run for the seat before and served in the Iowa House, Miller-Meeks said the candidate has "a very radical record." During her time in the Iowa House, Bohannan voted against a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the right to abortion and against a bill reducing the state income tax rate to a flat 4% by 2026. She also opposed the "Back the Blue" bill that expanded police protections and penalties for protesters. She cited Bohannan's former role as chair of the University of Iowa's diversity, equity, and inclusion program. She added that Bohannan had not condemned antisemitic comments by University of Iowa Democrats after the Hamas attack on Israel and had only recently emphasized border security and affordability when it became politically "favorable for her to do so." "She's as far-left progressive as they come," Miller-Meeks said. "And it's not Iowa values, and it's certainly not America's values that she supports." She predicted Bohannan would support impeaching President Donald Trump and would not back immigration enforcement or Customs and Border Protection. "It's important that we don't go back to that ... we don't go back to impeachment after impeachment, after impeachment of President Trump, if they get the majority in the House," she said. |
Hegseth Slammed for Barring Catholics From Good Friday Religious Services - There's Just One Tiny Problem
 |
There is an old joke about why scientists have started to use lawyers instead of rats for experimentation (apologies in advance to Susie Moore and my other colleagues who are or were lawyers). There are, the joke says, more lawyers than rats; you don't become attached to lawyers, and [drumroll] there are things that rats just won't do. After today, I'm firmly convinced that the same applies to leftists posing as journalists. It is no secret that the left hates Secretary of War Pete Hegseth more than they hate President Trump. Hegseth has brought a vigor and focus to the job that has rarely been seen since the Department of Defense, now styled the Department of War, was formed in 1947. What makes him hated by the left is that he has singlehandedly stopped the conquest of our military by the "long march through the institutions" that has corrupted the rest of our government. He not only stopped it, but he is reversing it. Hardly a day passes that does not bring with it some breathless expos̩ of how Hegseth is violating some norm or the other and why that is very, very bad. The favorite target for these stories is Hegseth's willingness to fire generals and admirals who will not support the administration (see Pete Hegseth Gives the Army Chief of Staff His Walking Papers РRedState and Two More Army Generals Get Shown the Door. Connected? Or Just Timing? РRedState); his alleged feud with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and Hegseth's overt Christianity. BACKGROUND: The Defense Secretary Is Right: All of Christ for All of Life РRedState Today's bifecta in the Hegseth-hate and lab-rat category goes to the Huffington Post. This isn't all that shocking for an outlet that was founded by progressive harpy Ariana Huffington, who also gained fame by driving her husband to embrace the gay lifestyle.
Bendery elaborates in her tweet: Significant if true. It implies that Hegseth or his minions posted themselves outside the chapel and checked baptismal certificates or proficiency in speaking in tongues before allowing entry. Perhaps they had a breathalyzer calibrated to detect the odor of a Filet-O-Fish sandwich. Here's the problem with the story. It is true, but so what? Catholics don't celebrate Mass on Good Friday. Catholic liturgy has three events in what is called the Easter Triduum, that is, the three days that begin on Thursday evening and culminate in the Easter Vigil.
