CartoonDems

 

Netanyahu Says No Iran Deal Possible, Told Trump 'Savages' Can't Be Trusted

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that he doubts a diplomatic agreement can be reached with Iran’s leadership, recounting a recent conversation with President Donald Trump in which the two discussed the possibility of diplomacy, military action and increased economic pressure on Tehran.

Netanyahu said he discussed the options with Trump during their July 28 meeting at the White House and expressed doubts that negotiations could produce an agreement with Iran’s current leadership.

Recounting that conversation at an event Tuesday night, Netanyahu said he told Trump he was skeptical that an agreement could be reached with Iran.

“I doubt, however, that an agreement can be reached with that group there, with those savages,” Netanyahu said.

“I tell you — an agreement cannot be reached,” he added.

The remarks were made at an event in Jerusalem for Israeli settlers in the West Bank and were reported by AFP, with the comments independently carried by outlets including CBS News, Arab News and the Times of Israel.

Netanyahu said his conversation with Trump involved three possible approaches to Iran: pursuing a diplomatic agreement, resuming military action or tightening economic pressure.

He said he supported the third option and praised Trump for choosing to intensify economic pressure rather than immediately launching another major military campaign.

Netanyahu said he had urged Trump to “tighten the siege” on Iran and praised the president for pursuing that strategy “in a very, very, very strong way,” according to the Times of Israel, which reviewed video of Netanyahu’s remarks.

Trump on Monday announced what he called an “economic D-Day” against Iran, expanding the administration’s campaign to punish not only Tehran but also foreign companies and other entities that help sustain the Iranian economy.

Netanyahu said Trump’s approach was significant because it sought to pressure countries and entities that assist Iran, rather than targeting Iran alone.

“Trump decided to tighten the siege on those who assist this regime, this terrible dictatorship,” Netanyahu said, according to AFP.

The comments represent a strong endorsement from Netanyahu of the Trump administration’s latest economic campaign even as the president has continued to leave open the possibility of diplomacy.

Trump has previously pushed for a negotiated resolution with Tehran while also threatening additional military action if Iran refuses to meet U.S. demands.

Iranian officials have rejected the latest U.S. pressure campaign.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Wednesday that the United States would accomplish nothing with its sanctions campaign, according to AFP reporting carried by multiple outlets.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has long opposed diplomatic agreements that he believes would leave Iran capable of rebuilding its nuclear and military capabilities.

His latest remarks come as the Trump administration seeks to use economic pressure to force Tehran to make concessions while avoiding an immediate return to large-scale military operations.

The confrontation also remains closely tied to the Strait of Hormuz, where commercial shipping has been sharply disrupted during the conflict.

Netanyahu’s comments suggest he sees intensified economic pressure as the preferred course for now, while remaining deeply skeptical that Iran’s leadership can ultimately be persuaded to reach a lasting diplomatic agreement.

At the same time, his account of the July meeting with Trump makes clear that diplomacy was among the options discussed — even as Netanyahu told the president he did not believe Iran’s leaders could be trusted to reach a deal.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

CA Atty. Gen. Bonta and Gavin Newsom Love a Lawsuit—But Don't Expect a Press Release When They Lose

Like his boss, Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta talks a big game, but can't back up his words with success. Whether it's attempting to defend the supermajority's latest unconstitutional power grab or some regulatory agency's overreach in court, or pursuing politically-motivated lawsuits against President Trump that will have no positive effect for the state's residents, Bonta's out there with his face in front of the cameras and sending gagworthy email updates to the electorate (come to think of it, I have no idea how I even got on that email list; maybe I should sue him for spamming me?). But we don't hear much about his considerable and noteworthy losses, especially on frivolous lawsuits and baseless appeals, and don't have a simple way to trace them.

(Meanwhile, the City of Los Angeles, whose Controller is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has an easy-to-use Liability Claims Dashboard that can be searched by department and has each individual case listed.)

For example, neither Bonta nor Newsom sent out scathing press releases when they had to tuck tail and dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to cut off $4 billion in funding to the state's beleaguered high speed rail project.

 When that happened in July 2025, Newsom threw a fit and vowed to sue, saying:

“Trump’s termination of federal grants for California high-speed rail reeks of politics. It’s yet another political stunt to punish California. In reality, this is just a heartless attack on the Central Valley that will put real jobs and livelihoods on the line. We’re suing to stop Trump from derailing America’s only high-speed rail actively under construction."

