President Donald Trump is set to ignite a yearlong patriotic party for America’s 250th birthday with a splashy kickoff in Iowa, as the Associated Press reports. The event, dripping with red-white-and-blue pride, aims to stitch a divided nation together through shared history and values. Leave it to the left to scoff at unity while waving their grievance flags.
Trump’s vision for a grand celebration of the nation’s founding in the form of a “Great American State Fair,” comes to life Thursday at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. The event features Americana displays, musical performances, and a fireworks extravaganza, with Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” setting the tone. It’s a bold move to rally Americans around their heritage, not the woke rewrite of it.
Iowa, a state that’s backed Trump in the last three elections, was handpicked for its central location and patriotic pulse. Gov. Kim Reynolds signaled the state’s readiness earlier this year, ensuring the fairgrounds will be a fitting stage. Meanwhile, Democrats, per a Gallup poll, show only a third are proud to be American -- shocker.
Ambassador Monica Crowley, Trump’s liaison to America250, calls the Iowa displays “dazzling” and the state a “logical choice.” Her enthusiasm for uniting the country through patriotism is refreshing in an era of endless division. Contrast that with the left’s obsession with tearing down statues and history.
Crowley noted the nation was “torn apart” before the 1976 bicentennial, a time of Vietnam and Watergate scars. She’s optimistic this celebration can heal today’s fractures, much like the bicentennial did. The progressive crowd, though, seems more interested in stoking polarization than celebrating shared values.
“That moment was critical to uniting the country,” Crowley said of the bicentennial’s impact. She hopes this yearlong fest will do the same, focusing on “patriotism, shared values, and civic pride.” Good luck convincing the six-in-10 Americans who, per a June AP-NORC poll, disapprove of Trump’s performance.
The Iowa event will host heavy hitters like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. Expect a night of music, history, and fireworks that scream American exceptionalism. The left, predictably, will call it a waste, as they did with the Army’s 250th anniversary parade.
Trump, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, promised a “big, big celebration” for the 250th. He even quipped about missing a second term to lead this moment, showing his knack for tying personal legacy to national pride. The man knows how to seize a stage.
Iowa’s role as the kickoff spot underscores its status as a heartland bastion of Trump support. The state’s fairgrounds will transform into a showcase of American history, from the Declaration of Independence’s adoption on July 4, 1776, to today. No doubt, the woke brigade will find something to nitpick.
Crowley sees the 250th as something “all Americans can come together to celebrate.” Her vision of honoring the nation’s past, present, and future is a rebuke to those who’d rather dwell on its flaws. The left’s allergy to patriotism, evident in that Gallup poll, won’t dampen this effort.
The celebration will culminate next year with a grand fair on the National Mall in Washington. It’s a fitting capstone for a year of events meant to remind Americans of their shared roots. Too bad four-in-10 adults, per the AP-NORC poll, might not show up to cheer.
Trump’s push for this celebration comes as Congress, led by Republicans, battles over tax cuts and spending. Democrats’ blanket opposition to the package shows their priorities lie elsewhere -- likely in pandering to the progressive base. Unity? Not their brand.
The 1976 bicentennial followed a dark chapter of national division, yet it managed to rally Americans. Crowley’s hope is that this milestone does the same, cutting through today’s toxic polarization. The odds are tough when Democrats’ pride in America barely registers.
“We’ve had so much division and polarization,” Crowley said, emphasizing the need for civic pride. Her call to bring the country together in Iowa’s heartland is a direct challenge to the left’s grievance culture. They’d rather protest than light a sparkler.
Trump’s Iowa kickoff is more than a party -- it’s a statement. In a nation where only nine-in-10 Republicans feel proud to be American, this celebration aims to reignite what unites us. The woke may roll their eyes, but the heartland is ready to salute.
Dr. Phil didn’t mince words when he tore into Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for her scathing remarks about the United States. Her recent claim that America is among the “worst countries” sparked a firestorm, and conservatives are rallying behind the TV personality's sharp rebuke, as the New York Post reports. This clash exposes a deeper divide over gratitude and national pride.
