CartoonDems

 

Report: Iran Receiving Russian Air Defense Amid Israel Tension

Iran has requested advanced Russian air defense and radar systems following a visit to the Islamic Republic by a top Moscow official and shipments are already on their way, The New York Times reported on Monday.

 

Two Iranian officials confirmed that Iran made the request and Russia has started delivering radars and air-defense equipment, according to the Times, citing Iranian media.

The request came following a day-long visit to Tehran by head of the Russian Security Council and former Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, on Monday.

Iran wants the air defense systems in preparation for its promised revenge strike against Israel over the killing of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last Wednesday.

During a meeting with Iran's new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, Shoigu described Iran as a key strategic ally of Russia in the region, according to Iran's Press TV.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is in no way seeking to expand the scope of war and crisis in the region, but certainly this [Zionist] regime will receive a response for its crimes and audacity," Pezeshkian said, calling the assassination of Haniyeh a violation of international law.

Shoigu also met with Iranian armed forces commander, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, who is reportedly planning the military strikes on Israel.

Bagheri told Shoigu that Russian-Iranian ties were "deep, long term and strategic" and would only expand under Iran's new government, according to the Times, citing Iranian media.

Shoigu also met with Supreme National Security Council secretary Ali Akbar Ahmadian.

"We are ready for full cooperation with Iran on regional issues," Shoigu said.

Iran and Russia have grown closer since the start of the Ukraine war, with Moscow turning to Tehran to provide it with military drones. Russia has launched more than 4,000 Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones against Ukraine, according to The Wall Street Journal in May.

Moscow now manufactures Iranian-designed drones within its borders at the Alabuga Special Economic Zone in the Russian steppes.

"If Iranians are asking Russians for air defense, they are cashing in their chips," Colin Clarke, director of policy and research at Soufan Group, an intelligence consulting firm, told the Times.

"The question is how do Russians assuage Tehran without ruining their relationship with Israel," he said.

U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday convened his national-security team in the White House Situation Room, where he was told that the timing and nature of Iran's and Hezbollah's planned attack on Israel is unclear, according to news site Axios.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his counterparts from the G7 countries on Sunday that Iran and Hezbollah could attack Israel in the next 24 to 48 hours.

Republished with permission from Jewish News Syndicate

 

Neil Gorsuch Decimates CBS News Reporter Pushing Left-Wing Talking Points

As a Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch typically stays out of the public eye. His job is to interpret the law, not please the howling voices in the political world. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration has decided to force the issue by making a series of ludicrous and counter-productive proposals to "reform" the high court, not because they genuinely care, but because they desire total control over the lives of Americans. 

---

SEE: Joe Biden to Unveil His Supreme Court Plans - and They're Non-Starters

---

The details boil down to 18-year term limits and an enforceable "ethics code." Naturally, the term limit being proposed would immediately boot off multiple conservatives while ensuring the court gains a strong liberal majority. What a coincidence, right?

With that now being battled over in the political sphere, the press is doing what it always does, which is to parrot talking points in support of whatever the Democrat position is. Gorsuch found himself on the receiving end of that in a recent interview with CBS News. The justice responded by decimating the arguments being made. 

The following clips and transcripts are courtesy of my friend Curtis Houck over at Newsbusters.

Just a master class schooling by Justice Neil Gorsuch when whacked from the left by CBS's Major Garrett.

 

Gorusch: "I read the other day that...I agreed with Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson something like 45 percent of the time. That’s the court I know."… pic.twitter.com/PdGR3IHlq6

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 5, 2024

GORSUCH: I read the other day that...I agreed with Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson something like 45 percent of the time. That’s the court I know.

GARRETT: But there are people who watch this right now and say I thought I understood what Roe v. Wade meant in our country. I thought I understood what affirmative action in college admission meant, and this court told me I didn’t understand what that meant and I wrongly relied on things that I thought were settled. What would you say to those?

GORSUCH: I would say those are deeply complex legal questions on which reasonable minds can, of course, and do disagree. And that when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C.

Let me start by saying that Garrett's premise is nonsensical. Just because a bad decision existed prior does not mean that decision is worthy of preservation. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was a joke written, relying almost exclusively on the whims of then-Justice Harry Blackmun, who was desperately trying to find a middle ground for political reasons. There was no actual constitutional right to an abortion, and to claim the right to privacy somehow covered it has never passed legitimate legal muster. 

As Gorsuch explains, all the Supreme Court did in overturning the precedent set by Roe v. Wade was return the decision to the voters in each state. That should be far preferable to anyone who values "democracy" than unelected judges creating legal precedent out of whole cloth simply to appease one side of the political aisle. 

Garrett wasn't satisfied with that answer, though, and he then pressed Gorsuch on affirmative action.

