News Picks Daily

News Picked For You
So You Don't Have To
Please Support by Following
- coming soon

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Democrat Claims the Fight for LGBTQ Equality Is as Urgent as It Was in 1969 — Here’s Why That’s Completely False

Congresswoman Andrea Salinas posted that the fight for “LGBTQIA+ equality remains as urgent as it was in 1969,” the year of the Stonewall uprising.

This is a lie dressed up as activism.

What 1969 Actually Looked Like
In 1969:
Homosexual acts were still illegal in most states.
Gay people could be arrested simply for being in a gay bar.
You could be fired from your job, denied housing, or kicked out of the military for being gay with almost no legal recourse.
There was no same-sex marriage, no domestic partnership recognition, and very little social acceptance.
Being openly gay often meant risking your career, your family, and your safety.

That was a real fight for basic legal equality and personal freedom.

What 2026 Looks Like

Today:
Same-sex marriage has been the law of the land for over a decade.
Gay people have full legal protections in employment, housing, adoption, and military service.
Major corporations, universities, Hollywood, the media, and the federal government actively celebrate Pride every June.
Being gay is not just accepted — in many elite institutions, it is a social advantage.
The legal and social battles that defined the gay rights movement have been won. What Salinas and the modern LGBTQ movement are now calling an “urgent fight” is something entirely different.

The Bait-and-Switch

The current “fight” is no longer primarily about gay people living their lives in peace.
It is about:
Forcing society to accept that men can become women
Putting biological males in women’s sports, bathrooms, and shelters
Medicalizing confused children with hormones and surgeries
Demanding that everyone use preferred pronouns or be labeled a bigot
Expanding the definition of “equality” into compelled affirmation of gender ideology

These are not the same goals as 1969. They are a radical extension that many gay people themselves reject.

When politicians like Andrea Salinas claim the fight is “as urgent as it was in 1969,” they are deliberately conflating two very different eras to keep the grievance machine running. They need the public to believe that gay people are still facing the same level of oppression as they did when being gay could get you thrown in jail.

That narrative is false. Gay Americans won. What remains is a different movement — one focused on gender identity, institutional capture, and punishing dissent — being sold under the old branding of gay rights.

The urgency claim is not about protecting gay people. It is about maintaining political power and cultural dominance by pretending the revolution is never finished.

[Congresswoman Andrea Salinas @RepSalinas]

On the anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, we recognize the protesters whose bravery ignited a movement.

Their actions remind us that the fight for LGBTQIA+ equality remains as urgent as it was in 1969.

As a Vice Chair of the @EqualityCaucus, I am proud to stand with you in this fight.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

New Mexico Governor Celebrates Pride While Backing Policies That Let Biological Men Into Women’s Bathrooms

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham released a standard Pride Day statement celebrating the LGBTQ+ community and declaring that “everyone deserves the freedom to live authentically.”
When politicians use the phrase “live authentically,” they are almost always including the policy of allowing biological males who identify as women to access female bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prisons.

Does New Mexico Allow Men in Women’s Bathrooms?
Yes.

New Mexico’s Human Rights Act treats gender identity as a protected class. In practice, this means biological males are permitted to enter women’s bathrooms and other sex-segregated spaces in many public and private facilities across the state. Schools, government buildings, and businesses that follow state non-discrimination guidance routinely allow men who identify as transgender into female restrooms and changing areas.

This is not theoretical. It is the direct result of the same ideology the governor is celebrating.

What “Live Authentically” Actually Means

Lujan Grisham’s language sounds warm and inclusive on the surface. In reality, it is a defense of policies that erase sex-based protections for women and girls.

When she says people should be free to “live authentically” and that New Mexico will make sure “every person knows they belong here,” she is endorsing the idea that a man’s feelings override a woman’s right to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces.

This includes:
Biological males in women’s bathrooms
Biological males in girls’ locker rooms and sports
Biological males in women’s domestic violence shelters

All in the name of inclusion.

Women fought for decades for sex-segregated spaces precisely because of the physical differences between men and women and the reality of male violence. Those hard-won protections are being dismantled under the banner of “Pride” and “authenticity.”

