CartoonDems

 

Rep. Randy Fine to Newsmax: Dems' Hatred of US Exposed in Iran Vote

Democrats' hatred of America was on display when 53 members of the party recently voted against a resolution declaring Iran the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told Newsmax on Tuesday.

Speaking on "Wake Up America Early," Fine said the vote revealed what he described as a troubling alignment within the Democratic Party against U.S. interests at a time of escalating global threats.

"Fifty-three Democrats last week voted against a three-line resolution that said Iran was the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world," Fine told host Alex Kraemer.

 "It didn't even say we should go to war with them. It just said the Iranian regime is bad, and 53 Democrats wouldn't vote for that."

Fine argued the vote reflects a deeper ideological divide in Washington.

"Why? It gets back to the other issue," he said. "They hate America. They stand with foreigners. They stand with Muslim terrorists. They don't stand with Americans."

 

 

Iran has long been identified by U.S. officials and analysts as a major state sponsor of terrorism, backing terrorist groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

The State Department has repeatedly cited Tehran's support for such organizations as destabilizing to the region and threatening to U.S. allies.

Fine also defended strong action against Iran's military ambitions, warning that the regime has spent decades threatening the United States while pursuing advanced weapons capabilities.

"When a country is screaming at you for 47 years, 'death to America,' you ought to believe them," Fine said, noting concerns that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons and missile systems capable of delivering them.

The Florida Republican also criticized Democrats on domestic security issues, accusing them of prioritizing illegal immigration over the safety of American citizens.

Fine said policies favored by Democrats weaken border enforcement and undermine federal efforts to remove individuals who are in the country illegally.

"The reason they keep this part of the government closed is because its job is to deport foreigners who are not supposed to be in this country," Fine said. "They don't care about you. They care about them."

Fine also took aim at political leaders, such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who downplay threats from Islamist extremism while focusing criticism on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The congressman's comments come amid heightened tensions in the Middle East and renewed debate in Washington over U.S. national security priorities, including border enforcement and America's response to Iran's regional activities.

Grab the Popcorn: Trump Executive Privilege Decision Means All That Info on Biden Is Coming Out

President Donald Trump just made a big decision that will likely expose a lot of information that was not released about Joe Biden during his occupation of the Oval Office. 

Trump has rejected Biden's claim of executive privilege to not turn over documents requested in various Senate probes, determining it is "not in the best interests of the United States." 

 White House counsel David Warrington wrote Monday in a letter addressed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and obtained by Fox News Digital that Trump "does not uphold the former President’s assertion of privilege" over records sought in four congressional probes. The letter directs NARA to provide the materials to Congress.

The dispute centers on documents related to investigations into Biden’s health, alleged politically motivated probes into Trump and his allies, and the Biden family’s financial dealings, which Republicans argue go to the heart of Congress’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight.

That means that the White House is telling NARA to turn over anything about the "cover-up" of "Biden’s health and cognitive decline." Imagine all the potential documents that could involve — we could see all the machinations and who specifically did what regarding any concealing of his cognitive decline. 

"The abuse of the autopen that took place during the Biden Presidency, and the extraordinary efforts to shield President Biden’s diminished faculties from the public, must be subject to a full accounting to ensure nothing similar ever happens again," Warrington wrote, quoting a prior letter.

Warrington had previously weighed in when Trump denied the executive privilege regarding the autopen issue. 

---

READ MORE: Autopen Showdown: Trump Slams Door on Biden's Executive Privilege Plea

Jonathan Turley Eviscerates Biden Invoking Executive Privilege Over Hur Audio

• ---

• The Senate was also trying to get records related to "coordinated efforts by the Biden administration against President Trump and his staff through politically motivated investigations." That could also reap a gold mine of interesting things. 

The White House argued that "the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield from Congress evidence of a President’s efforts to imprison his opponent."

Then the third set relates to the "Biden family’s financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest." That could encompass a ton of interesting stuff, including the interactions with foreign nationals. 

So Warrington directed NARA to turn over the three sets of records to the various congressional committees requesting them. 

Democrats are always screaming about transparency — while not being transparent. Why should any of that information held back by the Biden team not be released — unless there are things in there that they just don't want us to see? We need to have it all come out if we are to have any accountability in those probes. We've had a glaring lack of accountability for Democrat misconduct for far too long. This may finally get us closer to some real action, in addition to exposing more of the truth. 