Of course, he didn't acknowledge that funding was pulled after the Federal Railroad Administration conducted a three-month review of the project, its administrator alleging that the California High Speed Rail Authority “has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,” or that the FRA had listed out specific concerns to HSRA in a June 4, 2025 letter, asking for a response within 30 days, and that the FRA found that neither response "satisfactorily addressed" its concerns.

As it turns out, all the HSRA needed to do to keep the funding was sign a contract to purchase the trains by December 31, 2024 — during the Biden administration. They missed that deadline. Once the funding was pulled and a lawsuit was underway Bonta's team promised the judge they'd sign a contract by December 1, 2025. And they couldn't even do that. (California Democrats rarely have a problem finding a crony to whom they can hand a fat contract, so it makes one wonder if they wanted this funding to be pulled, or if there was just disagreement over which crony to reward.)

After missing that December 1, 2025 deadline, Bonta's office and the HSRA quietly dropped the lawsuit, in their words, "after deciding this administration was not a reliable partner. The Authority hopes to renew a federal partnership with future administrations."

No video to social media, no press release, nothing. Just wasted taxpayer dollars paying the salaries of the clowns fighting a losing battle. 

CBS California's Julie Watts has an extremely detailed and informative series on the whole debacle.

At least in that case the only resource wasted was bureaucrat salaries. This week, the legislature is getting ready to pass this year's claims bill, which his office drafts and nobody ever really questions, which funds the payment of claims, judgments, and settlements for which there wasn't already sufficient appropriations; this year's total is $7.4 million and covers eight lawsuits. Four of those lawsuits are successful challenges to the draconian gun control laws Sacramento loves so much, and the other four essentially have to do with free speech, another constitutional right California Democrats love to attack. Now, we can't fully blame Bonta for these losses; he's playing the hand he's dealt. But at what point does the Attorney General, instead of giving a full-throated defense to what he surely knows are unconstitutional laws, start telling the legislature that they need to repeal it instead? And these are just the claims, settlements, and judgments that aren't covered by existing appropriations; with a lot of effort we might be able to find the rest of the cases for which various state departments used their existing appropriations to pay claims, settlements, and judgments.

In addition, we're not finding out about these liability payouts until the last week of the legislative year. For the 2A cases, people who follow such things already knew about the payouts because the plaintiffs, understandably, made it known. Undoubtedly there are numerous cases each year that fly under the radar.

And then we have the cases where the state continues dubious appeals after losing. The most recent example of this is a case in which the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) was "blocked from pursuing more than $100 million in penalties and restitution against fintech lender Opportunity Financial LLC (OppFi)" under the state's usury laws, alleging that California-chartered OppFi was the true lender and not Utah-chartered FinWise, when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gary Roberts granted summary judgment to OppFi. According to legal analysts, DFPI faces an uphill battle on appeal — in state court, where Bonta can usually rely on a favorable reception — since Roberts relied on longstanding legal principles in granting summary judgment. Instead of just admitting defeat, Bonta and DFPI are doubling down, and could very well leave taxpayers on the hook for significant legal fees.

As the legislative session winds down this week in Sacramento, look for even more laws restricting essential freedoms to be passed and signed into law — leading to another spate of legal challenges and judgments for which taxpayers will be on the hook. Don't expect Gavin Newsom or Rob Bonta to admit those defeats on social media (and don't get me going about what they've started with the so-called "Stop Nick Shirley Act").

 

Leftist Influencer Just Risked 20 Years After Bragging He Donated to Newly Designated Terror Group

A popular left-wing influencer was warned he could face a 20-year prison sentence after the State Department said he bragged about donating to a group Washington had just labeled a terrorist organization.

Those of us who have had the displeasure of seeing the Krassenstein brothers on X know that neither of them is exactly the brightest of bulbs. Brian, however, may have stepped in it with his latest stunt.

On Wednesday, shortly after the United States designated Italy-based tech collective Autistici/Inventati (A/I) a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT),

 

 Krassenstein urged his followers to send the group money, then posted — and quickly deleted — a two-word follow-up: 

"Donated thanks."

Assistant Secretary of State Dylan Johnson circulated a screenshot of the deleted post and reminded anyone watching that sending funds to an SDGT is a federal crime. And a very serious crime at that: punishable by up to two decades behind bars and a pretty substantial fine.

Why did @krassenstein tweet (and then delete) that he donated to a designated terrorist organization? https://t.co/7Lnhhgqjw7 pic.twitter.com/IhVhl89TmP

— Dylan Johnson (@ASDylanJohnson) August 26, 2026

Officials said the A/I collective built encrypted hosting, email, chat, and anonymity tools used by violent Antifa cells and other far-left militants in the U.S. and Europe. 