Governor Lujan Grisham can post all the rainbow statements she wants. The practical effect of the policies she supports is that women and girls in New Mexico are expected to accept biological males in their most private spaces — and if they object, they are labeled bigots.

That is not compassion. That is the erasure of women’s boundaries sold as progress.

[Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham @GovMLG]

Happy Pride Day, New Mexico.

Today we celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and reaffirm a simple truth: everyone deserves the freedom to live authentically, love openly and build a future where they feel safe, valued and respected.

New Mexico is stronger because of the diversity of the people who call our state home. We will continue working to ensure every person knows they belong here, not just during Pride Month, but every day of the year.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Congresswoman Says She Flies Pride Flag Because the American Flag Doesn’t Represent LGBTQ Americans

Nevada Democrat Rep. Susie Lee posted that 57 years after Stonewall, she proudly displays the Pride flag outside her congressional office because “Americans deserve a government that represents ALL of us.”

The implication is clear and deliberate: the American flag is not enough. In her view, LGBTQ Americans need their own flag flown at a government building to feel represented.

The Core Insult
This is the quiet part said out loud.
By hanging a separate flag and justifying it with the claim that government must represent “ALL of us,” Lee is effectively saying the American flag does not already represent gay Americans. That is an insult to the very idea of American citizenship.

The American flag is not a flag for straight people. It is the flag of the United States — a nation founded on individual rights, not group identity. It represents every citizen equally under the Constitution, whether they are gay, straight, Black, White, Christian, atheist, or anything else.

When a member of Congress says she needs to fly a different flag to properly represent part of the population, she is rejecting the principle of one nation under one flag.

The Modern Bait-and-Switch
Lee ties this to Stonewall and “standing against all forms of hate.” But the modern Pride movement she is celebrating has moved far beyond the original fight against criminalization of homosexuality.

Today’s Pride aggressively pushes gender ideology, medical transitions for minors, biological males in women’s sports and spaces, and the idea that dissent equals hate. Flying that flag on government property is no longer a neutral statement of tolerance — it is an endorsement of a specific and highly contested political ideology.

Americans already have a flag that represents everyone. It doesn’t require asterisks, addendums, or special identity versions. The moment politicians start treating the American flag as insufficient for certain groups, they stop being representatives of the whole country and start acting as advocates for factions.

Rep. Susie Lee didn’t hang the Pride flag because the American flag failed to represent gay people. She hung it because she wants to signal allegiance to a political movement that demands constant affirmation and special recognition.

The American flag already includes everyone. The push to fly competing flags on government buildings is not inclusion — it’s division dressed up as progress.

[Congresswoman Susie Lee @RepSusieLee]

57 years ago today, the patrons at Stonewall stood up against hate & sparked the beginnings of Pride.

Today, we continue to stand against all forms of hate. I proudly display this flag outside my office because Americans deserve a government that represents ALL of us.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Democrat Calls Requiring Proof of Citizenship “Voter Suppression” — By That Logic, ID Checks for Alcohol Are “Alcohol Suppression”

Arizona Democrat Rep. Greg [Stanton] claimed that the vast majority of Arizonans vote by mail, called it “safe, secure and overwhelmingly popular,” and accused President Trump’s SAVE Act of being “just another voter suppression scheme.”

This is the standard Democratic talking point: any effort to verify who is actually voting, or to require basic identification, gets branded as racist suppression.

Apply the Same Logic Elsewhere and Watch It Collapse
If requiring proof of citizenship or secure voting rules is “voter suppression,” then the exact same argument can be made about alcohol.

Under this twisted reasoning, asking for ID when someone tries to buy beer or liquor is “alcohol suppression.” After all:
Some people don’t have ID.
Some people might find it inconvenient to carry identification.
Requiring ID makes it harder for certain groups to obtain alcohol.

Therefore, ID checks at liquor stores and bars must be a deliberate scheme to suppress alcohol consumption.

The logic is identical. Yet no serious person runs around calling ID requirements for buying alcohol “alcohol suppression.” We accept it as a basic, common-sense safeguard to stop minors and intoxicated people from getting booze.

The same standard applies to voting.