Trump Administration Blacklists AI Firm Anthropic. Now the Company Is Suing the Pentagon.

The Pentagon rarely labels an American technology company a “supply chain risk.” The designation is typically reserved for firms tied to foreign adversaries or companies that could expose sensitive government systems to compromise.

 But in late February, the Trump administration applied that label to one of the most prominent artificial intelligence developers in the United States.

On Monday, Anthropic, the company behind the Claude AI system,

CEO  

Daniela Amodei

 

 turned up the heat on the fight by filing a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon and several government agencies after the administration ordered agencies to stop using its technology across the federal system.

“Anthropic sued the Defense Department and other federal agencies on Monday over the Trump administration’s move to designate it a supply chain risk and eliminate its use across the government,” the report explains. “The company said the effort was ‘unprecedented and unlawful.’”

The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation in a dispute that has been building since late February, when defense officials warned Anthropic that its partnership with the government could be terminated if the company refused to broaden the ways its artificial intelligence systems could be used within national security networks.

Artificial intelligence has been increasingly woven into defense infrastructure. These systems can analyze intelligence reports at scale, identify cyber threats across networks, and surface patterns in massive datasets that human analysts might miss.

For defense planners, that capability is not theoretical. It is quickly becoming part of how modern intelligence and military operations function.

That growing reliance on AI is exactly why the current legal fight carries broader implications.

According to reporting surrounding the lawsuit, Anthropic attempted to place limits on how its technology could be used by the military. Among the company’s concerns were potential uses involving large-scale surveillance systems or autonomous weapons capable of operating without human decision-making.

“The dispute stems from guardrails that Anthropic sought to impose on the military’s use of its Claude AI system,” the report explains. “The company sought assurances the technology would not be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons.”

From the Pentagon’s perspective, the stakes look very different.

Defense officials have been ramping up the development of artificial intelligence across logistics planning, intelligence analysis, and cyber defense as part of a broader push to modernize national security capabilities.

---

Read More: AI Is Already Embedded in Military Systems - Now the Fight Is Over How Far It Can Go

'Disastrous Mistake': Trump Calls Out Anthropic, Orders All Federal Agencies to Cut Ties

---

Washington has increasingly viewed AI as a strategic technology as competitors like China invest heavily in similar systems and attempt to close the gap with the United States.

The administration’s supply chain designation effectively blocks Anthropic technology from federal systems and signals that the government is willing to sideline companies that attempt to dictate operational limits on tools the military considers essential.

Anthropic’s lawsuit argues the government crossed a legal boundary when it imposed that restriction.

The filing argues that “the Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech” and claims that no statute authorizes the action taken against the company.

In its complaint, Anthropic asks the court to block its designation and restore its ability to work within the federal government while the case moves forward.

The lawsuit is “the latest development in an ongoing standoff between the Pentagon and one of the world’s most prominent AI companies as the White House attempts to boost AI adoption in the government.”

Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming embedded across the intelligence community, defense networks, and military planning systems. The legal fight between Anthropic and the federal government now poses a fundamental question to the courts: who ultimately decides how these systems are used once they are inside the national defense infrastructure?

Because once technologies like this are integrated into intelligence and military systems, the limits governing them do not shrink.

They become the baseline.

And whoever sets that baseline is deciding how the most powerful technology of the next generation will actually be used.

A New Poll Just Dropped in the GOP Texas Senate Primary. What Does it Show?

A new poll has been released on the state of the Republican primary in the Texas Senate race. President Donald Trump has signaled that an endorsement in the race may be coming soon, and that he would prefer that whoever he doesn’t select drop out from the race.

 The poll from Texas Public Opinion Research has shown that Paxton

 

 is currently leading incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the race by an eight point margin. Should Trump choose to endorse Cornyn, Paxton would still enjoy a 1 point lead with 13 percent of potential voters still undecided. If Paxton were to receive the endorsement, Cornyn would be in deep trouble, as Paxton would have a 16 point advantage over Cornyn heading into their May 26 electoral bout. The poll claims a margin of error of about four percent.

