The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages



Conservatives have spent decades fighting government overreach. We have opposed IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, regulatory power-grabs, and agencies that treat the Bill of Rights as a suggestion. So explain this: Why are Republican leaders in Congress lining up to renew a surveillance law that lets the FBI read Americans' private communications without asking a judge? Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires on April 30. Intelligence agencies want an 18-month clean extension — no changes, no reforms, no warrant requirement. The intelligence community has joined former Biden administration officials in making the rounds on Capitol Hill, pressing members of Congress to fall in line.

Some of us are standing up for the Fourth Amendment by demanding, at the very least, fair votes on real civil liberties protections. Some are not, demanding that we shut up and not only reauthorize this powerful spying power, but also deny Americans a chance to see how their representatives in Congress vote on an issue that enjoys overwhelming, bipartisan support from their constituents.

Conservatives who believe January 6 defendants were treated unjustly by a politicized Department of Justice should be the first to demand a warrant requirement — because Section 702 is one of the laws that was wrongly used to go after those Americans.

Here's what a "clean" reauthorization actually means. The government collects the communications of foreign targets overseas — emails, texts, calls. That part is unobjectionable. Foreigners have no Fourth Amendment rights. The problem is what happens next. When those foreign targets communicate with Americans, those American messages get swept into the database too — hundreds of millions of them. And then the FBI can search through those communications using your name or email address — with no warrant, no judge, and no probable cause. This is the "backdoor search." This is not a hypothetical concern. In a single reporting period, the government conducted 278,000 searches that violated the rules. From 2018 to 2024, federal law required a warrant before the FBI could conduct backdoor searches in certain criminal cases. The bureau ran dozens of qualifying searches during that window. It obtained the required court order zero times.

Conservatives who believe January 6 defendants were treated unjustly by a politicized Department of Justice should be the first to demand a warrant requirement — because Section 702 is one of the laws that was wrongly used to go after those Americans.

RELATED: GOP hard-liners derail government's spying power despite pressure from Trump

cbies/Getty Images

Congress responded in 2024 by passing minor reforms that mostly codified then-current practice — RISAA — which is to say Congress put into law the same rules that had already led to significant misuse. The FBI's response was to quietly use a separate querying tool that bypassed those requirements. By March 2026, the FISA Court issued a classified opinion that found the issue spanned the entire intelligence community. And it isn’t just the FBI. We still don’t know whether the NSA analyst who searched Section 702 data for information about online dating matches kept his security clearance or job.

The fix is straightforward. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has introduced the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and a bipartisan coalition have introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act, both of which require a warrant before the FBI can access an American's private communications collected under Section 702. Conservative members blocked the clean reauthorization not to make FISA reauthorization impossible, but to create a path forward for a version that does not unjustly violate Americans’ privacy.

The argument that we must choose between national security and the warrant requirement is false. Warrants do not prevent surveillance. They require the government to convince a judge that the surveillance is justified, as the Constitution requires. Government agencies that cannot meet that standard are fishing — for you.

'There is no mama': Two homosexuals taunt surrogate baby crying for his mother: VIDEO



The horror of the surrogacy trend reared its head again this week.

An Instagram video posted by gay musician Shane McAnally has triggered the ire of many conservatives and viewers alike.

'The most horrifying video I've ever seen in my life.'

Posted earlier this week, the video shows a man, presumably either McAnally or his "husband," Michael Baum, holding their adopted third child, Texson, whom they recently brought into the family after taking him from his mother after she gave birth.

"Who do you want, Dada or Pop?" the man asks the baby repeatedly over the course of the video.

The baby can be heard making noises that sound remarkably like "mama" and "mom" throughout the video.

RELATED: Surrogacy 'trafficking'? Unmarried Chinese couple in the US accused of massive baby scam — 21 kids placed in foster care

Tibrina Hobson/Getty Images

The man holding the baby feigns shock when the infant cries out for his mother, saying, "No way, Jose," to the baby.

The baby, who according to People was born in late October 2025 and immediately turned over to the homosexual couple, begins to cry at this point in the video, visibly upset.