The Absurd Double Standard

Democrats insist that asking someone to prove they are a citizen before they vote is somehow an attack on democracy. But they have no problem requiring ID for:
Buying alcohol
Buying cigarettes
Driving a car
Boarding a plane
Picking up prescription medication
Entering certain government buildings

Only when it comes to the most important civic act — voting — do they suddenly pretend basic verification is an insurmountable barrier designed to stop people from participating.

The SAVE Act simply requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. That’s not suppression. That’s the bare minimum for running a legitimate election in a sovereign country. Pretending otherwise is either willful dishonesty or ideological hysteria.

Secure elections require verification. Mail-in voting on a massive scale introduces serious chain-of-custody and verification problems that in-person voting with ID does not. Calling basic security measures “suppression” is a rhetorical trick designed to shut down debate and protect a system that benefits one party.

If the logic that “any requirement = suppression” is applied consistently, then ID for alcohol, cigarettes, and driving should all be abolished too. But Democrats don’t make that argument — because they know it’s ridiculous.
They only apply the “suppression” label when it serves their political interests. That’s not principle. That’s hypocrisy.

[Rep. Greg Stanton @RepGregStanton]

The vast majority of Arizonans vote by mail. It’s safe, secure and overwhelmingly popular.

Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting — like his SAVE Act — are just another voter suppression scheme.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Democrats Introduce Bill to Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortion Travel Across State Lines

Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced she’s co-sponsoring legislation with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto to “protect women’s rights to travel” to get abortions in states like Nevada. She claims that more than one-third of American women live under abortion bans, and that traveling for the procedure can be “a matter of life and death.”

The bill is designed to shield women traveling for abortions from any interference — and in practice, it opens the door to using federal resources and taxpayer money to facilitate those trips.

The Insanity of Government-Funded Abortion Tourism

This isn’t about protecting the right to travel. American women already have the constitutional right to travel between states.
What Rosen and Cortez Masto are really pushing is federal protection — and likely eventual funding — for women to cross state lines specifically to obtain abortions that are illegal or heavily restricted in their home states.

Think about what this actually means: Taxpayers in pro-life states would be forced to help subsidize women traveling to get abortions they oppose on moral and religious grounds. A truck driver in Texas or a farmer in Missouri could see his tax dollars used to fly or bus someone from his state to Nevada or California for an elective abortion.

That’s not “women making their own choices.” That’s the federal government actively participating in and underwriting a procedure that roughly half the country views as the taking of innocent human life.

The Real Goal

Rosen frames this as women — not politicians — being in charge of their bodies. But the bill does the opposite. It uses federal power to override the democratic decisions of states that have chosen to restrict abortion after Dobbs. Instead of accepting that different states have different laws (the entire point of federalism), Democrats want Washington to step in and make sure no state’s restrictions actually stick.

The “matter of life and death” language is deliberate emotional manipulation. The vast majority of abortions are elective, not medical emergencies. Yet Rosen and her colleagues speak as if every abortion restriction is a death sentence.

Forcing taxpayers to bankroll interstate abortion travel is one of the most grotesque overreaches in modern politics. It takes the moral disagreement over abortion and turns it into a compulsory funding scheme.

Pro-life Americans are already told they must accept abortion as settled law in some states. Now they’re being told they must also pay to help women from their own states travel elsewhere to get one.

That isn’t compassion. That isn’t rights. That’s government compulsion dressed up as healthcare. And it’s completely insane.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Democrats Launch Symbolic Impeachment Against Education Secretary Linda McMahon for Cutting Federal Waste

House Democrats filed articles of impeachment Thursday against U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, accusing her of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for streamlining the Department of Education and transferring programs to other agencies as part of President Trump’s mandate to shrink bloated federal bureaucracy.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) introduced the resolution on June 25 with 17 Democratic co-sponsors. The three articles claim McMahon violated her oath, made false statements to Congress, and illegally moved operations of multiple offices and more than 140 programs without congressional approval. Specific transfers cited include programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Higher Education Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and civil rights statutes shifted via interagency agreements to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, State, and Justice between May 2025 and June 2026.

Democrats also point to workforce reductions — roughly halving the department’s staff through about 2,000 departures — and allege this created chaos that delayed grant disbursements and oversight. They frame the moves as a “willful intent” to unilaterally dismantle the department Congress created.

This is political theater, plain and simple.