The Friday event has a prescribed format. The clergy and congregation assemble in silence. The passion narrative is read, but there is no homily. A series of prescribed intercessions is prayed. There is a period devoted to the Adoration of the Holy Cross. The Eucharist is distributed from the Host consecrated on Holy Thursday. There is literally no way Catholic and Protestant worship on Good Friday even vaguely resembles one another. The only thing nefarious here was the cheap shot taken at Pete Hegseth. What is so shocking about this is that I can't imagine even in a secular craphole like the editorial spaces of the Huffington Post that someone didn't read this, know the reason why the service was Protestant only, and said, "What the hell, yeah, it's bullsh** but it's about Hegseth, run it anyway." This brings us back to the lab rats. A person with a modicum of integrity would not have written this story or allowed it to be published, as it is obviously false and has the sole purpose of character assassination. Rats would never do this. |
Arrested Development in Europe - the Same As It Ever Was During Cold War
 |
In the late '80s I first began to pay attention to politics and foreign policy. This was the tail end of President Ronald Reagan’s second term. At that time, the Cold War was still ongoing, with a seemingly powerful Soviet Union squaring off against the free world. Except for the left-wing of the free world, of course. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but leftists in the U.S., and in Western Europe, openly sympathized with the communists. A particular bee in the lefties' bonnet was the Reagan administration’s commitment to a nuclear weapons buildup, and to the stationing of many U.S. nuclear intermediate missiles in Western Europe. Here is a typical description from a left-leaning source:
READ MORE: Report: Our 'Ally' France Just Made Another Incredible Move Regarding the Strait of Hormuz To deal with the unrelenting objection of these European lefties, the Reagan administration was finally forced to go a little soft on the communists:
It is important to stress that the Russian communists and their allies were really bad news. I understand that on American campuses these days, and in New York City government, communism is portrayed as a beneficent philosophy that entitles “each according to their need” and rewards poor people – while punishes the evil billionaires. But this is merely the propaganda of the Left. In reality, communism totally misunderstands human nature and creates a system where everyone except the party leadership is poor. The system has no real democracy, human rights, or freedoms for the people. Even worse, the Soviet Union was militaristic, and vowed to “bury” us, and followed through on their threats with violence and terror, sponsoring communist rebellions throughout the globe, including in Western Europe. All of this was known by truly educated people. Yet, the lefties in Western Europe didn’t know it, or, even more disturbingly, knew it but pretended otherwise. At the time I was observing all this chaos in Western Europe, I was a teenager, but rather “conservative” for a teenager. I was the type of teenager that obeyed the rules, came home at the appropriate hour, and didn’t get mouthy with my parents and other authority figures. Reading about the seemingly endless Western European protests – which were as wild and crazy as modern leftist “protests” about ICE or Israel are today – the thought occurred to me: those Western Europeans voters, citizens of NATO members, were just a bunch of bratty and irresponsible teenagers. They relied on Daddy U.S. to protect them from the big bad, communist world, but they also delighted in rebelling against his authority. And they always tried to avoid any work that might be required of them. Well, now we can see that some things never change. With the current war against Iran, the Western Europeans are still stuck in arrested development. The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial waterway for international trade—especially Western European trade. (But not so much American trade.) The Islamic regime of Iran is lashing out at the ships sailing through the strait, as it always does when it is in danger. This is a violation of international law. It is also targeting ships that have nothing to do with the U.S.-Israeli action against Iran. Which is the exact same thing it did near the end of its war with Iraq in 1988, which prompted American action to safeguard international shipping. And so, here is what happened Thursday:
The Western Europeans are so opposed to this war that Italy, Spain, France, and the U.K. have even refused to let the U.S. use the NATO bases in their territories and/or allow the U.S. and Israel to fly over their territory. And the “cheese eating surrender monkeys” are taking their surrendering to another, even more ridiculous, level, as RedState's Nick Arama reported this week (find the two stories linked above). I strongly believe the U.S. should ally with nations that are capable and willing to cooperate with us. We really don’t need a bunch of unruly teenagers as allies, who rebel against us and won’t hold their own weight in the alliance. What would you say, you do here, for NATO, Western Europeans? |
Chuck Schumer Is In Worse Trouble With His Party Than We Thought
 |
The Democratic revolt against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is expanding heading into the midterm elections. The Associated Press reported that Democratic candidates across more than a dozen states have publicly opposed his continued leadership of Senate Democrats. This comes amid an internal conflict between the establishment wing of the party and the progressive faction. The conflict centers on whether the party’s traditional playbook can still deliver results after 2024. Democratic Senate candidates in at least 13 states have publicly declared they will oppose Schumer’s continued role as the caucus leader, according to the Washington Times. Graham Platner, a Bernie Sanders-backed insurgent candidate seeking to represent Maine, slammed Schumer after eight Senate Democrats broke ranks to end the government shutdown without winning key concessions. "This happened because Chuck Schumer failed in his job yet again, because they do not understand that when we fight, we win," Platner said in a video on social media.
Tucker Favreau, another Democrat running in Maine, told the Times that Schumer “simply lacks the energy to be the voice of angry Americans across the country that are demanding strong action in the face of this regime.” State Sen. Mallory McMorrow in Michigan also said she wouldn’t support Schumer if Democrats win back the upper chamber in the midterms.