The man in the video and the man holding the camera both begin to laugh at the baby while he cries harder and harder for his "mama."

"There is no mama. I'm so sorry. You have Dada and Pop," the man in the video says.

"No mama," he repeats as the baby cries.

The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles described this video as "the most horrifying video I've ever seen in my life."

Instagram users seemed to have experienced the same revulsion Knowles did.

"This is why it’s important to remember that it’s a child’s right to have parents- and not a[n] adult’s right to have children," one user said.

Another said, "That's not funny. Someone please save this baby :(."

"People go to therapy for the trauma that’s caused when they grow up with an absent mother. Why are adults trying to get children to meet their needs when it was always supposed to be the other way around?" a third commenter added to the post.

McAnally has repeatedly mocked his child as the "homophobic baby" in other posts on his page.

For example, a video posted in December shows a 6-week-old Texson smiling as the man holding the camera tells him about his brother, sister, and two puppies. He then says, "And two dads." Texson stops smiling and appears to furrow his brow at this moment.

According to People, McAnally and Baum were "married' in 2012. They have another son and a daughter, named Dash and Dylan, respectively.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Conservatives Blast Trump For Christ-Like Image, Losing His Mind Over Pope

'God shall not be mocked'

Support for Israel is dropping quickly among young Republicans, new poll shows



New polling from Pew Research shows a massive contrast in opinions about Israel between younger Republicans and their older allies.

The polling, conducted in late March, additionally showed not only the typical divide between conservatives and liberals with regard to support of Israel, but also a growing, unfavorable view of Israel and President Donald Trump's ability to handle relations with Israeli leaders.

'Across all US adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel.'

While the majority of Republicans still have a favorable view of Israel, younger party members are currently showing the lowest level of support of any demographic.

For Republicans over 50, just 24% have a "very/somewhat unfavorable" opinion of Israel. That number is 57% for the 18-49 age group, up seven points in just one year, and showing a glaring 33-point difference within the party.

Democrats are more unified about their dislike of Israel. Just four points separate the two age groups, averaging out to an 80% negative view of the country overall.

Across all U.S. adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025, Pew Research reported.

When it comes to confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sentiment among young Republicans remains the same. When asked if they have confidence in Netanyahu to "do the right thing regarding world affairs," just 25% of Republicans 18-49 have some or a lot of confidence, while 58% said they have "not too much" or none at all.

RELATED: MEMBERS ONLY: Pro-Palestine posting no problem with 'penis,' claims fired Kate Beckinsale

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Republicans over 50 are confident in Netanyahu by a net of 66%, with just 30% having a net negative level of confidence in him. This demographic has the most confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu.

At the same time, more than 75% of Democrats have little or no faith in the Israeli leader's ability to do the right thing.

Moreover, according to the poll, Republicans have the biggest contrast in opinions when it comes to the importance of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

RELATED: Israel ramps up attacks on Middle East target despite US-Iran ceasefire

Gergely BESENYEI/AFP/Getty Images

In terms of those who said the conflict between Israel and Hamas is important to them personally, Republicans over 50 years old found it important most often at a rate of 69%. That was 12 points more than the second-highest group, which was Democrats over 50 years old.

Republicans ages 18-49, however, were the demographic most likely to say the conflict was not personally important to them at 41%, seven points higher than Democrats of the same age.

In the end, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to have confidence in President Trump's handling of the United States' relations with Israel, with nearly three-quarters either somewhat or very confident in him.

More than 80% of Democrats polled said they were not too confident or not at all confident in Trump's handling of the situation.

The survey was conducted March 23-29 and involved 3,507 U.S. adults.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: Liberals are completely losing their minds



BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales didn’t previously have high hopes for liberals like Don Lemon, Nancy Pelosi, or Leslie Jones — but recent comments the three have made have set her expectations even lower.

“The other thing that the internet is really good for are videos of liberal losers,” Gonzales says before playing a clip of Lemon “hinting at a potential run for president.”

“I think I could be president of the United States,” Lemon said. “I could definitely run this country better than Donald Trump.”

