CartoonDems

 

Rubio Meets Pope Leo After Trump's Criticism Over Iran

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio opened a visit to the Vatican on Thursday after recent disagreements between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV over immigration policy and the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran strained relations with the Holy See.

Rubio, a practicing Catholic, was scheduled to have an audience with Leo on Thursday, shortly after Trump renewed criticism of the Chicago-born pope. Leo responded by rejecting Trump’s characterization of his views on Iran and nuclear weapons and said he was preaching the biblical message of peace.

Meetings Friday with Premier Giorgia Meloni

 

and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani 

 

also come amid differences over the Iran war. Both Italian leaders have defended Leo following Trump’s criticisms and have voiced concerns about the legality of the conflict.

Rubio said this week that the visit had been planned for some time but acknowledged that “obviously we had some stuff that happened.”

The tensions escalated last month when Trump criticized Leo on social media over comments about the administration’s immigration policies, deportations and the Iran war. Leo later said God doesn’t listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

Later, Trump posted a social media image that critics said appeared to liken himself to Jesus Christ. The image was later deleted after backlash. Trump has not apologized to Leo and said he believed the image portrayed him as a doctor.

Rubio said Trump’s criticisms of Leo were rooted in concerns about Iran potentially obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he said could threaten millions of Catholics and other Christians.

Trump “doesn’t understand why anybody — leave aside the pope — the president and I, for that matter, I think most people, I cannot understand why anyone would think that it’s a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon,” Rubio told reporters Tuesday at the White House.

Leo has not said Iran should obtain nuclear weapons, and the Catholic Church has long opposed nuclear weapons.

“The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel, to preach peace. If someone wants to criticize me for announcing the Gospel, let him do it with the truth,” Leo said late Tuesday, after Trump again accused him of being “OK” with Iran having a nuclear weapon.

Leo noted that the Catholic Church has always permitted countries to act in self-defense and acknowledged the church's “just war” tradition.

But with the advance of the age of nuclear weapons, “the whole concept of war has to be reevaluated in terms today," he said. “And I always believe that it’s much better to enter into dialogue than to look for arms.”

Rubio has frequently responded to questions about Trump’s rhetoric and foreign policy positions. Trump also has criticized Meloni and other NATO allies over support for the Iran war and recently announced plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany in the coming months.

Giampiero Gramaglia, former head of the ANSA news agency and its onetime Washington correspondent, said some Italian observers viewed Rubio’s visit as an effort to improve relations with the Vatican while also navigating broader Republican political dynamics ahead of future elections.

“I doubt Rubio has the role of conciliator for Trump,” he told Italy's Foreign Press Association. “I have the perception that Rubio’s mission is more about himself” and his political ambitions as a prominent Catholic Republican.

The Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary in the Vatican’s culture office, said Rubio’s mission wasn’t to “convert” the pope to Trump’s side. Rather, Washington “has come to acknowledge — implicitly but legibly — that (Leo’s) voice carries weight in the world that cannot simply be dismissed.”

“The situation created by President Trump’s remarks required a high-level, direct intervention, conducted in the proper language of diplomacy: a semantic corrective to a narrative of frontal conflict with the church,” he wrote in an essay this week.

Journalist Massimo Franco, writing in the Corriere della Sera newspaper, said the Vatican’s decision not to cancel the pope’s audience with Rubio after Trump’s latest criticism reflected its willingness to maintain dialogue.

 

But relations with the Meloni government, which faces significant public opposition in Italy to the Iran war, remain complicated. “Keeping the alliance with the United States firm while criticizing the president is showing itself to be increasingly difficult,” Franco wrote Wednesday.

Farian Sabahi, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Insubria who is of Iranian descent, said Meloni could face pressure to more strongly criticize the war because of Italy’s economic ties with Iran. Italy is the No. 2 European Union trading partner with Iran, after Germany, working within EU sanctions.

“From a purely opportunistic standpoint, it would actually be advisable to condemn the Israeli-U.S. aggression precisely to give Italian companies the opportunity to do business, given that there are many other players on the international stage ready to enter the Iranian market,” she said.