GARRETT: How about affirmative action?

GORSUCH: Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race.

Again, how is this even a discussion in 2024? Affirmative action was legalized discrimination based on race. A white person should no more be punished for their skin color than a black person. Historical oppression should play no role in modern-day decisions regarding people with equal rights. That the press thinks that such a ruling is wrong is an indictment on them, not the Supreme Court. 

Still, Garrett kept going, making yet another emotional appeal.

GARRETT: And, for those who would say but I feel something’s been ripped away from me, you would say?

GORSUCH: I would say that we’re taking it back to you. In a democracy, you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re the sovereign. Those famous three first words of the Constitution empower you. Do you really want me deciding everything for you?

GARRETT: And for a woman in a state where she no longer has the rights she once relied on, is that cold comfort?

GORSUCH: Major, all I can say is I don’t know better than you do on these questions. And that most major western democracies have decided these questions through the ballot box.

Gorsuch hits the nail on the head again. It is not his job to make up "rights" that give "comfort" to women who want abortions. If Americans want that, they should be forced to own it through their vote, unable to hide behind the cover of a flawed legal judgment from half a century prior. 

With that said, notice what Garrett never bothers to ask about throughout the interview. While he continually makes appeals to emotion, he doesn't give any credence to what the law actually says. Wouldn't that be the most important factor in any Supreme Court decision? 

Expectedly, once the interview segment ended, the in-studio team took their shots without Gorsuch there to embarrass them as well. 

GARRETT: Gorsuch does not appear at all troubled by the decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court or the real-world ramifications of overturning decades of legal precedent. Comfort, with such contradictions, of course, is one of the things that comes with a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial perch in the land.

KING: Yeah, many people are questioning whether it should be a lifetime appointment.

Gayle King might as well be on the White House payroll. The "many people" who are questioning lifetime appointments are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris along with a slew of Democratic Party politicians. To whatever extent that has trickled into the public consciousness is completely inorganic. 

The Supreme Court does not exist to win popularity contests. On the contrary, it was designed from the founding to rule absent of political pressure. Lifetime appointments are part of that equation as they relieve the justices of any concern about post-court opportunities and influences. 

DUTHIERS: I appreciate you pushing back on those issues because I thought it was sort of telling that the associate justice said, do you want me deciding everything for you? If you’re a woman, you will say — but you have decided. Even though you’re suggesting that you’re sending it back to the people, the Court made those decisions that had been precedents for over 50 years. 

GARRETT: And what was once relied upon can no longer be. That’s the change.

I'm trying to remain professional, but part of me just wants to call Vladimir Duthiers an imbecile and leave it at that. His reasoning is so ridiculous as to be worthy of nothing but mockery. Would he say the same about the precedent that once allowed segregation of schools? What about the precedent that once restricted personhood for black Americans? The idea that a precedent is untouchable simply because it exists is moronic. What matters is proper legal interpretation of the law. Nothing more, nothing less. 

In the end, what this Gorsuch interview shows is that Democrats have no actual argument. They are simply emoting at any given point, wrapping themselves in contradictions to garner the political outcome they want in the moment. The Supreme Court stands in the way of that, and that's why they are trying to destroy it. 

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to reflect that Roe was authored by Harry Blackmun. 

 

BREAKING: After a Week of Speculation, Kamala Harris Selects Her Running Mate

Vice President Kamala Harris has selected who she thinks would best serve as her Vice President should she win in 2024.

After more than a week of speculation and drama surrounding multiple candidates, the Harris campaign has announced that Governor Tim Walz

 

 of Minnesota will be on the 2024 ticket alongside her.

The news comes after several black suburbans were spotted leaving his residence in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Monday. 

Walz has been governor of Minnesota since 2019, having won election in 2018 and re-election in 2022.

He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008, where he served until he ran for governor. Prior to that, he served in the National Guard after enlisting in 1981 at age 17. He eventually achieved the rank of command sergeant major and became the highest-ranking retired enlisted soldier to be elected to Congress.

Harris and her running mate are set to make their first public appearance together in Philadelphia on Tuesday. The campaign is hoping that the running mate choice will keep key swing areas in play and bring them back toward the Democrats after months of them trending toward former president Donald Trump, Harris's opponent in November.

There are less than 100 days until the election, and current polling has the race in a dead heat. Both candidates are preparing their ground operations to key swing states in order to secure the electoral votes they need in order to win the White House in November.

Bailey: Birds of a feather flock together !

 

Kamala And Doug Deserve Each Other: A Scumbag’s Love Story

Maybe Sid and Nancy were a better match than Doug Emhoff and Kamala Harris, but in that relationship it seems pretty clear to me that Nancy was the worse influence. With Kamala and Doug, it’s not really possible to know who is the bigger scumbag. One thing is certain – they deserve each other.