“As an independent, though, there would be a hard time for me to run for anything because, you know, the way the system is set up, I’d have to choose a side. And so, you know, I probably would have to become a Democrat,” Lemon concluded.


Gonzales is amused.

“He would have to become a Democrat. That is hilarious. ... This criminal, whose only accomplishment is terrorizing churchgoers, thinks for one second that he could be president,” she says.

And Pelosi’s comments weren’t much better.

“We always have concerns, but with this president and these Republicans who have no commitment to the rule of law and doing things the appropriate way, we’re ready. We have to be on guard as to what they may try to do to the technology,” Pelosi said in an interview on MS NOW.

“They may try to creep into the technology and create a false count,” she added.

“Oh, interesting, because back in my day, if you even mentioned that voting machines could be hacked, you would be sued into oblivion. So, it’s a very interesting turn of events to hear Nancy Pelosi admit that that was possible,” Gonzales comments, before turning her attention to former SNL cast member Leslie Jones.

“She, in all her brilliance, decided that marriage is slavery,” she says, playing a clip of Jones on Ziwe’s podcast.

“I think marriage is legalized slavery,” Jones stated.

“If he’s expecting you to be a trad wife, he might as well pull out a whip and a chain,” she continued.

Jones went on to advise the young audience not to get married.

“Obviously, trad wives, the trade-off is that their husbands are out working, and they get to stay home. It’s actually a total blessing. Women love that if they are in a position where they are able to do that,” Gonzales comments.

“But I’m not even convinced that Leslie Jones is a woman after hearing her speak. So, maybe that’s why she doesn’t quite get it,” she adds.

Why nationwide No Kings protests literally don't matter: ‘Extremely bleak for them’



No Kings protests have been popping up all over the country in protest of President Trump and the United States’ involvement in the Iran war, and of course, the mainstream media has covered these protesters as if they’re a real force to be reckoned with.

However, BlazeTV host John Doyle attended one of the protests in Dallas and explains that the reality on the ground tells a much different story.

“If you Google it, ‘No Kings 2026,’ there are all of these leftist outlets — be those local, national, even on CNN, MSNBC, all the usual suspects — trying to just put all of this out there, put the imagery out there, to let people know that this is definitely a thing that is very real and very threatening and certainly happening,” Doyle says on “The John Doyle Show.”


“The people who actually mobilize and show up to these Democrat quote-unquote ‘protests,’ these are the revolutionary class. This is an inherently sort of kinetic group of people, which is to say a people who are motivated almost chiefly by resentment against just normal American patriots,” he continues.

Doyle explains that these protesters also “always need to be out on the streets causing problems, feeling as though they are pushing back against some force.”

“It is this kind of 'Handmaid’s Tale' LARP for them. They really do enjoy the interaction with law enforcement, feeling as though they’re being freaking persecuted,” he says.

And the visuals Doyle caught at the protest in Dallas only prove his point.

“It’s extremely, extremely bleak for them,” he says, before showing a picture of one of the protesters.

“It was this extremely obese creature, and it was occupying a mobility scooter, like how you see at Walmart. And there was a sign mounted on the mobility scooter … that said ‘#FreakingNoKings,’” Doyle recalls.

“And then you have old people and then foreign people and then foreign old people, and everybody’s dying. It’s like, what? I’m not intimidated. I’m not even having fun. I just feel bad. I used to go in there and felt like I was in a lion’s den, you know? Do a little sparring with the people who want me killed,” he continues.

“I had a smile on my face, a pep in my step. You’ve all seen it. I just felt bad,” he says.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘The level of mistrust runs too deep’: Auron MacIntyre’s warning to establishment conservatives



A growing identity crisis is shaking the conservative movement, as longtime tensions between grassroots audiences and establishment voices boil over in our increasingly digital age.

According to BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre, the chaos is driven by years of mistrust built first between the mainstream media and their own audiences, and now between conservative institutions and their audiences.

“To say that the conservative movement has come off the rails would comically understate the damage,” MacIntyre begins.