Omar, who fled Somalia’s chaos as a refugee, labeled the U.S. a crumbling democracy in a June interview with Democracy Now!. Dr. Phil, a staunch defender of American opportunity, called her comments “disgusting” while conceding her right to speak. The tension underscores a growing frustration with progressive critiques of the nation’s core values.
Born in Somalia, Omar referenced her childhood under a dictatorship to critique America’s trajectory. She pointed to President Donald Trump’s June 14 military parade, which celebrated the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, as evidence of authoritarian overreach. Her words, equating a patriotic display to dictatorial pomp, ignited fierce backlash.
“Our president is spending millions propping himself up like a failed dictator,” Omar declared, slamming the parade that coincided with Trump’s 79th birthday. Such rhetoric, conservatives argue, distorts a routine military tribute into a personal attack on national pride. Dr. Phil’s response was blunt: her disdain for America is ungrateful.
In 2019, Omar stirred outrage by proclaiming the U.S. would no longer be a “country of White people.” This remark, Dr. Phil noted, fueled perceptions of her rejecting America’s heritage. Critics see it as part of a pattern of divisive rhetoric from the congresswoman.
By 2020, Omar escalated her critique, calling for the dismantling of the “entire system of oppression” in America. Dr. Phil highlighted the irony: this “oppressive” nation welcomed her as a refugee, provided entitlements, and elevated her to Congress. Her rise, he argued, proves America’s unique openness.
In June 2021, Omar shocked many by comparing the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, citing “unthinkable atrocities” by all. “That’s crazy talk,” Dr. Phil retorted, emphasizing the moral absurdity of equating America with terrorist groups. Conservatives view this as a betrayal of the nation that gave her refuge.
Omar’s defenders argue she’s highlighting America’s flaws to push for reform. Yet her critics, including Dr. Phil, see relentless ingratitude from someone who escaped Somalia’s horrors—famine, tribal violence, and a life expectancy 30 years below the global average. Her rhetoric, they say, ignores the stark contrast between the two nations.
“If this is such a horrible country, wonder why she doesn’t return to Somalia,” Dr. Phil quipped, pointing to Somalia’s dire realities. There, 99.2% of women face female genital mutilation, and child soldiers are abducted by warlords. America, by contrast, offered Omar a path to prominence.
Somalia grapples with adult literacy below 40%, persecution of religious minorities, and execution of LGBTQ individuals. Dr. Phil underscored these brutal conditions to highlight Omar’s privileged position in America. Her criticism, he argued, dismisses the opportunities she’s been afforded.
“Most shocking, instead of gratitude for America, she has the unmitigated gall to just spew nothing but unwavering disdain,” Dr. Phil said. Conservatives nod in agreement, frustrated by Omar’s refusal to acknowledge America’s role in her success. Her narrative, they argue, fuels anti-American sentiment.
Omar’s defenders might claim she’s exercising free speech to critique policy. But Dr. Phil countered, “She has the right to say it, just like I have the right to say, ‘It’s absolutely disgusting.’” His words resonate with those who see her comments as a slap in the face to American values.
Dr. Phil’s critique didn’t stop at Omar -- he called out her voters. “Whoever voted for her now knows who they voted for and should kick her a– to the curb,” he said. This blunt appeal urges Minnesotans to reconsider supporting a figure who, in his view, disrespects the nation.
Omar’s journey from refugee to congresswoman is a testament to America’s opportunities, yet her rhetoric often paints the nation as irredeemable. Conservatives argue this contradiction undermines her credibility. Dr. Phil’s remarks amplify a broader demand for gratitude from elected officials.
The feud between Dr. Phil and Omar highlights a cultural battle over America’s identity. While Omar frames her critiques as calls for justice, conservatives like Dr. Phil see them as divisive and ungrateful. This clash will likely fuel debates over patriotism and free speech for years to come.
Harvard’s woke bubble just burst. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) dropped a bombshell Monday, accusing the Ivy League giant of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by turning a blind eye to rampant harassment of Jewish and Israeli students, as Just the News reports. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist -- it’s a wake-up call for a campus drowning in progressive dogma.
The HHS investigation, sparked by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, found Harvard fostered a hostile environment that denied Jewish and Israeli students basic educational opportunities. Anti-Israel protests morphed into a cesspool of threats, intimidation, and even physical violence. Harvard’s response? A shrug, at best.
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Harvard, swimming in $794 million of HHS cash from 2023 to 2025, clearly forgot that memo. The HHS Office for Civil Rights isn’t playing games, demanding fixes or threatening to yank the university’s federal lifeline.
Jewish students faced a nightmare: assaulted, spat on, and forced to hide kippahs to dodge harassment. A quarter felt physically unsafe, while most reported bias or discrimination. This isn’t diversity and inclusion -- it’s a campus where identity politics trumps basic decency.
An unauthorized, multiweek encampment on campus terrorized Jewish and Israeli students, disrupting their studies. Harvard’s discipline was a joke -- lax, inconsistent, and often softened by higher-ups. Not a single student was suspended, proving the university’s spine is as firm as a wet noodle.
The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, including HHS and the Departments of Education and Justice, sent a scathing letter to Harvard President Dr. Alan Garber. It slammed the university’s obsession with racial hierarchies, arguing it fueled anti-Semitism and humiliated a once-great institution. “Harvard’s commitment to racial hierarchies … has enabled anti-Semitism to fester,” the task force wrote, hitting the nail on the head.
Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton claimed the university is “far from indifferent” and “strongly disagrees” with the findings. Nice try, but words don’t erase a campus where students hide their identities to avoid ostracism. Newton’s platitudes about embracing the Jewish community ring hollow against the backdrop of HHS’s damning evidence.
“We remain committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard,” Newton added. If that’s commitment, then Harvard’s definition of respect must include tolerating calls for genocide and murder. The university’s PR spin can’t mask the chaos.
The task force didn’t mince words, noting Harvard’s failure to act has forced Jewish students into remedial math and hiding their heritage. This isn’t academic rigor -- it’s a cultural surrender to woke ideology that sorts people by victimhood status. The result? A campus where merit and safety take a backseat.
HHS warned that failure to implement “adequate changes immediately” could strip Harvard of all federal funds. That’s a $794 million gut punch, not to mention the hit to Harvard’s already shaky reputation. The task force suggested operating without federal privileges might force Harvard to rediscover excellence -- a polite way of saying “get your act together.”
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources,” the task force stated. Harvard’s addiction to federal dollars might finally force accountability. Or it could double down on its progressive experiment, alienating students and donors alike.
HHS Office for Civil Rights Director Paula Stannard called Harvard’s disciplinary pledges “inadequate” to address the violations. She’s right—tweaking a broken system won’t cut it when students fear for their safety. Harvard’s half-measures are like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.
Stannard offered a lifeline, saying HHS is ready to discuss “corrective action” to bring Harvard into compliance. But the clock’s ticking, and the feds aren’t known for patience when civil rights are at stake. Harvard’s next move will either salvage its legacy or cement its fall.
The investigation’s roots trace back to the Trump administration’s earlier threats to cut Harvard’s funding over similar issues. Court battles and risks to research grants and foreign student enrollment have plagued the university since. History is repeating itself, and Harvard still hasn’t learned.
Harvard can ignore the feds and limp along without federal support, but at what cost? The task force hinted at a silver lining: losing federal strings might spark a return to excellence. For now, Harvard is stuck in the crosshairs, and its woke playbook isn’t saving anyone.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is playing coy with his support for Zohran Mamdani, the Democrats’ pick for New York City mayor. His hesitation signals a rift in the party’s progressive push, hinting at deeper concerns about Mamdani’s radical rhetoric, as ABC News reports. Conservatives might chuckle at the left’s predictable infighting.
Jeffries has not endorsed Mamdani, despite the candidate’s campaign dominating the Democratic Party primary through a relentless focus on New York City’s soaring living costs. Mamdani’s victory came from outworking and out-communicating his rivals, but Jeffries’ cold shoulder suggests not all Democrats are sold. This pause could spell trouble for the left’s unity.
On Wednesday, Jeffries and Mamdani spoke, marking what was said to be their first real exchange since their districts don’t overlap. Jeffries admitted they barely know each other, a fact that underscores the party’s fractured connections. It’s almost comical how Democrats expect to govern a city while being strangers to their nominees.
Jeffries praised Mamdani’s campaign hustle but stopped short of an endorsement, citing the need for a face-to-face meeting in Central Brooklyn. He wants Mamdani to clarify his stance on Israel and antisemitism, particularly the inflammatory phrase “Globalizing the Intifada.” That kind of rhetoric doesn’t sit well with Jeffries’ Jewish constituents.
“Globalizing the Intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries said. Mamdani’s failure to distance himself from such terms raises red flags for conservatives, who see it as another sign of the left’s flirtation with extremism. Voters deserve clarity, not vague platitudes.
Jeffries, representing Jewish communities, stressed that Mamdani must address New York City’s rising antisemitism head-on. The Democratic Party nominee’s silence on this issue could alienate key voters and fuel perceptions of a party soft on hate. It’s a self-inflicted wound the left can ill afford.
On Friday, Jeffries shifted focus to national security, attending a classified House briefing on U.S. strikes against Iran. He questioned the Trump administration’s failure to seek congressional approval, a move conservatives might argue prioritizes action over bureaucratic delays. Jeffries’ constitutional concerns feel like posturing when national security is at stake.
“Why did they not seek the congressional authorization required by the Constitution for this type of preemptive strike?” Jeffries asked. His skepticism ignores the urgency of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a threat conservatives view as non-negotiable. Democrats seem more interested in process than results.
Jeffries also challenged Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program was obliterated, demanding evidence. While transparency matters, conservatives might see this as undermining a decisive strike against a hostile regime. The left’s reflex to question strength only emboldens America’s enemies.
Also on Friday, the Supreme Court partially stayed injunctions against Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. Jeffries called it a “procedural setback,” whining about a ruling that aligns with conservative calls to curb unchecked immigration. The Constitution’s clarity on citizenship isn’t as absolute as Democrats claim.
“If there is any instance where nationwide injunctions are appropriate, it would be in a manner like what we’ve just experienced in terms of birthright citizenship,” Jeffries said. His indignation rings hollow when millions of Americans demand tighter borders. The left’s obsession with open policies fuels voter frustration.
Jeffries vowed Democrats would “intensify efforts” in district courts or pursue class action suits to challenge the ruling. This legal warfare reeks of desperation, as conservatives argue the courts should respect the executive’s prerogative. Democrats’ endless lawsuits only clog the system and delay reform.
Jeffries tied Mamdani’s campaign to the broader Democratic Party focus on affordability, criticizing Trump for failing to lower costs. “Donald Trump promised to lower costs on Day 1. Costs haven’t gone down, they’re going up,” he said. Yet conservatives point out that Democratic policies, like unchecked spending, drive inflation higher.
Mamdani’s economic message resonated, but Jeffries’ reluctance to embrace him suggests doubts about the candidate’s ability to deliver. The left loves to promise relief while ignoring their role in skyrocketing prices. Voters aren’t as gullible as Democrats hope.
As Jeffries and Mamdani prepare to meet, the Democratic Party’s fractures are on full display. Conservatives can only watch with amusement as the left grapples with its own contradictions. New York City’s future hangs in the balance, and the right smells an opportunity.
Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, just clinched the Democratic Party primary for New York City’s mayoral race, leaving jaws on the floor. On Tuesday, he trounced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a political heavyweight with a checkered past. This victory signals a hard-left lurch for the city that never sleeps.
Mamdani’s win over Cuomo in the primary, followed by glowing praise from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, sums up this political earthquake, as the Washington Free Beacon reports. His campaign, backed by far-left icons like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leaned heavily on radical promises. Yet, his rhetoric has sparked serious concerns about divisiveness.
A card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani rode a wave of anti-establishment fervor to victory. His platform reads like a progressive fever dream: government-run grocery stores, rent freezes, free transit, and a $30 minimum wage. These ideas might thrill the Brooklyn coffee shop crowd, but they’re a tough sell for New Yorkers scraping by.
Schumer, who’s no stranger to New York’s political machine, called Mamdani’s campaign “impressive” for connecting on “affordability, fairness, & opportunity.” That’s a polite way of dodging the socialist elephant in the room. Praising affordability while ignoring Mamdani’s extreme economic plans feels like applauding a chef for presentation while the kitchen is on fire.
Jeffries, equally effusive, claimed Mamdani “outworked, out-organized, and out-communicated” his rivals. He gushed about Mamdani’s “relentless focus on affordability” resonating across the city. But endorsing a candidate whose policies could bankrupt the city raises questions about Jeffries’ priorities.
Mamdani’s affordability pitch might sound noble, but his numbers don’t add up. A $30 minimum wage and free transit could crater the city’s budget faster than a Wall Street crash. The Wall Street Journal didn’t mince words, slamming his economic extremism as a recipe for disaster.
Beyond economics, Mamdani’s anti-Israel stance has ignited fierce backlash. He’s defended the chant “globalize the intifada,” a phrase tied to anti-Israel protests that calls for violence against Jews worldwide. This isn’t just rhetoric -- it’s a dog whistle that alarms many in New York’s Jewish community.
Mamdani has also refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and backs the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. He’s even vowed not to visit Israel if elected mayor. These positions aren’t just controversial -- they’re a slap in the face to a city with deep Jewish roots.
Schumer, who is Jewish, conspicuously avoided mentioning Mamdani’s anti-Semitic comments in his X post. He’s worked with Mamdani before on taxi worker issues, but sidestepping this issue feels like political cowardice. New Yorkers deserve leaders who confront hate, not dodge it.
Jeffries, speaking with Mamdani earlier this week, plans to meet him soon in Central Brooklyn. He doubled down, saying America faces an “affordability crisis.” But hitching his wagon to Mamdani’s radical star could alienate moderate Democrats who still value fiscal sanity.
Schumer also spoke with Mamdani that morning and plans a face-to-face meeting. His silence on Mamdani’s anti-Semitism is deafening, especially for a senator who’s built a career on bridging divides. Cozying up to a divisive figure risks fracturing the party’s coalition.
The New York Times editorial board didn’t hold back with its take on the situation, declaring Mamdani unfit to lead the city. They see his inexperience and radicalism as a liability for a metropolis facing complex challenges. When even the Times calls you out, you’re on thin ice.
The Wall Street Journal echoed that sentiment, blasting Mamdani’s economic and foreign policy stances as dangerously out of touch. New York’s mayor needs to govern for all, not just the socialist faithful. Mamdani’s primary win suggests a city hungry for change, but at what cost?
Schumer and Jeffries’ embrace of Mamdani shows how far left the Democratic Party establishment may be willing to swing. Their praise might energize the progressive base, but it could repel voters who see Mamdani’s policies as a one-way ticket to economic ruin. New Yorkers will decide if this gamble pays off.
As Mamdani barrels toward the general election, his victory exposes a Democratic Party at a crossroads. Will the city embrace his utopian promises, or will voters reject a candidate whose rhetoric and policies threaten to divide and destabilize? The Big Apple’s future hangs in the balance.