Rubio said topics other than the Iran war were on the agenda for the Vatican visit, including Cuba. The Holy See has expressed concern about Trump administration statements regarding potential military action there following its January ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has said frequently that Cuba could be “next” and suggested that once the war with Iran is over, naval assets deployed in the Middle East could return to the United States by way of Cuba.

Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants and a longtime Cuba hawk.

“We gave Cuba $6 million of humanitarian aid, but obviously they won’t let us distribute it," Rubio said. “We distributed it through the church. We’d like to do more.”

 

Seattle Succumbs to Socialist Doom Loop

Despite dim-witted socialists’ dreams of creating infinite revenue to pay for all their “free stuff,” levying high taxes on the most productive people creates economic doom loops. Like downward spirals, doom loops are self-reinforcing vicious cycles that beget further negative consequences. They also are notoriously difficult to stop once they come into being.

The socialist doom loop

 

 is a phenomenon that has occurred in some form or fashion wherever and whenever socialist economic systems have been enacted. Sometimes it happens via what is called “brain drain,” wherein the brightest and most entrepreneurial people flee socialist societies due to lack of opportunity. Other times, it can result in massive capital outflows.

The situation in Seattle, Washington, is particularly worrisome, considering Mayor Katie Wilson’s recent comments concerning whether millionaires will migrate from the city given the state’s new millionaire tax. 

 

“I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are, like, super overblown,” Wilson said to cheers and applause at Seattle University in mid-April. “And if — the ones that leave, like, bye,” Wilson added.

---

READ MORE: New Socialist Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson Laughs Off Wealth Flight

---

Wilson, a democratic socialist who never met a tax on the wealthy she didn’t like, could not be more off base when she mocks and ridicules millionaires.

“We have a large structural budget deficit at the city that we’re going to have to figure out how to deal with in this upcoming budget cycle,” Wilson recently admitted.

Unsurprisingly, her solution to the looming budget shortfall is “to look at what our options are in terms of progressive taxation.” 

In 2027, Seattle faces a budget deficit of at least $127 million. 

To be fair, Wilson inherited a fiscal mess from her predecessor, who used smoke-and-mirror tactics to make the budget appear less dire while he was in office. 

The Seattle City Council

 

 acknowledges that the fiscal outlook is “inherently unsustainable.” They even warn “that few clear options, other than potentially drastic and immediate cuts, remain to respond to future fiscal challenges.”

But that is not what Mayor Wilson has in store for Seattle.

On Valentine’s Day, Wilson gave a speech describing the city as “filthy rich,” suggesting “progressive taxes on high earners are sustainable and lucrative.” 

That is a ludicrous assertion. As the Washington Policy Center notes, taxing the rich “downplays migration risks, and ignores the delayed nature of behavioral responses to taxation.”

What’s more, Seattle’s budget has ballooned over the past few years.

In 2018, Seattle’s population was about 743,000 residents. That year, the city budget totaled $4.6 billion.

This year, the city will allocate $8.9 billion in total for a population of approximately 800,000 residents!

Earlier this year, Wilson delivered her State of the City Address, in which she implored the “city council to fund shelter expansion,” “expand childcare and early education as public goods,” “expand access to affordable food,” increase rent subsidies, etc.

“I am determined to add 1,000 new units this year, with services matched to people’s needs, and we are on our way to reach this goal,” Wilson proclaimed. 

With little to no signs of spending cuts in the offing, one cannot help but assume that Wilson’s socialist spending spree will make Seattle’s “inherently unsustainable” budget situation even more untenable.

That is, unless you believe, like Wilson apparently, that wealthy Seattleites, the business risk-takers, will stay put no matter how high you tax them. 

---

SEE ALSO: Washington Passes 9.9 Percent Millionaire Tax - Now Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz Is Leaving Seattle

---

I believe, as history demonstrates, that productive people are much more likely to relocate to a more tax- and business-friendly environment across state lines.

Unlike the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, and Cuba, socialist cities in the United States cannot erect giant fences to keep people stuck under their socialist systems. 