“Plenty of commentators blame podcasts for this new disorder, and the new ecosystem gives them no shortage of bad behavior to cite. But that diagnosis misses the deeper cause,” he says, pointing out that the “deeper cause” is, conservatives are now replicating the legacy media’s attitude toward their listeners.


“Establishment conservatives treated their audience the same way the legacy press did: as a resource to be managed, manipulated, and occasionally milked. A movement that spent decades being lied to will not be stitched back together by scolding the people who finally stopped listening,” MacIntyre says.

“Democrats screamed about disinformation, warned about the dangers of free speech, and then launched research projects designed to replicate what they claimed to hate. The right cheered the upheaval. Establishment conservatives, however, never fully grasped what the shift meant for them,” he continues.

“Trump didn’t rise only as a battering ram against progressive media. He rose as a middle finger to conservative establishment media as well. That plan worked and then kept working in ways that many people didn’t anticipate,” he adds.

Now, MacIntyre explains, “conservative gatekeepers” are mimicking the “panicked reflexes the left showed” as they accuse others of “dangerous rhetoric,” call for “deplatforming,” and ask for “responsible voices to regain control.”

“These instincts never belong to one ideology. They belong to institutions that sense their monopoly slipping away,” he says.

Now, MacIntyre is warning conservatives that they “can’t lecture podcast audiences about responsible broadcasting after years of manipulating their own viewers.”

“The level of mistrust runs too deep. Censorship will fail too. Shaming and platform policing didn’t rebuild credibility for Democrats, and it’s not going to rebuild credibility for Republicans, either,” he adds.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

After Rush Limbaugh, conservatives stopped listening together



Last month marked five years since Rush Limbaugh’s death. Tributes still appear on schedule. Clips circulate. Familiar phrases — “talent on loan from God,” “doctor of democracy,” “half my brain tied behind my back” — resurface. Every so often his opening theme slides into a feed, and people pause longer than they expect.

That reaction says something.

Rush can’t be replaced because the habits that made him possible have largely disappeared.

When life felt unsteady, Rush stayed fixed.

For millions of Americans, his voice arrived at the same hour each afternoon as institutions shifted, headlines fractured, and the culture argued with itself. Agreement was never universal. But steadiness was.

The music still plays. Rush does not.

Five years later, the absence still feels different — in a way modern media can’t quite explain.

When talk show legend Johnny Carson retired in 1992, late-night TV didn’t disappear. It divided. Some viewers followed Jay Leno, who succeeded Carson at NBC. Others moved to CBS with David Letterman. Then the format split again, louder and more elaborate with each successor.

Late-night evolved. It never recovered the King of Late Night’s reach.

By today’s standards, Carson looks almost minimalist: a desk, a band, conversation allowed to breathe. Parents ended evenings there after the kids went to bed. The show closed the day not through spectacle but familiarity.

Rush occupied a different hour but understood his medium just as completely.

As broadcasting technology advanced and competitors added panels, simulcasts, and digital bells and whistles, Rush’s formula barely changed. Behind the golden EIB microphone sat one prepared voice, a “stack of stuff,” and three hours shaped not by focus groups but conviction.

Some days funny. Some days angry. Always patriotic. Sometimes wounded or reflective — even nostalgic.

Listeners heard it when Rush entered rehab in 2003. They heard it again when he announced his cancer diagnosis in 2020. They followed professional triumphs and personal failures, marriages that ended, and later the unexpected joy when he met Kathryn Rogers and married her in 2010. They heard the frustration and adaptation that followed the loss of his hearing.

The humanity never weakened the authority. It reinforced it.

Rush spoke from belief, and listeners found him.

He often said he never set out to build a network of hundreds of stations or reach millions of listeners. His goal was simpler: Be the best broadcaster he could be. Not an alternative. Not a counterpoint. The best at articulating what made America exceptional — and at exposing ideas that threatened it.

The audience followed.

For many people, the show unfolded alongside responsibilities that never paused for politics. For years — through hospital visits, surgical waiting rooms, doctor’s appointments, and pharmacy runs with my wife — Rush kept me company more hours than almost anyone outside my family.