McMahon was confirmed precisely to carry out the agenda voters elected President Trump to pursue: reining in an unaccountable federal education bureaucracy that has presided over decades of stagnant or declining student performance despite ever-increasing spending. Trump has long called for abolishing or radically downsizing the department and returning power to states, parents, and local communities. McMahon’s actions — reorganizing functions, cutting redundant layers, and focusing resources — represent standard executive branch management, not criminality.

Education Committee Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) called the impeachment push exactly what it is: “political theater.” He stated, “Secretary McMahon is doing exactly what voters elected President Trump to do: rein in a bloated bureaucracy and put students, parents, and taxpayers first. Disagreeing with that agenda does not make it impeachable.”

McMahon herself responded directly on X: “It speaks volumes that House Democrats think an impeachable offense is working to improve student outcomes and reduce the federal bureaucracy.” She told critics in Congress to “do better.”

The resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has no realistic path forward in a Republican-controlled House. Even if it somehow cleared that chamber, conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds supermajority that Democrats lack. This is the same weaponized impeachment tactic Democrats have repeatedly deployed against Trump officials and the President himself — turning a extraordinary constitutional remedy into routine partisan obstruction.

The bigger picture is clear.
The Department of Education has long been a target for reform because federal involvement in K-12 and higher education has coincided with rising costs and disappointing results on key metrics. McMahon, a successful businesswoman and former SBA administrator confirmed in March 2025, is executing the downsizing and realignment the administration promised. Using interagency agreements to consolidate functions and trimming staff are tools available to any administration seeking efficiency — not grounds for removal from office.

Democrats’ response reveals their priorities: protecting Washington-centered control over education rather than supporting reforms aimed at better outcomes for students. The impeachment resolution stands as little more than performative resistance to an elected president’s agenda.

The effort is dead on arrival and underscores how far some in the opposition will go to defend the status quo.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

You Can’t Make This Shit Up: Democrat Claims Detaining Pregnant Illegal Immigrants Is Rooted in Transphobia and Denies Them “Personhood”

Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez took the House floor and declared that “reproductive justice and immigrant justice must be pursued together.” She accused the Department of Homeland Security of denying “personhood” to immigrant bodies and claimed that pregnant girls — are being held in a Texas facility at taxpayer expense.

Then, because no modern Democratic speech is complete without it, she threw racism, xenophobia, transphobia, and economic oppression into the mix.

The Full Delusion on Display
Ramirez argued that both immigrant justice and reproductive justice are rooted in “structural systems of racism, xenophobia, transphobia, and economic oppression.” She demanded that the country affirm the “dignity and humanity of all people” and reject policies that restrict “bodily autonomy.”

This is what she chose to say on the House floor.

A sitting member of Congress stood up and argued that enforcing immigration law against people who entered the country illegally — including pregnant minors — is morally equivalent to denying them basic humanity. She then insisted this issue must be linked to abortion and somehow also involves transphobia.

The mental gymnastics required to connect pregnant girls in immigration detention to “transphobia” are Olympic-level. But that’s the point. In today’s Democratic Party, every single issue must be funneled through the same intersectional grievance machine, no matter how forced or incoherent it becomes.

Ramirez isn’t really talking about compassion for pregnant minors. She’s angry that the U.S. government is actually detaining people who broke the law instead of releasing them into the interior. She frames basic border enforcement and detention as oppression and “structural” bigotry.

You Can’t Make This Shit Up
This is the state of Democratic rhetoric in 2026. A congresswoman can stand on the House floor, claim that stopping illegal immigration is an attack on “personhood,” tie it to abortion, randomly insert transphobia, and still be treated as serious.

The American people are supposed to accept that detaining illegal immigrants — even pregnant ones — is rooted in racism, xenophobia, and transphobia. Meanwhile, the same politicians act baffled when the public demands that the border actually be enforced.

Ramirez’s speech wasn’t serious policy. It was ideological performance art. And the fact that this kind of word salad is now normal in Congress tells you everything you need to know about how far gone one side of the aisle has become.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Senator Patty Murray Drops the Same Tired Pride Post — Because the Pattern Never Changes

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) posted the standard annual Pride message:
“Happy Pride Seattle! Let’s keep fighting to ensure equal protection under the law, no matter who you love or how you identify. Be proud, have fun, and stay safe.”