The government also accused A/I’s infrastructure of being used by networks tied to Hamas, Iran’s IRGC, Hezbollah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

As such, Americans sending them money or other support is a very bad idea just on its surface. Now, according to Johnson, you toss in some legal ramifications and, well, Krassenstein is potentially in some hot water.

"Donating money to a specially designated global terrorist is a federal crime. You can be prosecuted and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison and fined up to $1 million," Johnson wrote on X. "So, maybe talk to a lawyer before listening to this moron."

Donating money to a specially designated global terrorist is a federal crime.

You can be prosecuted and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison and fined up to $1 million.

So, maybe talk to a lawyer before listening to this moron. https://t.co/n4J5RR0a0Y

— Dylan Johnson (@ASDylanJohnson) August 26, 2026

I mean, honestly, consult just about anybody before listening to a Krassenstein. Following the influencer directly into possible legal peril is not advised. At all.

 

After the State Department official's warning, Krassenstein walked back his claims and said he hadn't donated after all. He pasted A/I’s self-description (which is some next-level propaganda for a terrorist organization) and asked whether they sounded like terrorists, or whether “the people banning them and intimidating those who support them are the terrorists.”

"(And) no, I didn't donate to them," he added. "I'm not falling into your trap now that it's official, but as soon as the designation is removed (which it will be), I will raise as much money as I (possibly) can for them. That's a promise."

Do you think his followers would pick up on the fact that, assuming what he is saying is true now, he lied to them, possibly convinced them to commit a federal crime, and then tucked his tail while leaving them to face the ramifications?

Yeah, me neither.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio,

 

 in naming A/I as a far-left terror organization whose services are used by the most active and violent Antifa cells in the U.S. and abroad, said far-left terrorism “poses a profound threat to the United States and the broader West.”

"There will be no refuge for violent extremists who wage war on our civilization and plot to undermine law and order, destroy critical infrastructure, assault political opponents, or conspire to conceal their crimes from authorities," said Rubio. "We will use all the tools and authorities at our disposal to fight terrorism and protect our way of life from terrorist coercion."

Krassenstein is still unlikely to be the test case here. He probably never sent the money, didn’t understand the statute, and Washington got more value from using him as a warning. That doesn’t make him clever. It makes him lucky.

 

This Fox News Lib Admitted That Trump's Attacks Make Her Cry 😭

 

Fox News liberal Jessica Tarlov admitted to The New Yorker's David Reminick

 

 that she wished Trump had won the 2020 election, and his attacks on her on Truth Social have made her cry:😂 Bullshit

The New Yorker's David Reminick: "He wrote this: 'Why does Fox News allow failed TV personality Jessica Tarlov to soil The Five? Her voice, her manner, and above all else what she says are a disgrace to television broadcasting.'"

"When you read that on Truth Social, do you feel terrible — or do you go, 'I like that'?"

Tarlov: "I feel terrible ... I'm mostly in tears about it. Not that one in particular ... What really gets to me is threatening my job."

 

Well, first, I don’t think Tarlov will ever be fired; she’ll be allowed to leave on her own accord, despite being wrong on policy. She also felt that Trump likely would’ve won the 2020 election and wished he had, as his time away only made the MAGA movement stronger. If he’d won, he’d be term-limited and out of the White House. 

"I believe without COVID that Trump would've won reelection — and I wish that he had! I wish we were done now — because he, like Ursula, got stronger in those four years,” she said.

Where’s the lie? 

 

49ers Owner Jed York's Latest Arrest Caps Off a Disastrous Summer for the NFL Franchise

The San Francisco 49ers are in rough shape. With the NFL season right around the corner, the team has about two dozen players limited or missing practice due to injury. Then, head coach Kyle Shanahan was almost killed in a car crash. 

 

There was a funny fan-based conspiracy theory about the injuries, namely that the nearby electrical substation is the cause of the mayhem. How could things get worse? 

Well, how about the billionaire owner, Jed York, getting busted in East Palestine, Ohio, for trying to solicit a prostitute in a trailer park. The bodycam footage of the arrest was recently released. York recently divorced from his wife. (via NY Post):

— Matthias Gafni (@mgafni) August 24, 2026

Jed York owns the 49ers and really pulled up in a Yankees disguise fit thinking nobody would recognize him 😭 https://t.co/Q0nfsXu2X9 pic.twitter.com/S49Tw9Ex5G

— GhettoGronk (@ghetto_gronk) August 26, 2026

The owner of the San Fransisco 49ers paid $140 for a prostitute and my fantasy league dues are $200.

— Degen CPA (@DrewVento) August 25, 2026

San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York was desperate to meet up with a prostitute, pinging a fake sex ad multiple times while trying to hide his famous identity, according to new police documents obtained by the California Post.

He was told he would be charged $160 – and offered unprotected sex cost for an additional $20.

York first tried to arrange sex through the undercover ad on Saturday, a Mahoning Valley Human Trafficking Task Force report stated.

York messaged the female and advised that his name was Joe and that he would like to visit the female,” detectives wrote in the document.

Later that same day, York allegedly reached out again.

He “advised that he was just checking in, and was seeing if the female was available,” the report stated.

When both messages went unanswered by the undercover agent involved in the sting, York again reached out at 9:11 a.m. Sunday, according to the document.

[…]

York was taken into custody and booked on two separate charges — one count of engaging in prostitution and one count of possessing criminal tools.

After reaching a deal with prosecutors, he pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct as well as one count of possession criminal tools on Monday.

He was ordered to pay $1,150 in fines, and was sentenced to one day in jail, though he was given credit for time served and released.

The incident came roughly four months after York filed for divorce from his wife, Danielle Belluomini.

“One count of possession of criminal tools” is something. What a circus, folks. 

Apparently I specialize in groins now? First Jed, now Mike… 🤷🏻‍♂️ https://t.co/DY3cyfuZZ1

— Electrical Substation (@SCSubstation) August 25, 2026

 

Second Lady Usha Vance delivers graceful response after El-Sayed's 'race-baiting' remarks in apparent jab at the VP, his family

Second Lady Usha Vance responded with notable poise and grace after Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed launched a personal “race-baiting” jab targeting her Indian heritage.

Race-baiting is the intentional use of inflammatory language or actions regarding race or ethnicity to provoke anger, fear, or division, usually for political or social advantage.

The exchange began after Vice President JD Vance criticized El-Sayed’s past remarks on Sharia law.

In response, the Senate hopeful targeted Vance’s working-class grandfather — whom the VP affectionately called “Papaw” — implying that he would have found his grandson’s marriage entirely unacceptable due to Usha’s complexion and Indian heritage.

 

“So, do we think JD is taking Usha with him back in time to meet Papaw, or no…?” El-Sayed asked sarcastically on Saturday, taking an apparent swipe at the second lady’s Indian heritage. Critics also quickly pointed out the underlying insinuation: that Vance’s family would have been too prejudiced to accept her.

Usha, however, shrugged off the distasteful insult, instead offering a gracious reply during an interview with Fox News that aired on Wednesday.

 

“I have to admit I kind of laughed,” she remarked. “Yes, I never met JD’s mamaw and papaw. I do know and love the children that they raised [though], his mom, his aunt and uncle. And they have never been anything but incredibly loving. His aunt is like a second mother to me. I have to think that, if they raised children like that, they would’ve been loving as well and I would have really, really, really loved to have met them.”

The second lady also noted that while she had never visited Ohio prior to dating Vance, the experience far exceeded her expectations once she arrived.

“It’s a culturally diverse place,” she said. “The people have been so welcoming. Everyone has been so loving. They are my family. They treat me like their family.”

Campaigning in Ohio earlier this week, the vice president pointed to recent comments from El-Sayed — who bizarrely linked criticism of Sharia law to White supremacy — as proof that Democrats have abandoned American-born working-class voters.

Vance often speaks of his grandfather, James Vance — whom he affectionately called “Papaw” — as a deeply influential figure who provided essential stability throughout his life. A welder for 40 years, James supported Democrats because he viewed them as the “party of union men,” according to the VP.

“I’d love to go back in time and tell my Pawpaw that there is a man who claims to stand for working people who says not only should we have Sharia law, but if you criticize it, you’re a White supremacist. That’s not my grandpa’s Democrat Party,” Vance said.

Following El-Sayed’s crude comments on the Vance’s, other GOP lawmakers were quick to defend the vice president as well.

“Why does Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed just assume that all white Midwestern grandparents are racist?” questioned Representative Brandon Gill (R-Texas).

Vance met the future second lady at Yale Law School in 2010. The pair also just welcomed their fourth child, Alec Neel Vance, who was born on July 19^th. Usha was born in San Diego, California.

 

President Donald Trump Says Sharia Pockets Are Taking Root

President Donald Trump finally said what millions of Americans have been warning about for years: parallel pockets of foreign law and foreign influence are taking root in our cities, and the political class wants to look the other way. His blunt answer on Glenn Beck—that he would “absolutely prohibit the Sharia law thing” and that “it is happening in this country a little bit”—exposed the cowardice of media elites who spent years calling concerned citizens alarmists.