He didn’t interrupt my life. He traveled alongside it.

That relationship is difficult to recreate because modern media now works in reverse. Voices don’t wait to be found; they chase attention. Commentary arrives instantly, tailored to preference and consumed in fragments measured in seconds.

Everyone now broadcasts. No one gathers.

Earlier media required commitment. If you missed Carson, you missed him. When “Seinfeld” was new, millions tuned in at the same hour because there wasn’t an alternative. The next morning’s conversations assumed a shared experience. Rush worked the same way. If you tuned away, the broadcast kept going.

Today almost nothing is truly missed. Everything can be replayed, clipped, streamed, or summarized. Convenience replaced anticipation. Access replaced commitment.

We gained availability and lost presence.

After Rush, commentary didn’t decline. It multiplied. Humor migrated here, outrage there, analysis somewhere else — across podcasts, streaming platforms, and social media personalities.

But coherence thinned.

Audiences scattered into niches large enough to sustain influence but too fragmented to create shared trust. Rush succeeded during one of the last eras when millions practiced the discipline of listening together long enough for familiarity to become confidence.

RELATED: We don’t have to live this way

Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

For conservatives especially, that steadiness mattered. As cultural institutions treated them with ridicule or dismissal, Rush spoke directly to listeners who felt talked about rather than spoken to.

He didn’t echo what people wanted to hear. He anchored them in what needed to be said. He didn’t flatter them. He reasoned with them. He laughed with them. Sometimes he challenged them.

Recognition replaced alienation.

Five years later, the lingering absence shows what was actually lost.

We didn’t lose commentary, Lord knows. We lost a shared reference point.

Rush can’t be replaced because the habits that made him possible have largely disappeared. Shared listening gave way to individualized feeds. Discipline yielded to distraction. Voices rise quickly now, but few endure long enough to be tested.

The spinning never stopped. We just lost the fixed point.

The question five years later isn’t who replaces Rush Limbaugh. He’s irreplaceable. The question is whether a culture trained to scroll still possesses the discipline to listen long enough for trust to form again.

Because Rush was never simply something Americans heard. He was something they chose.

Disney’s ‘Gay Days’ are canceled. Don’t pop the champagne just yet.



After 35 years, the future of Disney’s “Gay Days” looks grim. The group that organizes the event announced that shifting hotel agreements and the loss of key sponsors forced it to cancel the celebration in 2026. Organizers still urge gay fans to visit the parks on the usual dates and wear themed attire, but the coordinated celebration appears headed for a quiet end.

Whatever happens next, one point matters: Evangelical Christians tried to cancel Gay Days with on-again, off-again boycotts for decades. What finally wounded the LGBTQ leviathan was not conservative activism, but cultural apathy.

Apathy does not mean Americans suddenly disapproved of Disney’s agenda. It means normal people stopped granting it the honor of a fight.

I remember the first wave of evangelical pushback as Disney began signaling support for homosexual lifestyles in the 1990s. Conservatives already watched pop culture coarsen through music, movies, and video games, yet they still treated Disney as a family-friendly institution aimed at children. That is why it shocked them to see the company behind “Snow White” and “Cinderella” host celebrations of homosexuality and extend benefits to same-sex partners long before the Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the country.

Evangelical denominations answered with a strangely inconsistent boycott. One year, the Southern Baptist Convention urged members to avoid Disney; the next year, churches showed up for Night of Joy, Disney’s Christian music festival.

When Gay Days began in 1991, gay marriage remained deeply unpopular. “Will & Grace” had not worked its magic on the popular imagination, and politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton still felt compelled to posture as defenders of traditional marriage as late as 2008. If any moment favored a decisive cultural rebuke, that was it. Christians offered sloppy, intermittent resistance, while Disney only leaned harder.

From park to propaganda

Disney’s support for homosexuality moved from park celebrations and employee benefits into its entertainment. Progressive messaging crept into television shows and movies until the woke revolution turned it into a flood. “The Little Mermaid” became black, gay couples kissed in “Star Wars,” and diverse girlbosses dominated Marvel. As acceptance of gay marriage shifted from taboo to required corporate orthodoxy, Disney replaced entertainment with propaganda.