In the United States, fortunately, the states serve as the laboratories of democracy. If Washington, California, and New York seek to soak the rich, the rich have every right to move to a state that is more economically attractive to them.

For now, at least, socialist doom loops are exclusively restricted to cities and states that choose to tread down the terrible road of socialism. The real nightmare scenario for Americans is a socialist doom loop at the national level, which could be more likely than most Americans realize, given the soaring popularity of socialism among America’s youth.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute. 

 

Bass, Raman Left Sputtering As Spencer Pratt Brings Savage 'Reality' Star Power to LA Mayoral Debate

I admit, I didn’t know a lot about Los Angeles Republican mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt. I have never seen the MTV show that made him famous, The Hills, and frankly, I assumed that a reality star was not a serious candidate to be the chief executive of the second most populous city in the nation.

I fully remember, however, a grade teacher exhorting me back in the day, “Do not assume.” You make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.”

I wholeheartedly admit that my bias was misplaced, because as I’ve now seen in numerous bombshell ads and interviews, Pratt is no lightweight, and is in fact, a powerful voice with a firm grasp of the issues plaguing the City of Angels. He’s called out the powers that be, and showed on Wednesday night during the mayoral debate that he’s a far better answer to the city’s decline than failed Democrat incumbent mayor Karen Bass or democratic socialist extremist candidate Nithya Raman.

Pratt watched his home burn to the ground — along with his parents’ residence — not due to climate change, but due to the ineptitude of California officials across the spectrum.

He brought some serious reality to the discussion, and frankly embarrassed Bass and Raman’s endless progressive posturing, which has led the city to ruin:

Spencer Pratt just DESTROYED Nithya Raman who was trying to convince LA that he and Karen Bass are teaming up against her because they have a better chance against each other.

Pratt: "First off, Mayor Bass and I are definitely not working together. I blame this person for burning my house and my parents' house and my town and my neighbors down. I am not working with Mayor Bass."

"Second off, if I wanna run against anybody, it would be the councilmember who is terrible. Mayor Bass has at least been a mayor for almost 4 years and has, as she talked about earlier, the unions, all the unions endorse Mayor Bass. Do you think it's easier to run against the incumbent mayor with all the unions or a random city council member who's been a failure for 6 years? I would MUCH RATHER run against Councilwoman Raman! Thank you very much."

---

TIME FOR CHANGE: LA Mayor Race: Spencer Pratt, Now Backed by Los Angeles Royalty, Releases the Best 'Political' Ad Ever

Trapped by Zombies: Pregnant LA Mom Recounts Horrifying Trip to Store, Says She'll Vote Differently Now

---

There were many artful moments by Pratt that we could discuss, but I think what showed me that he is truly talented is that he came across as reasonable. Here he is, a white man going up against two far-left women of color, and as we’ve seen from the likes of Kamala Harris, they are just waiting to pounce on the theme of “misogyny” and “racism.” Yet, he stayed polite throughout, and even when he absolutely blasted them for their failures, he did so with respect and without any nastiness. Sure, he was tough — deservedly so — but he never descended into unhinged anger or vitriol.

 

How about you just come with me and see what’s really going on, he asked Raman:

Pratt brought reality to the debate, while Nithya and Karen just seemed to pretend that all was cool and extensive mayhem hadn’t occurred on their watch. I have no idea whether he will win this race (of course, I hope he does), but whatever the outcome, he has proven that he is a force to be reckoned with.

Live Blog: Los Angeles Mayoral Debate

Editor’s Note: California is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Democrat Party and the “progressive” movement.

 

Guess Who Melted Down on CNN Regarding the FBI Raid on a Top VA Dem's Home

Louise Lucas, President pro tempore of the Virginia Senate 

You knew this was going to happen, despite evidence that contradicts the story about the FBI raid being politically motivated: federal agents searched the home of Louise Lucas, President pro tempore of the Virginia Senate, who was strongly supporting the gerrymandering effort that gave her party a 10-1 advantage in congressional apportionment. 

So, you can see where the idiots would go with this, even though The New York Times reported that the investigation into Lucas started under the Biden administration. It is related to her involvement with a cannabis business. It’s a corruption probe. Yet, when you invite disgraced former FBI official Andrew McCabe 

 

and Adam Kinzinger 

 

to weigh in, you know a mountain of BS is coming. Curtis Houck of Newsbusters clipped this exchange:

Tapper: “The FBI will not say on the record why they executed the search warrant at the offices and businesses of the Virginia state Senator, Louise Lucas. What was your reaction to the news?

McCabe: “You know, it’s shocking, Jake. And it — it raises a couple of really interesting points. First, of course, this is a search warrant. It’s not an indictment. She hasn’t been charged with anything. She certainly hasn’t been convicted of any wrongdoing. Every search warrant is accompanied by an affidavit. That’s the facts that are presented to the judge, upon which the judge determines that there’s probable cause to believe there’s evidence of a crime inside that location. We don’t see those facts. We don’t typically see those affidavits. They are sealed until that person is — is charged and brought to court. And there’s all kinds of good reasons for that. So, I don’t think we can really assess whether or not the FBI or the Department of Justice are being fully transparent here when they say, oh, this is a long-term investigation that began under — under President Biden. The second point is really what you were just mentioning. I think people have very good reasons to be suspicious of what they’re hearing from the department in regards to this investigation. There are a lot of potential political motivations here. And the fact is, this Department of Justice has lost the presumption of regularity. And it’s because of the way they’ve conducted their business in courts across this country. They’ve been found having provided misinformation to courts, ignoring court orders, violating people’s rights, injecting political language into court filings that would never see such arguments before. So, judge after judge after judge has made comments on the record that there are basically not taking the department at their word any more. And that is a very, very dangerous thing for the country and for the department’s ability to do their job.”

 

Tapper: “Congressman Kinzinger obviously, Louise Lucas is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which just moved to add a bunch of congressional districts in favor of Democrats taking them away from Republicans. What was your first thought when you heard about this raid?”

Kinzinger: “Yeah, it was the same as everybody, which is at first I’m like, is this just politically motivated? And it may or may not be. But also keep in mind, on top of, you know, the fact that Trump has gone after his political opponents, he — it’s also very rare now to see the Department of Justice, if ever, go after a Republican. In fact, Department of Justice has dropped cases against Republicans. And the President continues to pardon Republicans, I mean, pardon people that are friendly to him or have friendly opinions. And so, what’s happening is not only is the FBI being sullied and the entire Department of Justice, but frankly, this administration is not seen as doing work on good faith. And just think about this too. You know, this whole war in Iran, Iran says things the U.S. government says things up until about the last year and a half, whenever Iran and the U.S. government said conflicting things, you would take the U.S. Government’s word to the bank. But lately, that’s not the case. Iran is clearly a regime that lies. But the President clearly lies. And so, this whole crisis in truth, I think, is going to end up being something that goes far beyond Donald Trump’s two and a half years in office left. This is going to go far beyond that and go into what does truth mean for society. And I think that’s really, really chilling. And frankly, a federal government that goes after political opponents is extremely chilling, too.”

Tapper: “So, any decent defense lawyer when it comes to these prosecutions or investigations of political rivals of President Trump’s, will argue malicious prosecution, which is what it sounds like, which is the President has it out for me. And this is all made up for that reason. Do you think Louise Lucas, state Senator Lucas, will have an argument there? I mean, she is not like James Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia James. She’s not like I don’t even know if he knows her name, you know?”

McCabe: “Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, really, we need to see the facts behind these actions before we can assess how strong the case If they in fact, bring one is against the — the state Senator. But absolutely those motions are more common today than they were a year and a half ago. And I should also say that in the past, selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, those are some of the hardest motions to possibly prevail upon because the Department of Justice didn’t actually engage in that sort of behavior. And the threshold for success in those motions is very high. Not so now, right? The current Jim Comey indictment is the perfect example.”

Tapper: “For the seashells.”

McCabe: “Hard to imagine that a vindictive and selective prosecution motion doesn’t succeed in that case, because it is so obviously vindictive and selective.”

Tapper: “Well, and they’re supporters of the President that have posted 86/46 about — repeatedly about Joe Biden. And, you know, even when those have been pointed out to the acting U.S. Attorney, acting U.S. Attorney General, he doesn’t care.”

McCabe: “Brushes it aside.”

Two people infected with TDS: one was fired unceremoniously for violating department policy on media leaks, the other a panicked Republican who might as well become a Democrat, ignoring the lede of the New York Times that obliterates everything they just said here.

Of course, they admit this began under Biden, but not that it really matters to them.

It's now the *perception*, they say, that makes it dubious

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2026

This is CNN. 

 

Trump Effect: South Carolina and Tennessee Are Drawing New Maps

You love to see this. Hours after President Trump took action against the Hoosier Republicans who refused redistricting, South Carolina and Tennessee announced new congressional maps, potentially increasing GOP seats in the House. On Tuesday, at least six of the eight Indiana State Senators who opposed redrawing their maps were voted out by their constituents. The GOP base saw betrayal and aimed to correct it. 

 

But more importantly, the Supreme Court approved this move to redraw congressional maps, with its decision in the Louisiana v. Callais case limiting Section II of the Voting Rights Act almost out of existence—this provision allows for congressional apportionment based on race.

Louisiana’s map was rejected on VRA grounds. The new map included a black-majority district, which was recently ruled unconstitutional. It’s possible that no Democrat will soon be hailing from below the Mason-Dixon line. Before we panic, remember that there are virtually no Republicans from New England, so relax. Second, as The New York Times’ Bret Stephens told Bill Maher, black representation will come from the South, but it’ll be more Republican. 

 

Trump admin. launches counterterrorism strategy targeting cartels, Islamist groups and domestic ‘violent left-wing extremists’

 

President Donald Trump has enacted a sweeping new National Counterterrorism Strategy that shifts the federal government’s security focus toward drug cartels, Islamist militant groups, and domestic “violent left-wing extremists.”

The 16-page directive, unveiled by counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka, prioritizes the neutralization of transnational criminal organizations — specifically designating several Western Hemisphere drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

While maintaining a baseline focus on legacy threats from groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the strategy marks a significant departure from the previous administration by specifically naming “anarchist and anti-fascist” groups as primary domestic targets.

The administration intends to utilize expanded tools, including offensive cyber operations, to dismantle the financial and digital infrastructure of these organizations, describing the move as a necessary step to protect national sovereignty and public order.

However, critics of the plan have also raised concerns regarding the potential for “broad definitions to impact civil liberties and political dissent,” though White House officials maintain the framework is designed to target violent actors rather than peaceful protesters.

While former Democrat President Joe Biden focused heavily on targeting right-wing extremism and famously designated “White supremacy” as the nation’s most dangerous terrorist threat in 2023, the Trump administration has pivotally redirected federal resources.

 

Gorka, the White House senior director for counterterrorism, emphasized this new direction during a briefing with reporters, stating that the administration will aggressively pursue far-left extremists, specifically citing those motivated by transgender ideology. 

 

Supporters of the strategy point to the correlation between certain extremist factions and gender dysphoria, as well as other mental disorders, arguing further that such mental health struggles can be a driving force behind radicalization.

“We see a threat, we will respond to it, and we will crush it, whether it is the cartels, the jihadists, or violent left-wing extremists like antifa and like the transgender killers, the non-binary, the left-wing radicals who killed my friend Charlie Kirk, we will take them on, head on.”

 

Amid the second Trump term, specific internal discussions and executive rhetoric frequently targeted Antifa — a violent, decentralized movement of far-left militant groups.

The United States has also escalated its maritime presence in the Caribbean as part of an expansive counternarcotics campaign. Gorka, reflecting on these shifts in national security, emphasized that the broader strategy would prioritize the neutralization of hemispheric threats and the systematic incapacitation of transnational cartel operations.

“Our new counterterrorism strategy first prioritizes the neutralization of hemispheric terror threats by incapacitating cartel operations until these groups are incapable of bringing their drugs, their members, and their trafficked victims into the United States,” he said.

 

Gorka added that U.S. counterterrorism officials are set to meet with international partners to convene on increasing efforts to combat terrorist threats.

Obama's New Yorker Rant: Elite Hypocrisy Exposed

Barack Obama’s latest sit-down with the New Yorker was supposed to be a thoughtful reflection, but what landed instead was another lecture from a man who seems more comfortable directing culture than defending the Constitution. The piece confirms that Obama sees himself as a continuing political force who will prod and scold from the sidelines, even as our country faces real challenges at home and abroad.

Among the many striking moments was Obama’s condemnation of the racist AI video that used his and Michelle’s faces, a reprehensible example of the new dangers of synthetic media that no decent person should defend. He told the magazine bluntly that he would not talk about somebody’s family in that way, a human response that most Americans can understand and respect.

But sympathy for a personal attack does not erase the bigger problem: Obama’s essay reads like the manifesto of an elite who believes institutions exist to serve his moral urgings rather than to protect the rights of every citizen. He warned about the trivialization of war and the politicization of government under Donald Trump, yet his tone constantly tips into moral superiority, leaving ordinary Americans to wonder whose Constitution he actually defends.

That’s exactly why Greg Kelly tore into the former president on Newsmax, pointing out that many Americans see a pattern of elite contempt for the very rules and traditions that made this country strong. Conservatives aren’t offended because Obama speaks; they’re offended because so much of his rhetoric smacks of replacing the rule of law with a moralized, partisan checklist.

We should call out hypocrisy wherever it appears. If a former president wants to lecture Americans about decency while simultaneously flaunting a political lifestyle and a perpetual role in Democratic politics, citizens have a right to ask whether his loyalty is to the Constitution or to his tribe.

Hardworking Americans don’t need another coastal sermon. We need leaders who respect the rules, protect free speech even when it’s ugly, and defend the institutions that keep our liberties intact. If Obama wants to keep playing the role of cultural czar, conservatives will keep reminding the country that patriotism means defending the Constitution first, not auctioning it off to the highest moral outrage.

 

Trump Prods Omar’s Financial Secrecy Amid Growing Fraud Allegations

President Trump’s public demand that federal investigators and the American people take a close look at Rep. Ilhan Omar’s finances lit a fuse that couldn’t be ignored, and conservatives across the country smelled the scent of accountability. The president’s call for scrutiny followed months of reporting and questions about Omar’s connections to a massive pandemic-era fraud scheme, and it forced lawmakers to stop treating the matter as mere political theater.

On April 22, Minnesota state lawmakers put a hard date on their request, demanding that Representative Omar hand over communications and records tied to the Feeding Our Future investigation by May 5, 2026. That timeline wasn’t a whim: it was a formal request from the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee seeking transparency about a scandal that siphoned off taxpayer funds meant for hungry children.

When that May 5 deadline arrived, Omar did not produce the requested materials, and state investigators reported that key messages and records remained withheld — an evasive posture that only deepens questions about who knew what and when. Committee members say they asked for emails, texts, phone logs, and other communications linking Omar’s office to figures named in court filings, and those requests reportedly went unanswered.

Even more troubling for the defenders of the status quo is that the committee’s hands are partially tied: because of a split partisan makeup in the Minnesota House, the panel currently lacks the full subpoena power that would force compliance. In plain terms, procedural barriers — not a lack of suspicious facts — are protecting political insiders while taxpayers sit waiting for answers.

 

Federal court documents unearthed during the Feeding Our Future prosecutions reportedly mention Omar’s name multiple times, and her connections to individuals charged in the scheme have raised legitimate alarm bells for patriotic Americans who want fraudsters held to account. Those revelations aren’t partisan smears — they are red flags that demand investigation, not excuses or deflections from a congresswoman who benefits from the system she now appears to have gamed.

Patriots should be furious that our money meant for children was diverted and that, time and again, political elites dodge the consequences. Conservatives must press state and federal authorities to follow the evidence where it leads, and Republican elected officials should stop playing by the left’s rules of deference. If Washington truly stands for the rule of law, there is no place for political immunity — not for Ilhan Omar, not for anyone.

CartoonDems