I would say they deserve each other if only to prevent them from inflicting themselves on others, but given the history of these two morally bankrupt hypocrites, the idea that they would remain faithful to their wedding vows seems wildly unlikely. Kamala was famously the side-piece of married Willie Brown, legendary Democratic politician in California who was known for sleeping around with his wife’s blessing. Apparently she liked being the wife of a powerful politicians and all the trappings the come with that, but wanted nothing to do with her husband physically. 

If the wife didn’t care about Kamala, 31 years younger than Willie Brown – he was 60, she was 29 – why should anyone else? I mean, they’re both scum but being scum in their personal lives is no one’s business – they have to explain themselves to God, not me. 

However, their affair did not just impact them. No, Willie’s wife didn’t care, but someone else did get screwed by Kamala, not just Willie. Aside from a BMW, Willie gave Kamala a job. 

Get your mind out of the gutter (though it’s perfectly understandable was to why you’d think that – the truth always creeps in, doesn’t it?), I’m talking about a real job, a political job. The New York Post reported, “Brown appointed Harris — who was then working in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office — to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job which paid $72,000 a year and required attending monthly meetings.” 

I could make a “that’s a mouthful” joke about Kamala and Willie, but this is a family column, so I’ll simply say that while she got this job in exchange for the job she was doing, someone qualified, someone who actually would have deserved the position on the California Medical Assistance Commission did not get it. Whoever that person is was denied that job and likely saw their life and career permanently altered because a young lawyer decided to become the concubine of a dirty old man; she chose to suck up to power for her own political gain. 

Teach your daughter to NOT be like Kamala Harris.

Then teach your sons to NOT be like Doug Emhoff.

Emhoff, the dorky looking husband of the Vice President turns out to be quite the pervert. It’s always the nerds, isn’t it?

That Dougie was married before isn’t a surprise – he’s the father of both of Kamala Harris’ step kids, since she carried none of her own to term (I’m just guessing #BetTheOver) – and, as fate would have it, Doug was the stereotypical rich dad who ended up banging the help.

It came out last weekend that Emhoff had an affair on his first wife with their nanny. While that’s the plot of every third Lifetime movie, the reality is Emhoff would be denounced were he anything other than a liberal Democrat “married” to a liberal Democrat running for president.

See, if we learned anything from the “Me Too” movement it’s that power discrepancies make it impossible for consent to ever be genuinely given. He was the boss paying her nanny salary. She also was a teacher at the school Emhoff’s kids went to, which meant he could not only fire her from her nanny job, his victim had every reason to believe he could have gotten her fired from that school too. 

This was years ago, and Emhoff is 12 years older than his victim. Given everything associated with it, no matter what the nanny may think, there is no way she could have given consent. At least, that’s what feminists would say were Emhoff not a liberal Democrat.

Doug also got his victim pregnant. We have no idea what happened to the baby – could be Doug paid for an abortion, it was put up for adoption, or whatever. The victim is apparently doing well financially now, was there a payment with a non-disclosure agreement? Emhoff was a high-power Hollywood lawyer, they know all about such things and how to keep people quiet or force them to say what you want them to say if they’re ever forced to talk.

Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff are gross people who deserve each other. For all their portrayal of their political positions as “moral” on global warming, trans-mutilation, taxes, the border, they are not moral people. 

“Trump has been married three times!” they cry, which is true. But Trump doesn’t morally judge others as impure or unworthy if they don’t conform to his wishes, Democrats do. And it turns out the standard bearers of moral preening are the lest moral, most disgusting leftists around. Given that Democrats are the party of Joe Biden and Bill and Hillary Clinton, they fit right in.

Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.

 

Dem Rep Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About the 2024 Election

The Democrat-media is alive and well, and how members of a particular party behave is indicative of this institutional bias. I’m not saying anything new, but since 2016, Democrats have been more brazen and shameless with their lies. It’s how Kamala Harris protects her fledgling candidacy as she spews nonsense on the campaign trail—she knows the media won’t ask her tough questions. 

It’s only when the press gets caught, like their lackadaisical approach to Biden’s health decline, that they go into overdrive just long enough to convince the public that they’ve repented for past oversights. So, will this same press, who has accused Donald Trump of being a threat to our government, press Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) over these remarks about stopping the former president from taking office again should he win the 2024 election?

Raskin says the quiet part out loud: the Democrats are prepared to steal the election if it doesn’t go their way. Isn’t this against institutional norms? Isn’t this behavior cancerous to our republic? Raskin declares he will do what the Supreme Court has refused to do—the arrogance that oozes from this man is truly astounding. He also gloats that when he tells Trump supporters that the former president is disqualified from taking office, civil war conditions will likely befall the nation. 

