CartoonDems

 

Trump: NATO Nations Have Done Nothing to Help Beat Iran

President Donald Trump on Thursday morning said the United States should "never forget" that NATO countries have "done absolutely nothing" to assist in confronting Iran, delivering a sharp rebuke to the alliance as tensions in the Middle East continue to dominate global attention.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared: "NATO nations have done absolutely nothing to help with the lunatic nation, now militarily decimated, of Iran. The U.S.A. needs nothing from NATO, but 'never forget' this very important point in time!"

Trump's comments echo a longstanding criticism he has leveled against NATO allies — that the U.S. bears a disproportionate burden in defending Western interests while European nations often fall short of meaningful action.

 Trump has repeatedly argued that NATO, originally formed as a collective defense pact, has drifted away from its core mission, relying too heavily on American military strength while failing to step up in crises beyond Europe.

His latest remarks come as the U.S. has taken a leading role in countering Iranian aggression and stabilizing the region.

While some European leaders have issued statements condemning Iran's actions, critics note that concrete military or strategic contributions from NATO countries have been limited.

Defense analysts have pointed out that many alliance members continue to lag behind on defense spending commitments, a concern Trump has raised frequently during his presidency.

International outlets indicate that NATO has not formally mobilized as a unified force in response to the Iran situation, instead leaving individual nations to determine their own level of involvement.

This fragmented approach, according to supporters of Trump's position, highlights the alliance's inability to act decisively when U.S. leadership is not directly driving the response.

Trump's message also reflects a broader "America First" philosophy, emphasizing national sovereignty and questioning the value of multinational institutions that, in his view, do not deliver reciprocal benefits.

His assertion that the U.S. "needs nothing from NATO" is likely to resonate with voters who are skeptical of foreign entanglements and long-term defense commitments overseas.

At the same time, establishment voices continue to defend NATO as a critical pillar of global security, arguing that alliance unity deters adversaries and promotes stability.

However, Trump allies counter that deterrence loses credibility when member nations fail to act in moments of crisis.

As geopolitical tensions remain high, Trump's warning to "never forget" signals that NATO burden-sharing and America's role within the alliance could once again become a central issue in the national debate.

UAE Minister's Brilliant Response to Iran's Attacks - They Aren't Going to Like This

Fox News anchor Bret Baier did a great interview with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Minister of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lana Nusseibeh, 

 

where she made the case to do all that could be done to stop Iran. 

"Iran's attack on Gulf allies of the United States and Jordan is an attack on the entire world and the world economy," she said. Trying to put a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz is a threat to the world economy, Nusseibeh asserted. 

"Effectively, Iran is trying to give the global economy a heart attack," she said. "We should not allow Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, to set the global price for food and gas." That's why President Donald Trump was calling for a coalition. Not because we couldn't handle it, but because it's a world concern, and others have much greater interests in the Strait than does the U.S. 

---

READ MORE: Allies Rally on Hormuz - Rutte’s Trump Praise Blows Up Dem Talking Points

---

The report points out that most of the retaliatory strikes from Iran have been against the UAE, even more than against Israel.

The answer is because we are an idea that threatens Iran. Because we are open, we are progressive, we are tolerant, we're a vibrant economy

Nusseibeh said Iran fired over 2,200 missiles and drones at the UAE, rather than negotiate over "well-understood concerns" about its nuclear program, over its ballistic missile program, and over its support for non-state terrorist actors. 

 Iran apparently thought this would split the UAE off and make them encourage the U.S. to stop. But the opposite is true, "This is a really ruthless regime, and President Trump is right to hold it to account today," she declared. 

Iran has just ticked them off even more, just like with Saudi Arabia. 

"The UAE has fought side by side with the United States in over six coalitions in our history. We have shared values, we have shared history with the United States. We have interoperability with the United States. They are a clear partner to us in regional security, and we intend to double down on that. Today we are looking at a threat to the international community at large that needs to be stopped in whatever way possible."

She said while they always favor a diplomatic option, Iran needed to understand that behaving as a rogue actor was not acceptable. 

Iran isn't going to like this, and this blows up any narrative that the UAE would be breaking away from the U.S. 

Editor's Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.

Trump-Era EPA Delivers Gas Price Relief With Full E15 Rollout

The summer driving season will be upon us before we know it, and Americans will take to the road, for vacations, for business, for Sunday drives; whatever their purposes, whatever their destinations, much of the planning for these excursions will center around gasoline prices.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin, may have made those summer outings a little more affordable with a federal waiver authorizing nationwide sales of gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol, or E15.

Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin, in consultation with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), issued a temporary emergency fuel waiver to allow nationwide sales of E15, gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol, and to remove all federal impediments to selling E10, gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol, across the country. 

 Through the waiver, EPA is fortifying the domestic gasoline supply chain and providing Americans relief at the pumps ahead of the summer driving season. Beginning on May 1, 2026, EPA’s waivers will work to prevent disruption in America’s fuel supply by keeping E15 on the market and giving Americans more fuel options. EPA is issuing the waiver notice today to allow fuel industry stakeholders adequate time to transition the fuel distribution system. As required by the CAA, EPA and DOE evaluated the current situation and determined that granting the waiver was in the public interest. 

This move doesn't come without some caveats. I once owned a "flex-fuel" pickup that could run on E-85 - 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline. At that time, E85 was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than regular E15 gasoline. The problem was that the miles per gallon (MPG) that the truck got when running E85 was so abysmal that it actually cost more to run the truck on that "alternative" fuel.

The problem? Ethanol has much lower energy density than gasoline. There's a tradeoff in all such matters.

---

Read More: Drilling Time: Oil Production Reportedly Ramping Up ASAP Off CA Coast Following Trump's Executive Order

Trump Invokes Cold War Emergency Law to Restart California's Offshore Oil—Newsom Vows to Fight Back

---

This move, though, should still help by stabilizing and hopefully increasing supply. From the EPA press release:

The emergency fuel waiver will temporarily waive the summer low volatility requirements and blending limitations for gasoline to provide additional flexibility to the fuel marketplace. This will increase fuel supply and provide a variety of gasoline fuel blends to choose from without changing environmental protections already in place. E15 is currently offered at over 3,000 gas stations nationwide, where it serves as a more affordable choice for Americans. Without this action, E15 gasoline cannot be used by roughly half of the country this summer. Additionally, EPA is also waiving federal enforcement of all state “boutique” fuel requirements for gasoline, allowing the production and distribution of gasoline with 9 to 15 percent ethanol content at a single common Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard of 10 psi across the nation. EPA’s actions will go into effect on May 1, 2026, for most states, and will initially remain in place through May 20, 2026. This 20-day window is the maximum number of days allowed under the CAA. 

The "boutique" fuel waiver is an interesting one (I'm looking at you, California), but we should note that the EPA's waiver won't stop the states from enforcing those requirements.

As noted, the EPA waiver will be in effect for the first 20 days in May. That's at the very beginning of the summer season. We'll see what happens after that.

In the end, though, the solution to America's fuel needs - gasoline and diesel both - lies in more refining capacity. Simply put, we need more refineries, and we need them as fast as possible. That, though, is a task that will take more than one administration's allotted time, making the next few elections all the more important.

Vote! Vote at all costs.

Did You Miss This Brutal Exchange Before the Georgia Supreme Court?

Most of this story is what the late Justice Antonin Scalia called a lawyer’s work. That’s why he opposed cameras during oral arguments before the Supreme Court—there’s nothing to hide. For the most part, these decisions are not controversial, even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, and most of what is discussed is beyond boring. Again, it’s the lawyer’s work. 

At the state level, there is some video access, but the situation hasn’t changed. Most of this information won’t hold voters' attention unless there’s a clear mistake that everyone can understand. Everyone knows to be prepared and not cite things that don’t exist, right? Well, at CNN, the standards are different. In Georgia, one of its attorneys, trying to end an appeal petition for a previously convicted murderer, was called out by a Georgia Supreme Court judge for citing statutes that do not exist, and it was all caught on video 

 The Supreme Court of Georgia heard arguments Wednesday in the appeal of Hannah Payne, the woman convicted in the 2019 shooting death of Kenneth Herring after prosecutors said she chased him down following a traffic crash in Clayton County. 

Payne was found guilty in 2023 of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and other charges in Herring’s death. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus additional consecutive years. Prosecutors said Payne followed the 62-year-old after he left the scene of a crash, cut off his truck and then shot him after a confrontation.  

At trial, the state argued Payne was "playing cop" by going after a driver she was not directly involved with. Payne testified she believed Herring was impaired, stayed on the phone with 911 and was trying to help when the encounter turned violent. She claimed Herring grabbed her and that the gun went off during a struggle. 

On appeal, Payne argues her trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to request jury instructions on citizen’s arrest and defense of others. 

[…] 

Arguing for the state, Deborah Leslie urged the court to uphold Payne’s conviction and the denial of her motion for a new trial. Leslie said the evidence did not support either omitted jury instruction and told the justices, "The evidence showed that Ms. Payne was the aggressor. She used unreasonable force and fatally shot an unarmed, non-threatening motorist, Mr. Herring, after ignoring 911 directives." Leslie argued there was no lawful detention to support a citizen’s arrest instruction and no evidence of "an imminent threat of unlawful force against a third party" to support defense of others. 

The court also appeared focused on whether Payne’s lawyer made a reasonable strategic choice at trial by pursuing self-defense and accident rather than risking what the state said would amount to conceding false imprisonment. At times, the justices sounded skeptical about that argument and questioned how the court could find no prejudice if it concluded the missing instructions should have been requested. 

The hearing ended with an unexpected dispute over the trial court’s order denying Payne’s motion for new trial. One justice said the order contained "at least five citations to cases that don't exist" along with other citations and quotations that did not appear to support the points for which they were used. Leslie said, "No, Your Honor, I do not believe so, they were not," when asked whether those citations appeared in the version she submitted, adding, "I did prepare an order, that order was revised." The court said it would issue a briefing order directing the state on what needed to be supplemented. 

Comment below, but yikes. She submitted fake documents. There are allegations that AI was used. Also, there was no revised order, nor was one ordered by Leslie’s boss, Clayton County District Attorney Tasha Mosley. The DA’s office has until April 2 to explain how fake files were submitted to the state’s high court. 

Trump Just Clinched Some Big Wins in the Courts Regarding His Immigration Agenda

Again, Democrats and liberal judges, we won the election by enforcing immigration laws and deporting those who do not belong here. The Biden immigration crisis is over. The Trump era of enforcement and public safety has begun. Of course, these people don’t want to leave, and they’ll cause a ruckus when apprehended. The president has broad authority over this area, and you’re just going to have to deal with it. 

First, it appears likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the president’s authority to turn away asylum seekers before they reach American soil (via SCOTUSBlog):

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to uphold the federal government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S. border with Mexico. During roughly 80 minutes of oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a majority of justices seemed to agree with the Trump administration that the policy does not violate a federal law allowing noncitizens to apply for asylum when they “arrive[] in the United States.” 

Under U.S. law, noncitizens can apply for asylum – a form of legal protection for people who fear persecution or harm in their own countries – either when they are “physically present in the United States” or when they “arrive[] in the United States.” Noncitizens who arrive at a port of entry, an officially designated site to enter the country, such as an airport or a land crossing, and indicate that they want to seek asylum are inspected and processed. That is, they are screened by border officials and then channeled into the asylum system, which may include either an interview with an asylum officer or proceedings in immigration court. 

 The policy at the center of the dispute – known as “metering” – was adopted almost 10 years ago in response to a surge in the number of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum in San Ysidro, a port of entry outside San Diego. To implement it, officials from the Customs and Border Patrol agency stood along the U.S.-Mexico border and turned back noncitizens without valid travel documents, including asylum seekers, before they could enter the United States. In 2017, the government extended that policy to all ports of entry across the U.S. border with Mexico, and it was formalized in a memorandum in 2018. 

Al Otro Lado, Inc., an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum seekers went to federal court in southern California to challenge the policy. A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with them that, for purposes of applying for asylum, noncitizens who were turned away from ports of entry before they could cross the border had “arrived in” the United States. 

After the court of appeals turned down the federal government’s request to reconsider the case, the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court, which agreed last fall to weigh in. 

The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the mass detention of illegal immigrants held without bond and facing deportation can continue. This makes the Minnesota immigration sweep earlier this year, which was hampered by the shooting deaths of two left-wing nutjobs in Minneapolis, a grand success: those rounded up are getting shipped out (via Politico):

A second federal appeals court has blessed the Trump administration’s policy of locking up the vast majority of people it is seeking to deport without a chance for bond — even if they have no criminal records and have resided in the country for decades.

A panel of Republican appointees on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Wednesday that the administration had properly determined that federal law doesn’t only allow — but requires — ICE to detain the vast majority of people it is seeking to deport. That includes millions of immigrants who have long been treated as eligible for bond hearings.

The ruling carries particularly acute implications for Minnesota, where federal district judges are bound to follow it. Hundreds of people detained during the recent ICE crackdown in the Twin Cities have filed petitions for release from custody by challenging the administration’s interpretation of the law, and nearly every district judge in the state had sided with the petitioners. 

Democrats are learning that what Trump is doing is legal. These laws are already on the books, and the disengagement of their political base—illegal aliens—will continue.  

Adiós, illegal aliens. 

L.A. jury finds Meta and Google liable for ‘defective’ and addictive app designs targeting minors

After nine days and more than 40 hours of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury delivered a landmark verdict on Wednesday, finding Instagram (Meta) and YouTube (Google) liable for intentionally designing their platforms to “hook” young users.

The court found that both platforms were engineered to encourage addictive behavior, awarding the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages. Responsibility for the award was split between the tech giants, with Meta assigned 70% of the liability and Google covering the remaining 30%.

The case centered on a 20-year-old Californian identified as “Kaley” (or KGM) to protect her privacy.

She testified that the platforms’ addictive designs fueled her depression and thoughts of self-harm. While both companies denied the claims — arguing that their platforms are safe and equipped with robust parental controls — the jury’s decision marks a significant legal shift in how social media design is held accountable.

 

“I stopped engaging with family because I was spending all my time on social media,” said Kaley.

José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, told FOX Business that the company disagreed with the verdict and planned to appeal. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” he said.

Meta also opposed the decision, stating, “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”

 

Nonetheless, jurors found that Meta and Google acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud,” resulting in punitive damages on top of the $3 million total compensatory damages.

TikTok and Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, were also originally named as defendants — though they settled ahead of the trial for undisclosed sums, leaving Meta and YouTube remaining in the case.

Kaley had testified that her social media use began with YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, telling the jury that checking Instagram was the first thing she did every morning and her last action before sleep. This constant engagement, she explained, led to significant struggles at school, at home, and with her mental health.

 

Her legal team, led by Mark Lanier, focused on specific design features like YouTube’s “autoplay,” which allows videos to play endlessly and automatically. Kaley shared that she has since been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. When asked if she had experienced these conditions prior to using social media, she testified, saying “No, I didn’t.”

In their defense, attorneys for Meta and Google argued that “social media addiction” is not an official medical diagnosis and noted that Kaley had never sought treatment for it.

Meanwhile, the trial is now viewed as a pivotal moment in the debate over whether tech platforms can be held legally responsible for the psychological well-being of their youngest users.

Historically, large tech platforms have been shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects companies from liability over the content users post. However, this landmark trial underscores that product design — the specific engineering used to hook users — does not fall under that same legal protection.

This verdict follows a series of massive legal blows for Meta, including a $375 million judgment in a separate New Mexico case involving the platform’s failure to prevent child sexual exploitation.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the decision as a major step toward justice, coinciding with a critical Delaware court ruling that cleared Meta’s insurers of responsibility for damages. By stripping away their insurance coverage, the court has forced Meta to fund its own defense and pay for potential settlements in thousands of similar lawsuits out of its own pocket.

“Juries in New Mexico and California have recognized that Meta’s public deception and design features are putting children in harm’s way. In the next phase of New Mexico’s trial, my number one priority remains changing the company’s longstanding and dangerous practice of prioritizing profits over children’s safety. We will seek court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that offer protections for kids,” Torrez said.

2,407 social media harm lawsuits have already been filed against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, along with more than a thousand school districts and 43 states filed on the behalf of children who have used Meta’s platforms.

Chicago's Snowplow Stunt Sparks Outrage Amid Tragedy

Chicago’s annual “You Name a Snowplow” stunt turned into a political provocation when the protest slogan “Abolish ICE” came out on top — a move city officials celebrated as civic wit while many residents saw it as a needless poke at federal law enforcement. The timing of that victory, and Mayor Brandon Johnson’s public embrace of the slogan, set off predictable partisan fireworks that should have been avoidable.

Mayor Johnson didn’t merely shrug at the result; he publicly signaled support for the message during the contest, framing the gag as a statement of the city’s values and humor rather than a sober policy debate. That cheerleading by the mayor left a lot of people wondering whether the city’s leaders were in touch with the public’s concerns about safety and accountability.

What made the spectacle especially tone-deaf was the proximity of the reveal to a horrific, real-world tragedy: the random murder of Loyola freshman Sheridan Gorman on the city’s lakefront. The contest’s jovial politics landed like a slap in the face to grieving families and communities still processing a child’s death.

 The facts here matter and they are not trivial. Chicago police and prosecutors moved quickly — charging 25-year-old Jose Medina with first-degree murder and related counts — and federal officials publicly identified him as a Venezuelan national who came to the U.S. in 2023 and was living here illegally, a detail that raises urgent questions about border enforcement and local detainer practices. Those are not abstract party talking points; they are the documented circumstances surrounding a young woman’s death.

Conservative commentators, including voices on national networks, reacted with outrage at the mayor’s choice to promote an “Abolish ICE” message at a moment of fresh blood on Chicago’s streets, arguing that the optics were cruel and that the city’s sanctuary-friendly posture contributed to a breakdown in public safety. This criticism isn’t mere partisan noise — it reflects a deeper frustration that political theater has sometimes trumped sober policing and immigration enforcement.

The larger story is about priorities. When municipal leaders prioritize culture-war slogans over clear-eyed strategies to reduce violent crime and cooperate with federal partners where appropriate, ordinary people pay the price. Cities that treat law enforcement as a political prop invite chaos; victims’ families deserve officials who put safety first, not who celebrate slogans that undermine federal agencies engaged in keeping dangerous criminals off the streets.

Chicago’s leaders owe the Gorman family and every resident more than performative snark. They owe a plan to restore public safety, clear cooperation with lawful federal requests, and an end to the political posturing that insults victims while offering no solutions. If civic pride means anything, it should mean protecting the innocent and holding all levels of government accountable when policy failures lead to preventable tragedies.

 

Democrats Sacrifice Safety for Votes: The Truth Exposed

Rep. Brandon Gill’s blunt line on Greg Kelly Reports — “We see criminals, Dems see votes” — cuts to the bone of today’s political rot. It’s no longer enough to call out bad policy with polite words; when lawmakers refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security, they are choosing political theater over the basic safety of the American people. This isn’t abstract debate; it’s a choice that leaves TSA agents, Coast Guard crews, and other frontline protectors hamstrung while the country waits for leadership that will actually defend it.

Democrats who posture about compassion while blocking DHS funding are revealing the real calculation behind their slogans: electoral advantage over enforcement. That cynical calculus treats border security and public safety like bargaining chips, not core functions of government. Voters can see through it — long lines at airports and understaffed security details are the real-life consequences of turning national security into a political contest.

 Conservative leaders like Rep. Gill are right to call out the double standard. Republicans who insist on full, responsible funding for DHS are standing up for the people who do the hard, thankless work of keeping us safe. Funding is not a reward for politics; it’s a practical necessity so that agencies have the tools to stop traffickers, terrorists, and violent criminals before they strike American communities.

Those who refuse to fund homeland security while demanding reforms they know will never pass are playing a dangerous game with American lives. The country cannot afford to let ideology replace enforcement, or to let municipalities and activist elites dictate who is protected and who is sacrificed. Law and order should not be negotiable when the outcome is less safety and more chaos on our streets and at our borders.

Republicans must turn anger into action: secure the funding, demand oversight, and hold lawmakers who weaponize immigration and security for votes accountable. Real reform starts with ensuring agencies can do their jobs and then fixing abuses transparently — not by defunding entire departments to score headlines. That is the honest, conservative path: protect citizens first, then improve systems.

If the choice is between political gamesmanship and real security, conservatives should choose security every single time. Stand with Rep. Gill and every policymaker who prioritizes protecting Americans over pandering to special-interest narratives. The stakes are too high for anything less than a full-throated defense of our homeland and those who keep it safe.

 

CartoonDems