Paxton has indicated that, per Trump’s suggestion, he would be willing to drop out of the race should the Senate suspend the silent filibuster in order to pass the SAVE America Act, an election integrity bill championed by Trump and the vast majority of Republicans. The race gained national eyeballs once again when Cornyn said that he would be willing to implement the talking filibuster to pass Trump’s legislative agenda in response to Paxton's suggestion of a deal.

Whoever comes out the victor in the heated race will take on the radical James Talarico in the general election in November.

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

CNN's Scott Jennings Just Took a Blowtorch to the Dems' Reasons for Shutting Down DHS

CNN’s Scott Jennings did what he does best: taking a katana to liberal narratives, and he shut down the panel last night by obliterating the Democrats’ arguments for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. We’re at war with Iran, we’re seeing terrorist reprisals on our home soil, and terror sleeper cells might be activated, if not already. We need DHS operational. It’s been shut down since Presidents’ Day weekend, as Democrats try to force the Trump administration to curb their deportation agenda via Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jennings put all the arguments to rest. Actually, he took them to the woodshed: 

But does anyone here believe that we should keep the Department of Homeland Security — that’s the name of it — indefinitely shut down to try to force ICE policy changes on an agency that’s already funded until 2029…” 

“When you acknowledge there are sleeper cells, when we all see radical Islamic terrorists throwing IEDs in New York City, when we saw a radical Muslim terrorist shoot up a bar in Austin, when we had tornadoes in Oklahoma and Michigan this weekend, when we have TSA lines of five hours in airports, we have all these things going on.” 

“Is it even remotely reasonable to keep it closed?!” 

 Democrats don’t seem to care that ICE is funded. The Big, Beautiful Bill is keeping the deportation raids alive. All this shutdown is doing is screwing over TSA agents and leaving our homeland vulnerable to attack. 

 

Calif. Rep. Kevin Kiley leaves GOP, becoming only Independent in the House

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley questions former Special Counsel Jack Smith as he testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 22, 2026 in Washington, DC.

California Rep. Kevin Kiley announced on Monday that he is officially leaving the Republican Party and switching his affiliation to Independent, making him the sole Independent in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 During virtual calls with reporters, Kiley (Calif.-03) confirmed he would submit the necessary paperwork to the House Clerk that day to formalize the change. He cited deep frustration with rising partisanship in Congress as a key reason for the shift.

The move follows Kiley’s announcement last Friday that he had filed for reelection in the newly redrawn California’s 6^th Congressional District as a “No Party Preference” candidate.

He reportedly plans to continue caucusing with Republicans for the remainder of his current term to maintain committee assignments and administrative support, though the switch formally narrows the GOP’s already slim House majority.

 

This enables him to continue to keep his positions on committees, if leadership allows, according to The Hill.

“As an elected representative, I’ve always seen my role as being an independent voice for our community, holding politicians in Sacramento and Washington accountable,” he said, emphasizing his accountability to constituents rather than party leaders.

“It is no secret I’ve been frustrated, at times disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress,” he continued, citing last year’s government shutdown, increase in healthcare costs, and “a pointless redistricting war.”

 

Regarding future legislation, he stated he intends to evaluate every bill on its own merits. CBS News highlighted that the lawmaker has a history of breaking party lines on specific issues.

Gerrymandering is a plague on democracy, one that Gavin Newsom has brought back to California. But there’s a way we can fight back and protect our democracy from his partisan games: by removing partisanship from the equation. Today, I filed for reelection as “No Party… pic.twitter.com/OhGDzKtPEp

— Kevin Kiley (@KevinKileyCA) March 7, 2026

 

Tommy Robinson Sounds Alarm: America Must Learn from Britain's Mistakes

Tommy Robinson’s recent appearance on Sara Gonzales’ show didn’t waste time soft-pedaling the threat he says America now faces. The British journalist — known for exposing grooming gangs and for his blunt wake-up calls about what happened in towns across the U.K. — told Gonzales he’s seen the warning signs here and believes Americans should take them seriously. Robinson’s segment was a straight-to-the-point alarm: this isn’t abstract theory, it’s lived experience and a call to act before our own institutions start to bend.

 Robinson reminded viewers that his warnings come from decades on Britain’s front lines where patterns of radicalization, two-tier enforcement, and social segregation emerged long before politicians acknowledged them. He recounted how local problems turned into national crises when authorities ignored uncomfortable facts and when cultural sensitivity replaced common-sense law enforcement. Those are not comforting memories to bring to an American audience; they are a warning the left would rather label as fearmongering than confront.