Raskin’s remarks are illiberal, constitutionally negligent, and dangerous. This man is goading us into civil war to stop Trump, all because he doesn’t like him. When you peel off the layers of nonsense, this is all about. The Left cannot get over the 2016 election. And now we have an elected member of Congress declaring outright he will steal an election, silence the people, and potentially thrust us into civil war because ‘orange man—bad.’

Trending on Townhall Videos

 

Judge Orders DOJ To Return Property To 'QAnon Shaman'

Jacob Chansley, also known as the “QAnon Shaman,” screams “Freedom” inside the U.S. Senate chamber after the U.S. Capitol was breached by protestors during a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.

A federal judge has ordered the government to return property seized in connection to the case against U.S. Capitol protester Jacob Chansley.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to return his property, which included a “6-foot spear” and a “horned fur headdress.”

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that diminished the main charge against Chansley, who is known as the “QAnon Shaman,” federal prosecutors contended that the property had to remain in the government’s custody in the event that Chansley challenged his conviction.

However, Lamberth said it “is not clear how Mr. Chansley could contest his conviction, as he has been sentenced, abandoned his direct appeal, and seen his motion denied.”

“But even if the government may need to reprove Mr. Chansley’s guilt, the government has not explained why it would need his property,” Lamberth continued. “The voluminous video and photo evidence of Chansley’s conduct on January 6^th, 2021, renders the property of little utility for an investigation or prosecution.”

Lamberth rejected the Justice Department’s justification for rejecting Chansley’s request for his property back, citing the department’s consideration of pursuing a civil forfeiture in a recent court filing.

“Had the government simply sought civil forfeiture by now, Mr. Chansley’s motion may have turned out differently. But the Court sees no reason to delay or deny Mr. Chansley relief based on the government’s hypothetical future choice to take a step it could have already taken,” Lamberth wrote.

In September 2021, Chansley entered a plea agreement to admit guilt to a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, which resulted in the dismissal of five additional charges against him. Chansley has served his jail term and he has been released under strict supervision.

In November of that year, he was given a 41-month prison sentence. However, a year and a half later, he was transferred to a halfway house. Reductions in sentences are available to prisoners who behave well while incarcerated.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

 

9 Additional UNRWA Staff Fired For Suspected Involvement In October 7 Attack

A man collects trash while wearing a jacket bearing the logo of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

Nine staff members of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) have been fired for their suspected involvement in the deadly October 7^th attack on Israel. 

Bailey: "These people should have been taken out, not just fired".

This is in addition to a previous report back in January that said the agency had fired “several employees” and had launched an inquiry into data provided by Israel. At least 12 employees were discovered to have been directly involved in the attack.

“For nine people, the evidence was sufficient to conclude that they may have been involved in the seventh of October attacks,” Deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said in a U.N. briefing.

The dismissals follow after a recent investigation from the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) into the alleged involvement of 19 UNWRA staff members in the October 7^th massacre.

No specific details as to how the UNWRA staff members were involved in the attacks were given, and the records of the remaining staff members in question would also be reviewed.

“For us, any participation in the attacks is a tremendous betrayal of the sort of work that we are supposed to be doing on behalf of the Palestinian people,” Haq said.

The investigation was launched after Israel accused hundreds of UNWRA staff members of being members of Islamic terrorist groups, including taking part in the October 7^th attacks.

UNRWA employs 32,000 people, including 13,00 Gazans.

Meanwhile, Israel’s United Nations Ambassador, Gilad Erdan criticized the investigation as a “disgrace” and “too little too late,” after learning of the discovery.

“The investigation ignored the thousands of agency employees involved in Hamas terrorism and the extent of their involvement. Israel has provided the UN with precise details of over a hundred UNRWA employees who are members of the terrorist organization Hamas,” Erdan said.

The UNRWA’s commissioner-general also issued a statement on Monday in regards to the situation: “The allegations were brought to the Agency’s attention in January. In close consultation with the United Nations Secretary-General (SG), I immediately terminated the contracts of the staff in question, in the interest of the Agency,  while the SG tasked OIOS to launch an investigation. Additional allegations were brought to our attention in March and April and the concerned staff were added to the OIOS investigation.”

Haq claims that the details of the OIOS investigation was confidential and that the information given to them to support the claims against the UNRWA employees belonged to Israeli authorities: “OIOS was not able to independently authenticate most of the information provided to it.”

When asked again why the nine individuals were released, Haq said: “We have sufficient information in order to take the actions that we’re taking, which is to say, the termination of these nine individuals.”

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts