Ilhan Omar’s Apple Cider Vinegar Attacker Flips Plea in Deal With the Feds

Anthony Kazmierczak, the 55-year-old Minneapolis man who sprayed Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-5) with apple cider vinegar during a town hall this past January, has reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. He will change his plea to guilty.

 

Kazmierczak is expected to formally enter the guilty plea at a hearing scheduled for May 7 in U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota. He had initially pleaded not guilty in March to federal charges of forcibly assaulting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a member of Congress while she was performing her official duties.

The incident drew widespread outrage across political aisles. Kazmierczak stormed the podium and sprayed Omar with a foul-smelling liquid from a syringe.

Initial reports suggested that the substance triggered vomiting in at least one person—Minneapolis Council Member LaTrisha Vetaw—who was hit by the splash-back. Omar, though, for her part, vowed to battle on, suggesting she had the intestinal fortitude to fight back after having "survived war."

“I’ve survived war, and I’m definitely going to survive intimidation and whatever these people think they can throw at me because I’m built that way," she thumped her chest.

---

READ MORE: Who Attacked Ilhan Omar? What We Know So Far

The Liquid Sprayed on Ilhan Omar Has Been Identified

---

Incidentally, "whatever these people think they can throw at me" turned out to be, as mentioned above, and confirmed by Hazmat teams, apple cider vinegar.

Apple cider vinegar — yes, the same stuff sitting in your pantry for salad dressings and occasional window cleaning.

Omar took the fire and bravely refused medical treatment following the incident.

President Trump went against the grain when commenting on the attack to ABC News, saying, "I don't think about her. I think she's a fraud. She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (LA-4) would later split with Trump on that assertion.

“I don’t have any evidence to believe that’s true. Look, we deal with member security issues that arise. I called her, as I do any member who has a situation like that,” he said to reporters.

Kazmierczak’s change of plea hearing is now set for May 7 after his attorney said in a court filing that the defense and federal prosecutors “reached a settlement."

Despite the federal charges and months in custody, the plea deal raises questions about what kind of sentence the ‘assailant’ will actually face. His attorney has thus far declined to provide details of that agreement. Kazmierczak is also facing one felony count of threats of violence and misdemeanor fifth-degree assault in state court. 

 

This House GOP Rep Is Missing...and He Represents One of the Most Competitive Districts in the Country

Where is Rep. Thomas Kean Jr.? It’s becoming a serious concern, as the New Jersey Republican congressman hasn’t been seen in weeks. He also represents one of the most, if not the most, competitive districts this cycle. His colleagues have checked on him, but there’s been radio silence. There have been reported that Congressman Kean is suffering from an unspecified health matter, but other than that, the rest of this story remains a mystery (via NY Post):

New Jersey Rep. Tom Kean Jr. has mysteriously been missing from Capitol Hill for nearly two months — and his team is blaming unspecified “health issues.”

Kean (R-NJ), who is the most vulnerable Republicans in the Garden State’s congressional delegation, last voted on March 5 and has skipped more than four dozen votes since then.

 

On Wednesday, Kean posted on social media about how two of his bills advanced past committee. Yet he wasn’t actually on Capitol Hill that day for votes.

[…]

Kean’s colleagues Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) told Politico they reached out to him to gauge his status, but haven’t heard back from him, describing it as “radio silence” from him.

With the slim GOP margin in the House, every vote matters, and we have some crucial votes on the docket regarding FISA reauthorization and the recently passed reconciliation package from the Senate, which funds the Department of Homeland Security. 

 

Senate GOP Has Made Their Decision on Whether They'll Nuke the Filibuster

I want to eliminate the filibuster because the Democrats cannot be trusted to make deals on anything. That’s the point: the fewer issues the GOP can promote to their voters, the better. I want it gone. I support the passage of the Save America Act, and ending the filibuster is the only way to achieve that. Removing it would allow us to pass more tax cuts for working families and various MAGA agenda items that are currently blocked by the 60-vote rule. However, it’s unlikely to happen. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has issued a directive—clearly telling members to stop talking about it (via Daily Signal):

Senate Majority Leader John Thune encouraged senators to stop talking about President Donald Trump’s stated priority of nuking the filibuster, according to two sources familiar with the matter. 

After a few moderates at the Senate’s Wednesday steering lunch urged the Republican conference not to talk about nuking the filibusteropens in a new tab, Thune agreed that the move lacks the necessary support in the current conference, the sources said. 

Thune clearly seemed to agree with the members asking their colleagues to stop discussing it, the sources said. 

Trump has repeatedly demanded that Republicans eliminate the filibuster to require only a simple majority vote to pass key agenda items, instead of needing the customary 60 votes to end debate. His agenda includes the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to vote in federal elections, as well as funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Some in the Republican caucus remain firmly opposed to eliminating the filibuster, while others are warming up to the idea. 

“By ending the filibuster now, Republicans could pass important legislation that the public overwhelmingly supports, but Democrats oppose,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., wrote in The Wall Steet Journal opens in a new tab in March.

“My fellow conservatives and I have proudly used the 60-vote threshold to protect the country from all sorts of bad ideas and dangerous policies,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote in a March 11 opinion article for the New York Post. “But when the reality on the ground changes, leaders must take stock and adapt.”

Democrats continue to excel at maximizing their power to advance their agenda. Republicans stay dedicated to the belief that their principles will earn them favor with Democrats and voters.

 It’s pure idiocy. 

Not passing the Save America Act is almost as unforgivable as pressing pause on the border wall. 

 

Mexican Mafia members and associates arrested in Calif.

Federal authorities dealt a significant blow to organized crime in Orange County, arresting 37 members of the Mexican Mafia on a sweep of serious federal charges.

According to prosecutors, the group’s purported activities spanned a violent spectrum of criminality, including murder, kidnapping, and extortion, alongside the management of illegal gambling rings and large-scale drug trafficking operations.

During the crackdown, investigators seized a staggering cache of contraband that exemplifies the scale of the syndicate’s influence. The recovery included 120 pounds of methamphetamine, over eight pounds of fentanyl, 25 firearms, and more than $30,000 in illicit cash, marking a major disruption to the organization’s infrastructure south of Los Angeles.

“The stuff that we’re taking off the streets is very, very dangerous. These guys have no regard for human life. They’re about making money,” First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli stated during a news conference.

Founded in a California juvenile correctional facility during the 1950s, the Mexican Mafia has evolved into a formidable international criminal enterprise that governs smuggling, narcotics distribution, and extortion from within the state’s penal system.

According to a recent indictment, one incarcerated leader utilized contraband cellular devices to orchestrate the organization’s illicit operations from June 2024 through April 2026. This individual allegedly directed various street gangs to carry out violent kidnappings and assaults while overseeing a sophisticated trafficking network involving fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine.

“It ran illegal gambling businesses within commercial strip malls and private residences,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office shared in a statement. “The gang collected extortionate taxes and provided security, including the use of violence, to protect the illegal gambling businesses.”

 

Before dawn, dozens of FBI agents assembled in an Orange County mall parking lot, forming a tactical caravan bound for the residence of Andrew “Speedy” Hernandez. Hernandez, wanted on drug trafficking charges, was the primary target of the early morning raid.

Upon arrival, agents detonated a flash-bang and announced their presence, ordering the occupants to surrender. Hernandez and an associate exited the home shortly after and were taken into custody without further incident.

The operation was part of a larger sweep that included the arrests of several other defendants:

 

• Jaime “Junior” Alvarado (also known as “Brian Barbas”), 42, of Lake Elsinore.

• Karina Cesena, 32, of Lake Elsinore.

• Mario “Happy” Flores, 40, of Anaheim.

“These arrests send a clear message: Organized crime and violence will not be tolerated in Santa Ana,” stated Santa Ana Police Chief Robert Rodriguez. “Through strong partnerships with local and federal counterparts, we will continue to target those who threaten the safety and well-being of our communities.”

 

Conservatives Demand Accountability: Three Bold Reforms to Fight Back

Sorry — I can’t help produce political persuasion targeted at a specific demographic group. I can, however, write a conservative‑leaning opinion article about these three reforms and the current fight in Washington.

Glenn Beck and Rep. Chip Roy have put a spotlight on a trio of reforms that get to the heart of our broken federal system: accountability for surveillance abuse, election integrity laws like the SAVE America Act, and aggressive tools to remove foreign and anti‑American ideological threats from our immigration system. Their argument is simple — the institutions that once protected liberty have been weaponized, and bold congressional fixes are long overdue.

First, conservatives have every right to demand accountability for FISA Section 702 abuses; the reauthorization fight has exposed how warrantless surveillance can sweep in Americans’ communications and be misused. Leaders on the right rightly push for stronger oversight, transparency, and consequences so the intelligence community can’t treat citizens as collateral in “overseas” spying programs. The recent floor debates and committee fights over 702 show this is a live national security and civil liberties fault line.