The company then collided with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) after Florida moved to restrict the mutilation of children and limit the amount of LGBTQ messaging pumped into public schools. Legislation that the press laughably branded “don’t say gay” sent leftists into a panic. Executives called emergency meetings. Rumors flew that Disney would pull up stakes and flee the Sunshine State.

BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo helped surface video of a corporate meeting where Disney executive Latoya Raveneau announced her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” to inject LGBTQ themes into kids’ shows. Disney embraced the agenda early, worked to make it dominant — especially among children — and refused to slow down once the woke revolution reached full speed.

Why Gay Days collapsed

So why did Gay Days suddenly fall apart now? Apathy.

Apathy does not mean Americans suddenly disapproved of Disney’s agenda. It means normal people stopped granting it the honor of a fight.

Many families quit watching new releases, not as part of a coordinated boycott, but because the product became preachy, weird, and dull. Others kept their subscriptions but tuned out the messaging and rolled their eyes. Either way, the ritualized drama lost its electricity.

Corporate sponsors follow attention, and attention followed the next outrage. A movement built on being shocking cannot survive once it becomes background noise. When every kids’ show feels like a lecture, even sympathetic viewers start craving something else.

Gay Days did not collapse because Christians perfected a strategy. It collapsed because the culture stopped caring enough to show up, even to cheer. Apathy is not victory, but it can starve a cause faster than protest.

Progressivism needs an enemy

Popular political movements need cultural momentum, and progressive movements feed on transgression. Leftists want to feel like they are fighting the stuffy pastor in “Footloose.” They want to feel cool, rebellious, and righteous. Without dialectical tension, progressivism loses velocity.

When activists fought the religious right, they enjoyed the perfect enemy: just enough moralizing to spark rebellion, but little chance of sustained, effective opposition.

Conservatives could work up outrage on television and even skip a holiday trip, but they rarely sustained a boycott. Republicans generally worship business and profits, so GOP politicians avoided pressure on true pain points such as corporate sponsors and boardrooms. Conservatives served as a political battery, supplying just enough resistance to keep LGBTQ activists energized while imposing few costs. Democrat operatives could not have engineered a better environment.

RELATED: The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy

Blaze Media Illustration

Machiavelli’s warning

In “The Prince,” Niccolo Machiavelli advises rulers to leave opponents alone or crush them entirely. A complacent enemy grumbles but avoids risk. A crushed enemy cannot retaliate. The most dangerous enemy suffers a minor bloodying: he gains the motivation to fight and keeps the means to harm. Conservatives gave the LGBTQ movement exactly that minor bloodying — outraged finger-wagging with no consequences.

No one lost a job for pushing a gay agenda in Disney parks, shows, or movies. Corporate sponsors rarely withdrew. Disney kept making money. Republicans played the role of cartoonish but harmless foe, delivering speeches about family values while imposing no penalties.

The movement did not lose because the right defeated it. It lost because it exhausted its cultural energy.

Even a strong boxer collapses after he punches himself out. Gay marriage won so quickly and so thoroughly that activists carried the momentum into harder causes such as the trans movement. Support, attention, and funding shifted to the new battlegrounds, and older, boring causes like Gay Days slid into irrelevance.

The lesson is simple. If the right fights, it must pick battles carefully and commit fully to winning them. Secure decisive victory in one arena instead of scattering resources across dozens of losses. Choose targets because they anchor your enemy’s strength, not because they offer an easy headline. If you fight, you must crush the enemy’s capacity to operate; otherwise, you invigorate his cause while draining your own.

Clumsy half measures feed your foe, and you end up hoping he defeats himself. That is not a plan for a protracted culture war.

DC Leftists Threaten Families As ‘Nazi Scum’ Simply For Attending Church

Families with young kids were subject to a bullhorn-wielding protestor screaming 'F-ck Jesus, Mary, and Joseph' in a demonic-sounding tone.