In Michigan, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow has stated she would not support Schumer as caucus leader if Democrats reclaim the majority, according to the AP. Democratic strategist Lis Smith told The Associated Press that this uprising is rare in Senate politics. She said it is “pretty uncommon for sitting senators to endorse against the Senate leader” and that these candidates “are reading the tea leaves and are getting feedback from the grassroots that they are dissatisfied with Schumer’s performance as leader.”
Last month Democrats reportedly did an “informal” vote count to determine whether there is enough support to keep Schumer in his leadership role. A progressive faction calling itself the “Fight Club” is leading the charge against the establishment, arguing the Democratic Party needs to take a more pugilistic approach to opposing the Trump administration. A Gallup poll released in December showed Schumer with a dismal 28 percent approval rating. This is a significant drop from two years ago when his approval rating among Democrats was 76 percent. |
Why the NYT Had to Issue a Monster Correction for This Piece About Trump and NATO
 |
Oh no, NATO is getting its feelings hurt by Donald Trump. Good! They’re the most useless, ungrateful group we could associate with, and if we don’t follow Mr. Obama’s 2012 remark that ‘the 80s called and want their foreign policy back,’ the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a relic of the Cold War and should be dissolved or significantly reworked. There are too many freeloaders and countries that can’t contribute anything meaningful to strengthen this alliance. Trump's criticisms are valid. That continent is snobby. They hate us, and frankly, I could do without them right now. But, you know, the press, who love the Europeans, are going to peddle this nonsense: If NATO goes away, everyone will die. Okay, it's not that hyperbolic, but whatever argument is made for staying in NATO can take a pass this week. Just look at The New York Times’ piece about it, though the real story was the initial headline. Apparently, someone at the publication didn't know what NATO stood for.
Hollowing out NATO—yeah, why not. The entire continent is undergoing death by suicidal empathy. Now, if we want to reorganize NATO, yeah, Trump should make it the "North American Treaty Organization." |
Cuba releases over 2,000 prisoners amid intensifying tensions and U.S. talks
 |
In a significant development for Caribbean diplomacy, the Cuban government announced on Thursday that it would release 2,010 prisoners, with inmates beginning to leave custody on Friday. While Havana officially characterized the mass pardon as a “humanitarian and sovereign gesture” tied to the religious celebrations of Holy Week, the decision comes as the island faces a crippling energy blockade and high-stakes, behind-the-scenes negotiations with the United States. The announcement, published in the state-run newspaper Granma, noted that the release follows a “careful analysis” of the inmates’ conduct, health, and the portion of their sentences already served. The cohort of those set for freedom reportedly includes women, young people, individuals over the age of 60, and several foreign nationals. However, the government explicitly excluded those convicted of violent crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and “crimes against authority” — a category often used to detain political dissidents. As of the official announcement, the Cuban government has not specified exactly how many American citizens are among the 2,010 prisoners set for release. While Granma confirmed the pardon includes “foreigners and Cuban citizens residing abroad,” it did not provide a breakdown of nationalities or a list of names. The U.S. State Department has acknowledged the reports but remains cautious, stating it is “unclear how many, if any” of those being freed are Americans or political prisoners. This lack of transparency is typical for such mass pardons, though the inclusion of “foreigners” is widely interpreted by experts as a diplomatic signal aimed at the ongoing, high-level discussions with the Trump administration. Historically, the presence of even a few Americans in such a release would be treated as a significant bargaining chip in negotiations over the current U.S. oil blockade and economic sanctions. This will be the second major release of 2026, following a smaller group of 51 prisoners freed in March through Vatican mediation. However, international observers and human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Prisoners Defenders, have since expressed doubt. While the announced release would be historic, in scale, an estimated 1,200 political prisoners remain in Cuban custody — with many stemming from the massive anti-government protests of July 2021. In a rare move earlier this week, President Donald Trump allowed a Russian-flagged tanker carrying approximately 730,000 barrels of crude oil to dock in Cuba, citing “humanitarian needs.” While the White House insisted this was not a formal policy change, it signaled a potential opening in the otherwise frozen bilateral relations. According to analysts, the prisoner release appears to be a strategic counter-move as discreet talks intensify. Surfacing reports have suggested that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been engaged in weeks of discussions with Raul Guillermo Rodriguez Castro, the grandson of former leader Raul Castro. Meanwhile, President Miguel DÃaz-Canel recently confirmed that his government is seeking “solutions through dialogue” regarding certain bilateral differences, though he asserted that Cuba’s political system is “not up for negotiation” — prompting skepticism that any real progress will be made anytime soon. As the 2,010 inmates return to their families, the international community is reportedly watching to see if this gesture will lead to a more permanent easing of the U.S. embargo or if it is merely a temporary reprieve in a deepening crisis. |
Michelle Obama's Marriage Musings: Celebrities or Just Virtue-Signaling?