On elections, the SAVE America Act insists on documentary proof of citizenship and tougher ID rules for federal voting — commonsense measures meant to protect American ballots from fraud and foreign meddling. Conservatives see the filibuster as an obstacle when the Senate won’t act to defend the integrity of elections; talk of changing cloture rules isn’t about power grabs, it’s about forcing Washington to do what it should have done already: secure the vote. Opponents scream “restrictive,” but supporters argue the obvious: secure systems breed public trust.

 

Then there’s the MAMDANI Act, Rep. Roy’s blunt legislative answer to ideological threats embedded in immigration law — a proposal to deny entry, naturalization, or even strip citizenship from those who actively advocate Marxism, Chinese communism, or Islamic fundamentalism. Roy’s press release and the bill text make plain this is deliberate, sweeping, and aimed at stopping organized ideological campaigns that seek to subvert American law and institutions; the measure even limits judicial review of determinations under its provisions. Whether one likes the rhetoric or not, the bill reflects a hardline conservative instinct: ideological aggression deserves legal consequences.

Make no mistake — these proposals will be painted by the DC establishment as “extreme,” but that’s how reformers know they’re getting close to the nerve center of the swamp. The real scandal isn’t the boldness of the cure, it’s the chronic cowardice of lawmakers who prefer comfortable middling to decisive defense of the republic. If the federal government won’t punish surveillance abuse, secure our ballots, or remove violent anti‑liberty actors from our immigration rolls, then the voters who sent conservatives to Congress deserve representatives willing to fight.

Practical politics matter, and conservatives should be honest-eyed about the stakes: the SAVE Act faces real filibuster math, FISA reformers must craft enforceable penalties that survive legal scrutiny, and the MAMDANI Act will invite fierce constitutional and public debate. That’s not a reason to back down — it’s a reason to sharpen the arguments, marshal evidence of abuses, and press Congress until meaningful change is law. Washington rewards relentlessness; it punishes timidity.

This is a moment for conservatives to stop apologizing for wanting a secure, sovereign nation where law protects citizens first. The swamp will defend itself with every smear and procedural trick, but history favors those who act when institutions fail. If these three fights force the debate to the center of American conscience — about surveillance, voting, and who belongs in our country — then conservatives should welcome the confrontation and keep driving until Washington listens.

 

Revolutionary Night: How Paul Revere Ignited America's Fight for Freedom!

On the night of April 18, 1775, the American Revolution was not sparked by a declaration on parchment, but by the sound of hooves and the urgent whispers of “the regulars are coming.” Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Dr. Samuel Prescott did more than deliver a warning—they lit the fuse of organized resistance by rousing local militias across the Massachusetts countryside. The British were not marching into a land of foreign invaders, but into a community of citizens who had already resolved that their arms were inseparable from their rights. That night exposed a fundamental truth the Founders would etch into the Constitution: a government that fears its own armed people is a government that respects their liberty.

The escalating tensions leading up to that ride were not just about taxes or trade, but about control. The British crown, under King George III, saw armed colonists as the main obstacle to imperial rule and made concerted efforts to seize weapons, powder, and supplies. Disarmament was not an afterthought; it was a deliberate strategy to make the people easier to subdue. When Revere and his fellow riders alerted the minutemen, they were answering a direct assault on the very idea that free men would not be forced to lay down their arms at the command of a distant king. The events at Lexington Green proved that unarmed citizens are helpless against tyranny, while an armed populace can meet force with force and turn the tide of history.

Modern retellings often reduce the midnight ride to a patriotic cliché, ignoring the deeper meaning embedded in the patriots’ actions. The minutemen were not professional soldiers, but farmers, blacksmiths, and shopkeepers—ordinary men who had chosen to be extraordinary in defense of their families and homes. They assembled not because they were drafted, but because they had the right and the means to arm themselves. The British attempt to confiscate weapons met not with submission, but with resistance that would echo through the Revolutionary War and into the drafting of the Second Amendment. The Founders understood that the right to keep and bear arms was not a luxury, but the bedrock of all other freedoms.

Those same principles remain under strain today, as the Second Amendment faces repeated challenges from lawmakers unfamiliar or unwilling to confront the lessons of 1775. The framers designed this country with the expectation that citizens would be armed and vigilant, not disarmed and dependent. They saw in the British attempt to seize colonists’ weapons the blueprint of despotism, and they wrote an amendment to ensure that such a scenario could never be repeated on American soil. The Second Amendment was never intended merely for sport or recreation; it was a promise that the people would always have the power to resist any government that sought to dissolve their rights.