For conservatives who still value truth over convenience, Robinson’s frankness is refreshing and necessary. The mainstream media and much of the political class have spent years downplaying the link between ideology and criminal behavior when it doesn’t fit their narratives, and that silence has real costs for women, children, and communities. Robust debate about ideology and assimilation isn’t bigotry; it’s a prerequisite for public safety and the preservation of Western freedoms.

Gonzales and Robinson both pushed the practical point that good intentions and multicultural platitudes won’t substitute for clear policy: secure borders, enforce the rule of law, and refuse legal doctrines that undermine constitutional order. Conservatives should stop apologizing for defending the basic American bargain — liberty and equal protection under the law — and start pressing for concrete measures that prevent parallel legal systems from taking root. If Democrats think virtue-signaling will solve these problems, they’re sleepwalking toward the very outcomes conservatives refuse to accept.

Every patriotic American who cares about the next generation should pay attention to the lessons from Britain: where authorities look the other way, predators exploit the gap and communities pay the price. Robinson’s testimony is not an attack on individuals of faith; it’s a condemnation of radical ideologies and of the cowardice that allows them to spread unchecked. We have to defend the dignity of women and children and ensure our streets and schools remain safe places for every family.

This is a moment for conservatives to stop being reactive and start shaping the debate on our terms. Support candidates who will secure the border, defend free speech, and back prosecutors who enforce the law without fear of being branded intolerant. Platforms like Gonzales’ show are doing the hard work of giving voice to inconvenient truths — it’s time we turned that talk into policy victories at the ballot box.

Hardworking Americans deserve leaders who will protect our freedoms and our way of life rather than sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness. Listen to the warnings coming from those who have lived through the consequences of appeasement, and then act with the resolve that built this country. If we want to preserve the Republic we love, we cannot afford complacency or cowardice — only clear eyes, firm policy, and unflinching courage will do.

 

Mourners Outraged as Funeral Becomes Political Theater for Elites

The nation watched a heavyhearted moment turned into a political spectacle when mourners gathered to honor Rev. Jesse Jackson, only to have the pulpit bend toward partisan theater. What should have been a private reckoning and celebration of a civil-rights giant instead became another stage for Washington power players to score rhetorical points. Many Americans were rightly unsettled to see a funeral hijacked by the same political theater that has hollowed out public life.

 Long before those podiums were seized, Jesse Jackson Jr. publicly begged speakers to leave politics at the door and to honor the man he called his father without turning the service into a campaign rally. That plea was crystal clear and came from someone closest to the family — yet it was brushed aside by those who prefer headlines over human decency. When a son’s request for respect is ignored, it reveals far more about the speakers than about the man they claim to revere.

Instead of consoling the Jackson family, some former presidents used their tributes to deliver broad political warnings and veiled attacks on the current administration, injecting the names of living political opponents into a solemn occasion. That choice betrayed the trust of grieving relatives and turned remembrance into an open audition for outrage-driven media cycles. Mourners deserve moments of dignity, not an invite to the next round of partisan grievance.

The backlash was swift and justified: Jesse Jackson Jr. himself lambasted former presidents for misreading his father’s life and for forcing party politics into a memorial that the family had asked to be apolitical. His rebuke was blunt and, for many, painfully overdue — a reminder that political elites often mistake megaphones for moral authority. When even the deceased’s own family calls out the grandstanding, Americans should take notice.

Across social media and in community chatter, ordinary citizens expressed disgust at the spectacle, and a strand of disillusionment spread among voters who feel taken for granted by a party that treats their loyalties as automatic. This isn’t about silencing debate; it’s about basic respect and the decency to honor a family’s wishes when they’re in mourning. Political operatives who weaponize funerals reveal the moral bankruptcy of a movement that confuses performative outrage with leadership.

Conservative readers should take no pleasure in the chaos; instead we should use this moment to demand higher standards of conduct from everyone who claims to lead. Hardworking Americans of all backgrounds are tired of a class of political celebrities who turn every civic ritual into another ad for their brand. If our leaders cannot even respect a family’s grief, why should they be trusted with the public’s business?

CartoonDems