Rainbow flag. Trans flag. The usual corporate-politician word salad.
This is the exact same script we see from nearly every Democrat in office every June. It’s not about rights anymore. It’s about signaling.

The Pattern Is Obvious
Gay marriage has been legal nationwide for over a decade.
Same-sex couples have full legal equality in marriage, benefits, adoption, and anti-discrimination protections in all of the country. The core legal battles over sexual orientation were won years ago.

So when politicians like Murray say “let’s keep fighting” and throw in “no matter… how you identify,” they’re not talking about gay rights. They’re talking about gender ideology — the contested, biologically incoherent claim that men can become women and that society must affirm that belief in law, sports, bathrooms, prisons, and medicine.

The trans flag next to the rainbow one isn’t subtle. It’s the tell. The movement shifted from “live and let live” on homosexuality to demanding that everyone participate in and celebrate the idea that biological sex is irrelevant.

Murray and her colleagues know exactly what they’re doing. They wrap the new demands in the language of the old, successful gay rights movement to make opposition sound hateful. It’s a deliberate strategy.

Equal protection under the law already exists for sexual orientation. What doesn’t exist — and what they’re still “fighting” for — is the legal and cultural enforcement of gender identity over biological reality. That includes putting biological males in women’s sports and spaces, pushing medical transitions on confused minors, and punishing people who refuse to use preferred pronouns.

The annual Pride posts from lifelong politicians aren’t about protecting anyone. They’re about maintaining political alignment with the most aggressive wing of the left-wing coalition. The language stays deliberately vague (“equal protection,” “how you identify”) so they can keep moving the goalposts while pretending nothing has changed.

We’ve seen this movie before. Every June the same people post the same message with the same flags. And every year the demands get more extreme while they act like they’re still fighting the battles of 2005.

The pattern is obvious because it is a pattern. And most Americans are tired of pretending it’s still about basic tolerance.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Angie Craig Claims the “Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights Is Far From Over” — While Enjoying Full Legal Equality

Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig, who is running for US Senate, posted that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is “far from over” while expressing gratitude that she can celebrate Pride with her wife, Cheryl.

This is the standard grievance script, and it falls apart under basic scrutiny.

They Already Have the Same Rights

Same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide for over a decade. Gay and lesbian Americans can marry, divorce, adopt, inherit, and access spousal benefits exactly like everyone else. Anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing, and public accommodations already cover sexual orientation.

Craig is a sitting member of Congress in a legally recognized same-sex marriage. She has full voting rights, can run for higher office, and faces no legal barriers because of her sexuality. So what “rights” is she actually fighting for at this point?

The answer is usually one of two things:
1. Special privileges and compelled acceptance — forcing schools, businesses, and religious organizations to affirm gender ideology, allow biological males in women’s spaces and sports, or punish dissent.

2. Perpetual political power — keeping the grievance machine running so the issue never actually gets resolved.

Reality
When activists say the fight is “far from over,” they almost never mean basic legal equality anymore. That was settled years ago. What they mean is expanding into contested areas where biology, child safeguarding, and religious liberty clash with gender ideology — and then labeling any resistance as “hate” or “rights denial.”

Craig gets to live in a country where she can marry her wife, serve in Congress, and publicly celebrate Pride without fear of arrest or legal punishment. That’s not oppression. That’s victory. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or a deliberate strategy to keep extracting political and cultural concessions.

The endless “fight” narrative exists because if the movement ever admitted that legal equality had been achieved, the funding, media attention, corporate sponsorships, and political leverage would dry up. So instead they keep moving the goalposts and insisting the sky is still falling.

Angie Craig is free to celebrate Pride with her wife. She’s also free to stop pretending she’s still fighting for basic rights that were secured a long time ago. The real fight now is over whether the rest of the country must accept every new demand or be punished for it.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici Defends Mail-In Voting as “Safe and Secure” — While Opposing Basic Voter ID

Oregon Democrat Rep. Suzanne Bonamici took to a congressional hearing to push back against concerns about election security. She praised Oregon’s universal mail-in voting system, claiming it has “good turnout” and is “safe and secure.” She noted that Oregon was one of the first states to implement it and insisted it works well.

This is the same standard Democratic talking point we’ve heard for years: Trust us, the system is fine. There’s no meaningful voter fraud.
The Hypocrisy on Voter ID
The most glaring part is the obvious contradiction.

Bonamici, like nearly every Democrat in Congress, has consistently opposed voter ID laws. These are basic, common-sense measures that require people to show identification when voting — something most Americans already do for everything from buying alcohol to boarding a plane or picking up a prescription.

Yet the same politicians who fight tooth and nail against requiring ID at the ballot box will stand at a microphone and swear that mail-in systems with little to no verification are completely secure.

If the system is truly as airtight as she claims, why oppose the simplest security measure available? The answer is obvious: They don’t actually want more security. They want easier access to the ballot, even if it means higher risk of fraud, and they don’t want anything that might make voting slightly less convenient for certain demographics.

Oregon’s all-mail voting system has long been criticized by election integrity advocates for exactly the reasons Bonamici pretends don’t exist — ballots sent to outdated addresses, ballots filled out by people other than the registered voter, and minimal chain-of-custody protections.

When Republicans point this out, they’re called conspiracy theorists. When Democrats get caught in scandals involving ballot harvesting or unsecured drop boxes, it’s dismissed as isolated incidents. And when basic voter ID is proposed, it’s labeled “voter suppression.”

Bonamici’s testimony is a perfect example of the game. She gets to lecture everyone about how secure the system is while having voted against the very measures that would make it more secure. It’s not a serious argument about election integrity. It’s political theater designed to protect a system that benefits one side.

Real election security doesn’t come from politicians insisting everything is fine. It comes from simple, verifiable safeguards like voter ID, signature matching, and chain of custody. Bonamici and her colleagues have spent years fighting against those things while telling Americans to just trust the process.

The American people aren’t buying it anymore.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Mitch McConnell Still Hasn’t Voted — Two Weeks After Hospitalization, Office Silent

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 84, was hospitalized in Washington, D.C. on June 14 for an undisclosed reason. His office initially said only that he was “receiving excellent care.”

By June 22 his team claimed he was “working closely with staff on Senate business and Kentucky matters as he continues his recovery.” They specifically added that he would not be voting that week. A fellow Kentucky Republican said McConnell had been released and was “doing great.”

As of Sunday night, June 28 — more than two weeks later — there have been no further updates from his office. McConnell has now missed multiple roll call votes, including on appropriations matters and a war powers resolution tied to Iran. His absence forced the postponement of Senate Appropriations Committee markups.

The longtime senator, who announced last year he will not seek re-election and is serving out his final term until January 2027, remains sidelined with zero transparency on his condition or timeline for return.

Bottom line: McConnell hasn’t cast a Senate vote in over two weeks. The office that once ran the chamber is now offering almost no information while he stays out of action.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Millions of Toddlers Have Learned Their ABCs from Ms. Rachel — While She Pushes Progressive Gender Ideology and Political Activism

Ms. Rachel (Rachel Griffin Accurso) has built a massive empire teaching toddlers their letters, numbers, and words through her wildly popular “Songs for Littles” YouTube channel. With billions of views and millions of young subscribers, she has become one of the most trusted voices in early childhood education for many parents.

But behind the colorful songs and friendly puppets is a clear progressive activist agenda.

The Political Activism
Ms. Rachel has repeatedly used her platform to push left-wing causes. She has posted “Happy Pride!” videos celebrating Pride Month and featured a non-binary cast member who uses they/them pronouns, introducing young children to concepts like a puppet whose “name is Patches” and whose gender presentation is deliberately ambiguous.

She has also been vocal in her support for children in Gaza, raising money through Save the Children and partnering with the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund. Critics have pointed out that her activism appears selective, with far less emphasis on Israeli children affected by October 7th or other conflicts.

This isn’t neutral children’s content. It’s ideological messaging delivered to the most impressionable audience possible — toddlers who are still learning basic language.

Where the Money Comes From

Ms. Rachel isn’t some humble independent educator. She has built a serious business:
1. A massive YouTube operation generating significant ad revenue from billions of views.
2. A major Netflix licensing deal that brings her content to mainstream streaming.
3. Merchandise and toys sold at major retailers like Target and Walmart.
4. High-profile media appearances and brand partnerships.