Usha Vance, wife of Vice President J.D. Vance, isn’t ruling out a fourth child despite the grueling demands of motherhood. In a candid YouTube interview with Meghan McCain, the 39-year-old Yale Law grad opened up about her pregnancy struggles and family plans. Her “never say never” quip teases a potential historic first: no vice president has had a baby in office.
On Wednesday’s Citizen McCain show, Usha shared that she and J.D., parents to Ewan (8), Vivek (5), and Mirabel (3), are mulling over expanding their brood, as the Daily Mail reports. The couple, both Yale Law alumni, always wanted kids after marriage, but initially planned for two. Usha’s push for a third child flipped their script, and now J.D. is eyeing a fourth.
Usha’s pregnancies weren’t easy -- she battled anemia each time, sapping her energy. “So during pregnancy, I was prone to anemia, which just makes you so tired,” she said. Leave it to the progressive obsession with overwork to ignore how real these physical tolls are on mothers.
Mrs. Vance's third pregnancy was especially brutal, with a trial right before Mirabel’s birth leaving her “completely exhausted.” Yet, Usha credits the chaos of motherhood with sharpening her efficiency. Woke culture’s push for women to “do it all” conveniently glosses over how such demands can break even the toughest.
Despite the challenges, Usha finds joy in her three-kid “pack.” She told McCain, “The oldest will take care of the youngest one.” This organic family dynamic is a refreshing rebuke to the left’s nanny-state fixation on outsourcing parenting.
The Vances’ eldest, Ewan, arrived seven weeks before Usha’s Supreme Court clerkship under Chief Justice John Roberts. That transition from nocturnal newborn life to high-stakes legal work was “zero to 60,” she said. It’s a stark reminder of the real sacrifices mothers make, not the sanitized version peddled by feminist talking points.
Usha’s shift to daytime functionality during her clerkship reshaped her professional life. “It showed me how much time I had been wasting before,” she admitted. Her ability to adapt under pressure exposes the lie that women need government handouts to juggle work and family.
Going from zero to one child was “an enormous shock” for Usha, flipping her world upside down. One to two kids was manageable, but two to three? Shockingly, the easiest is that families grow stronger through experience, not bureaucratic meddling.
Usha grew up with one sibling, while J.D. primarily had his sister, shaping their initial two-kid plan. “I thought maybe I would have two kids, and I would think I’m done,” she said. The left’s one-size-fits-all family models don’t account for personal histories or instincts.
Now, with three kids thriving, J.D. is the one floating a fourth. Usha’s “we’ll see where that leads” keeps the door open but grounded. Contrast that with the elite’s push for smaller families to “save the planet” -- a dogma that ignores the joy of a bustling household.
Meghan McCain, 40, shared news of her own: she is expecting her third child, a boy, with husband Ben Domenech. “Well congratulations, that’s so exciting!” Usha responded. The mutual respect between these women cuts through the woke noise that pits mothers against each other.
Usha reassured McCain, saying, “So you may be in for a surprise,” about her third child. Her optimism about family life is a middle finger to the cultural pessimism that demonizes large families. Real women like Usha aren’t buying the overpopulation scare tactics.
No vice president has welcomed a child in office, though President Grover Cleveland’s daughter Esther was born in the White House. A Vance baby during J.D.’s term would make history. Imagine the media meltdown over a conservative family daring to thrive under such scrutiny.
Usha’s journey from anemia-plagued pregnancies to contemplating a fourth child is a testament to resilience. “Not being anemic was like, you know, high on life,” she said about post-pregnancy relief. Her grit shames the victimhood culture that tells women they’re too weak for motherhood’s demands.
The Vances’ story is a powerful counterpoint to the progressive narrative that families need constant government coddling. Usha’s drive to balance career, kids, and maybe more proves conservative values -- self-reliance, faith, family -- still win. As she and J.D. weigh a fourth, they’re living proof that real strength lies in embracing life’s challenges, not whining for a bailout.