 |
Former First Lady Michelle Obama joined Ayesha and Stephen Curry on Michelle’s IMO podcast this week, where conversation about family life turned to the familiar refrain that “marriage is hard.” The Currys talked openly about balancing careers and four children, and the episode quickly became another platform for elite confessions about domestic struggles. Ayesha Curry used the segment to clarify an old clip about whether Steph was ever “her type,” and the hosts spent time unpacking how couples survive long marriages in the public eye. Michelle’s remarks about the day-to-day difficulty of marriage fit a pattern we’ve seen from celebrity circles: intimate woes broadcast as cultural commentary. There’s nothing wrong with honest conversation about relationships, but when wealthy, celebrated figures repeatedly air private grievances to a national audience, it becomes a kind of virtue-signaling grief tour. Hardworking Americans raising families while holding jobs don’t need lectures from a cultural aristocracy that treats marital hardship like a recurring talking point instead of a private challenge to fix. Conservative voices on the radio and in the press rightly called out the tone of the podcast, noting that this wasn’t humble confession so much as performative complaint. Megyn Kelly brought Maureen Callahan on to discuss the segment, arguing that Michelle’s repetitive public lament about marriage and constant focus on identity grievances has become exhausting to many Americans. To be fair, Michelle Obama has long acknowledged marriage takes work and has recommended counseling and communication as tools for couples to stay together—advice she gave publicly years ago as well. But there’s a difference between offering hard-earned tips and turning private difficulty into a continual national narrative that absolves personal responsibility. Patriots who value strong families should applaud honest talk about sacrifice, but reject the spectacle of perpetual celebrity complaints that distract from solutions. If the elite want credibility when preaching about family, start by modeling resilient, private problem-solving and stop treating every marriage hiccup as a media moment to score cultural points. |
Hollywood Exploits Kennedy Tragedy for Clicks in New Streaming Series
 |
Ryan Murphy’s glossy new series Love Story has scrambled the cultural conversation, turning the private romance of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette into a streaming spectacle that millions can’t stop watching. What should have been a somber examination of two young lives cut tragically short has been repackaged as entertainment, and Hollywood is cashing in on the public’s fascination with the Kennedys. The show claims to dramatize the real relationship, leaning heavily on sensationalized scenes and tidy narratives that often stray from nuance in favor of melodrama. Producers even leaned on published source material to lend the series authority, but adaptations are not the same as rigorous history, and viewers deserve to know the difference. Already, voices who appear in the series or who are close to the story are pushing back, with one high-profile figure publicly denouncing her portrayal as inaccurate and unfair. This backlash should make conservatives and liberals alike suspicious of a media establishment that reshapes real people into caricatures for clicks and subscriptions. Members of the Kennedy family and their circle have also pushed back, reminding the country that these were flesh-and-blood people, not props for a prestige-TV romance. When descendants and acquaintances publicly question the retelling, it underlines a deeper problem: elite storytellers deciding which version of events will be broadcast to the nation. None of this erases the simple, terrible fact that John F. Kennedy Jr., Carolyn Bessette, and Lauren Bessette died in a plane crash on July 16, 1999, a date that should still give pause to any commentator thinking it’s clever to dramatize the aftermath. The crash was a tragedy, not a ratings strategy, and that distinction matters when we talk about respect for the dead and for grieving families. This isn’t just about one show; it’s about a pattern where Hollywood’s tastemakers turn sorrow into spectacle and then lecture the rest of the country about empathy while profiting off personal pain. Conservatives should call out the double standard: defenders of privacy and decency are smeared as oversensitive while the entertainment class packages intimate lives for mass consumption. If Americans want real accountability and honest storytelling, they should demand truthful context and resist the celebrity-industrial complex that monetizes tragedy. |
Friday, April 3, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
-
The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skins...
-
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