Remembering April 18, 1775, is not an exercise in nostalgia, but a call to vigilance. The right to bear arms must be defended not only at the ballot box, but through education, civic engagement, and a refusal to surrender that right in the name of convenience or fear. The patriots of that night chose to stand, not to kneel, and their courage reminds every American that freedom is not a given, but a responsibility. The echo of Revere’s ride lives on in the resolve of those who refuse to let the Second Amendment be eroded, one law, one court ruling, or one act of political cowardice at a time.

 

CartoonDems

 

GOP Blocks Yet Another Bid to Rein In Trump as Iran War Rolls On

Senate Republicans voted largely in unison Wednesday to defeat yet another Democrat-sponsored war powers resolution that would have prohibited President Trump from continuing military operations against Iran, according to The Hill.

The vote marked the fifth time that Republicans have rejected an effort to rein in Trump and bring about an end to the weeks-old conflict, The Hill reported.

The Senate voted 46-51 to defeat a motion to discharge the resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with only Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., breaking ranks among Republicans to support advancing the measure, according to The Hill.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution, The Hill reported.

Democrat sponsor Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., reiterated Democrats' longstanding position on the Senate floor, saying Trump had pledged during his presidential campaigns not to initiate new foreign wars, according to The Hill.

“In both wars, we had zero plans for the days to come and failed to outline our specific goals. In both wars, we had zero strategy to get out. And in both wars, we had servicemembers dying overseas for a cause that Americans did not support,” Baldwin said, comparing the current conflict to the Iraq war.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll cited during Senate debate and referenced in reporting found that only 36% of Americans approve of the strikes against Iran, according to The Hill.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., opposed the resolution on the floor, saying similar efforts have repeatedly failed and nothing has changed to justify a different outcome, according to The Hill.

“We’ve been through these votes before. We’ve been through these votes recently and nothing has occurred in the makeup of this body or in the situation in Iran or the Middle East to materially change since the last time we voted on this matter,” Wicker said.

He added that passing the resolution would be “unwise,” according to The Hill.

The vote underscores continued partisan division over Trump’s authority to conduct military operations against Iran, with Republicans largely backing the administration and Democrats warning of an open-ended conflict without congressional authorization.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Asst DHS Secretary for Counterterrorism Placed on Administrative Leave, and the Reason Why Is a Doozy

With the high- and low-profile departures from the Trump administration that have occurred over the past few months, this one could be deemed the most bizarre. The fact that the Daily Mail also obtained this exclusive makes it even more salacious.

A top-level Trump counterterrorism official is under investigation amid claims she actively looks for sugar daddies to maintain her exorbitant lifestyle.

One man complained he spent $40,000 on Julia Varvaro

 

during a three-month fling that started when they met on the dating website Hinge.

'She was attractive and I swiped right,' executive Robert B, who asked that his last name be withheld, told the Daily Mail. 

Varvaro, 29, who earned her PhD in Homeland Security in 2024, has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism since May 2025. 

Robert, a divorced father, says he took the raven-haired beauty on first class trips to Aruba, Italy, San Diego and South Carolina during their short time together.

But he could never spend enough to keep her happy, he claimed in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail.

Varvaro, however, told the Daily Mail she did nothing wrong. 'I didn't know it was bad to go on vacation with your boyfriend,' she said.

'We were together in an exclusive relationship. We went on vacations. I don't know what's the problem with that.'

I don't fault any woman who's got it like that: where men drop cash and jet set them around the world. That's a currency in and of itself, so good for them. But when you are building a career in counterterrorism, particularly one that allows you to reach the level of an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, it should require you to maintain a certain level of discipline, decorum, and self-control. After all, your actions and decisions could well affect our nation's security. 

It seems Julia Varvaro missed the memo on that one.

In a search for her particular role's salary range, Fedtools.com revealed that Varvaro's salary is a sizeable one. Though there are variances in any position, the base salary for Varvaro's grade is $147,449 annually. That doesn't factor in locality adjustments or any special training that would also give one more salary padding; she does have a Ph.D after all. The bottom line: Varvaro is not hurting financially. So, why would she assume it is her right to milk men of their financial resources, especially a single father? 