She has monetized trust. Parents put her videos on for their young children expecting innocent educational content, while she uses her influence and income streams to promote progressive social causes.

Early childhood is when children are most vulnerable to absorbing values and worldviews. Ms. Rachel has turned that window into an opportunity to normalize gender ideology and political activism under the cover of “learning your ABCs.”

This is the same pattern seen across children’s media: take something innocent that parents trust, then slowly inject contested social and political ideas. The difference with Ms. Rachel is how young her audience is and how successful she has been at gaining that trust.

Millions of toddlers are learning more than just the alphabet from her. They’re also being exposed to a worldview that many parents never signed up for. The colorful songs are real. So is the agenda behind them.

[Forbes @Forbes]

Millions of toddlers have learned their ABCs from Ms. Rachel. Now, the educator and children's entertainer lands at No. 24 on the 2026 #ForbesTopCreators list after building one of the most influential brands in kids' media. https://t.co/CzD26jfPM1
📸: Taylor Hill Filmmagic via Getty Images

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Angie Craig Claims the “Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights Is Far From Over” — While Enjoying Full Legal Equality

Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig, who is running for US Senate, posted that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is “far from over” while expressing gratitude that she can celebrate Pride with her wife, Cheryl.

This is the standard grievance script, and it falls apart under basic scrutiny.

They Already Have the Same Rights

Same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide for over a decade. Gay and lesbian Americans can marry, divorce, adopt, inherit, and access spousal benefits exactly like everyone else. Anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing, and public accommodations already cover sexual orientation.

Craig is a sitting member of Congress in a legally recognized same-sex marriage. She has full voting rights, can run for higher office, and faces no legal barriers because of her sexuality. So what “rights” is she actually fighting for at this point?

The answer is usually one of two things:
1. Special privileges and compelled acceptance — forcing schools, businesses, and religious organizations to affirm gender ideology, allow biological males in women’s spaces and sports, or punish dissent.

2. Perpetual political power — keeping the grievance machine running so the issue never actually gets resolved.

Reality
When activists say the fight is “far from over,” they almost never mean basic legal equality anymore. That was settled years ago. What they mean is expanding into contested areas where biology, child safeguarding, and religious liberty clash with gender ideology — and then labeling any resistance as “hate” or “rights denial.”

Craig gets to live in a country where she can marry her wife, serve in Congress, and publicly celebrate Pride without fear of arrest or legal punishment. That’s not oppression. That’s victory. Pretending otherwise is either dishonest or a deliberate strategy to keep extracting political and cultural concessions.

The endless “fight” narrative exists because if the movement ever admitted that legal equality had been achieved, the funding, media attention, corporate sponsorships, and political leverage would dry up. So instead they keep moving the goalposts and insisting the sky is still falling.

Angie Craig is free to celebrate Pride with her wife. She’s also free to stop pretending she’s still fighting for basic rights that were secured a long time ago. The real fight now is over whether the rest of the country must accept every new demand or be punished for it.

[Angie Craig @AngieCraigMN]

The fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over –  but I’m so grateful to be able to celebrate Pride with my wife, Cheryl.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Sen Elissa Slotkin Warns About “Trump’s Weaponization of Government” — While Democrats Spent Years Doing It to Him

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin took the stage to lecture about the dangers of “Trump’s weaponization of government,” claiming she lived through it in Washington. She painted Trump as turning federal power against political opponents and warned the audience to stay vigilant.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Democrats Already Ran the Playbook

While Slotkin frets about Trump targeting adversaries, the Democratic Party and its allies spent Donald Trump’s entire first term and beyond actively weaponizing government institutions against him.
Intelligence agencies, special counsels, prosecutors, and courts were repeatedly deployed in coordinated efforts to damage, distract, and ultimately remove him from power.

This wasn’t subtle oversight. It was lawfare and political warfare dressed up as justice.

The Felony Charges
Trump faced an unprecedented number of criminal cases timed suspiciously around elections:
1. New York Hush Money Case: 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a 2016 payment. He was convicted in May 2024 in a trial widely criticized as novel legal theory pushed by a Democratic prosecutor.
2. Classified Documents Case (Florida): Trump was charged with mishandling classified materials. The case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled the special counsel appointment was improper.
3. Georgia Election Interference Case: Trump faced charges over his post-2020 election actions. The case has been plagued by prosecutorial misconduct allegations and remains stalled.
4. Federal January 6 Case: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case was effectively ended after Trump’s 2024 victory, with charges dropped.

Many legal observers across the spectrum viewed these prosecutions as selective, politically motivated, and designed to interfere with Trump’s campaigns and presidency.

The Russia Collusion Hoax

The most glaring example of government weaponization came during the Russia investigation.
The entire Russia collusion narrative was built on the Steele dossier — opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI used this flawed, unverified document to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The Mueller investigation spent two years and millions of dollars and ultimately found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Special Counsel John Durham later confirmed the FBI rushed into the investigation with insufficient evidence, ignored exculpatory information, and showed clear bias. The media ran with the hoax for years, damaging Trump’s presidency from day one.

This was textbook weaponization: intelligence community leaks, congressional hearings, media amplification, and a special counsel all aimed at a sitting president based on opposition research.

Elissa Slotkin warning about Trump weaponizing government is pure projection. Democrats and their allies in the deep state, media, and courts spent years doing exactly that to Trump — and they’re furious the strategy ultimately failed.

Trump didn’t invent using government power against political enemies. He was the target of it for nearly a decade. The real lesson from the last eight years is that one side openly embraced lawfare and intelligence community abuse when it suited them, then turned around and accused their opponent of the exact same thing the moment power shifted.

Slotkin can give all the speeches she wants. The record shows who actually turned government institutions into weapons against a political rival — and it wasn’t Donald Trump.

[News Picks Daily @NewsPicksDaily]

Congress Blocked Subpoena for Ilhan Omar and “Brother-Husband” Immigration Records — But the President Can Still Get Them Anyway

Rep. Nancy Mace attempted to subpoena immigration records related to Rep. Ilhan Omar and her alleged brother-husband during a House Oversight hearing on fraud in Minnesota. The motion was blocked — reportedly with help from both sides — protecting a sitting member of Congress from basic scrutiny over serious allegations of marriage fraud, immigration fraud, and incestuous marriage for citizenship benefits.
This is Congress protecting its own at the expense of accountability.

The Allegation
The long-standing claim is that Omar married her brother, Ahmed Elmi, in 2009 to help him gain immigration benefits and U.S. citizenship. The timelines of her marriages and his entry into the country have raised red flags for years. If true, this would constitute federal marriage fraud, immigration fraud, and potentially other crimes. Omar has denied it, but the allegations have never been fully investigated through official records.

Mace’s push for subpoenas was a legitimate oversight effort. It was killed anyway.

Verification: The President Can Already Access This

Yes. The President runs the executive branch. Immigration records are held by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — both under presidential authority.
Congressional subpoenas are one tool for oversight, but they are not the only path. The executive branch can review immigration files, initiate fraud investigations, pursue denaturalization, and examine marriage and immigration records administratively without needing Congress to sign off. Blocking Mace’s subpoena does not tie the President’s hands.

If the Trump administration believes there is credible evidence of immigration fraud involving a member of Congress, it can direct DHS and USCIS to pull the records and investigate. The fact that Congress blocked legislative scrutiny makes executive action even more important.

This episode exposes how broken the system is. When a member of Congress faces credible accusations of gaming the immigration system by allegedly marrying her own brother, both parties in Congress closed ranks to protect her instead of demanding answers. That’s not oversight — that’s a protection racket.

Ilhan Omar has spent years pushing open borders, attacking enforcement, and lecturing Americans about compassion while her own immigration history remains clouded by serious unresolved questions. The same Congress that lectures everyone else about “accountability” made sure her records stayed hidden.
The President doesn’t need Congress’s permission to look.
DHS and USCIS work for the executive branch. If the allegations have merit, the administration should pull the files, investigate thoroughly, and let the consequences fall where they may — including potential denaturalization and removal proceedings if fraud is confirmed.

Congress proved it won’t do its job. The executive branch should do its own.