Trump spoke the plain truth and named the stakes

When President Donald Trump pointed to London and Paris as warning signs and insisted America must have one legal system, he echoed a core conservative principle: equal application of the law for every citizen. That rhetoric isn’t fearmongering; it is common sense governance—one country, one law—and no patriotic leader should apologize for defending it. The ability to say what is plainly visible is part of the bravery voters rewarded in 2024, and it matters now more than ever.

Washington’s double standard is on full display

At the same time the Treasury used OFAC tools to designate the foreign group Palestine Action, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent vowed to cut financial lifelines for violent actors, showing the administration can act when it wants to. Conservatives rightly ask: if the government can locate and sanction groups overseas, why is there hesitancy to confront organizations here at home that raise serious questions about loyalties and taxpayer-funded tax exemptions? Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent owe the American people transparency—a published list of domestic organizations under review would be a start.

Dearborn, Laura Loomer, and the silence from officials

The contrast between a muted Dearborn city council 

 

and the President’s clear statement could not be starker; a black pastor’s simple question about denouncing Sharia law drew silence instead of answers, proving the establishment prefers smears to accountability. Activists like Laura Loomer have been pressing federal officials and challenging the double standard, arguing political reasons explain the different treatment of foreign versus domestic actors. Whatever the exact phrasing, the message from the grassroots is simple: if we have tools to punish dangerous ideologies abroad, we must not pretend the same issues do not exist in American neighborhoods.

 

Congress must stop pledges and write the law

A presidential promise matters, but it is lawmakers in the Republican House and Republican Senate who must turn words into enforceable policy that survives constitutional scrutiny. Republicans controlling Congress should draft clear, neutral legislation that ensures one legal standard applies everywhere without singling out religion in a way that courts will strike down, publish the names of suspect organizations, and cut off any taxpayer subsidies. If conservatives want to protect our country and our rule of law, now is the time to demand action—no more silence, no more double standards, and no more excuses.

 

Justice or Excuse? Lindsay Clancy Trial Exposes Hard Truths of Motherhood

The trial of Lindsay Clancy — the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children on January 24, 2023 — has laid bare a tragedy and a courtroom fight over accountability and the limits of psychiatric defenses. Jurors in Plymouth Superior Court have been tasked with weighing competing narratives about what happened to Cora, Dawson and baby Callan and whether mental illness explains or excuses the deaths. The nation is watching as a local sorrow becomes a test of justice and common sense.

One of the most wrenching moments came when her former husband, Patrick Clancy,

  took the stand and jurors heard the 911 call he made the night he found his children. His testimony and that harrowing recording gave the courtroom a raw, unvarnished window into the horrors prosecutors say unfolded and forced everyone in the room to confront the human cost beyond legal theory. That firsthand account became one of the clearest pieces of evidence for ordinary Americans following the case.

The defense has been blunt: Clancy’s lawyers say she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and have pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, asking jurors to view her actions through the prism of severe mental illness. That defense invites sympathy, but it also demands rigorous proof that her condition rendered her incapable of understanding or controlling her actions on that day. Families and communities deserve clarity, not shaky medical assertions that risk becoming get-out-of-jail-free cards.

 

Prosecutors pushed back hard, focusing on testimony and evidence meant to undercut the idea that Clancy was simply “overmedicated” or completely detached from reality. The questioning exposed contradictions and offered jurors reasons to doubt a simple psychiatric escape hatch, with Patrick’s testimony containing details that both helped and hurt the defense’s claims. That tug-of-war over facts, behavior and medical testimony is precisely what a jury should sort out in public, not in the court of social media opinion.

Outside the courthouse, public sympathy and organized demonstrations in support of Clancy have complicated the conversation, turning a criminal proceeding into a cultural event about motherhood, mental health and blame. Those rallies and public campaigns risk pressuring juries and reframing a criminal act into a political statement, which is dangerous when real victims are gone and real questions of culpability remain. The spectacle should not distract from the solemn duty of justice.

Hardworking Americans ought to be clear-eyed: empathy for mental illness is not a substitute for justice when three children have been killed. We can care about psychiatric care while still insisting that the legal system hold people to account when lives are taken. Turning to fashionable narratives or partisan narratives won’t bring those children back or give families real closure.

This case should remind every community that courts must be sober arbiters, not social-justice tribunals or therapy sessions posted for clicks. We owe it to the victims, to decent law-abiding citizens, and to the principle that no one is above the law. The jury’s decision should be based on facts and evidence, and when the verdict comes, we must accept it while continuing to fight for policies that protect children and strengthen families.

 

CartoonDems