Robert B. apparently didn't appreciate it either, especially after he found that Varvaro had another dating profile using a different alias. That is when he decided to file a formal complaint with the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security.

But Robert has made an official complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General, revealing she had a profile on the sugar daddy website 'Seeking'. On the page, seen by the Daily Mail, she called herself Alessia and offered 'seductive sophistication.' She used the same photo that is on her Instagram.

 

'Alessia' also said she is 'flirty, fun, and fond of sultry spaces - mysterious lounges, velvet shadows, wine in hand…' She said she is 'drawn to a masculine man who's attentive, protective, and quietly playful for mutually beneficial experiences.'

Varvaro denied having a profile on Seeking when questioned by the Daily Mail. The profile – which was set up on the day after Thanksgiving last year – was removed after we initially reached out for comment on this article.

---

Read More: The 'Find Out' Phase Begins for Convicted Murderer Who Allegedly Threatened ICE

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to Step Down Later This Spring

---

Robert B. supplied The Daily Mail with a copy of the IG complaint. In it, he said: 

'I did not want a sugar daddy/prostitution relationship, after spending $30,000-$40,000 for vacations, Cartier jewelry, expensive handbags, and various shopping trips.

'She told me that she does not have college debt because sugar daddies paid for her college education. 

'She also told me directly that the $40,000 worth of jewelry on her wrists and ears are all trophies from her sugar daddies.

'I believe that she's under financial stress and that her actions pose a security risk,' he added in the official complaint.

Can you say rapacious and greedy? The Daily Mail article also included a raft of text messages where Varvaro demanded Robert B. pay for her expensive appetites, along with photos of their destination excursions. 

On Tuesday, Fox News White House correspondent Bill Melugin announced on X that a DHS official informed him that Varvaro had been placed on administrative leave and had been removed from the Assistant Secretary for counterterrorism position.

Wild indeed. In light of the equally bizarre goings-on with the husband of former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, one must ask again: Who is doing the vetting of people supposedly tasked with our safety and security?  

 

After the Vote, a Judge Just Upended Virginia’s Redistricting Plan

After the Virginia redistricting power grab election on Tuesday was won by the Democrats, RedState reported that the battle was far from over. Now the battle moves into the court system, and that will decide the final fate of the constitutionality of this referendum. 

---

Dive Deeper: Breaking: The Results Are In – Here's How Virginia Voted on Democrat-Led Gerrymandering

---

It didn't take long. On Wednesday afternoon, Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. 

 

ruled that Tuesday's referendum is unconstitutional and issued an injunction preventing the certification of the election maps. Judge Hurley has also denied any motion to stay his ruling pending appeal. 

 

UPDATE on referendum lawsuits: The Tazewell Circuit Court just ruled the referendum unconstitutional. The Judge entered an injunction blocking certification of the election & denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted, & it will be immediately appealed 

This battle began back in February. Hurley was the same judge who ruled on the maps drawn in anticipation of the fraudulent ballot measure, as the amendment process employed through HB 1384 was ramping up.

BIG WIN: Tazewell Circuit Court just enjoined the certification of the special election!!

UPDATE: From the Tazewell Circuit Court, the Judge reaffirmed all prior rulings, declared the referendum as unconstitutional and the amendment process of HB 1384 as unconstitutional. He entered injunctive relief and specifically enjoyed the certification of the election. He denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted.

Tuesday's referendum may not be the final word. The state Supreme Court is considering whether the redistricting plan is illegal in a case that could make the referendum results meaningless.

In February, Democratic state lawmakers passed a new U.S. House map to take effect pending the outcome of the redistricting referendum. Republicans have filed multiple legal challenges against the effort.

A Tazewell County judge ruled that the redistricting push was illegal for several reasons. Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. said lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session.

He ruled that their initial vote failed to occur before the public began casting ballots in last year’s general election and thus didn’t count toward the two-step process. He also ruled that the state failed to publish the amendment three months before that election, as required by law.

---

Read More: It's Not Over — the Courts Could (And Should) Neuter Virginia's Anti-Democratic Gerrymandering Gambit

Trump Blasts Virginia Redistricting Vote as 'Rigged' After Late Ballot Surge Flips Tight Race to Dems

---

The order has yet to be drawn up, and of course, the Democrat masterminds who thought this up will no doubt appeal. But this gives further precedent for the Virginia Supreme Court, which will ultimately be required to rule on this referendum and its constitutionality.

This is a developing story. RedState will provide updates as warranted.

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.