Leaked DIA Report: Iranian Nuclear Sites Sealed Up but Not Destroyed

The rapidly fleeting shelf-life of the half-cocked doomist agitprop from lefty outlets like The New York Times desperate for an anti-Trump banger of a story is comedic gold in its own right. Times economic policy reporter Tony Romm tried to be quick-on-the-draw by firing off an alarmist piece of propaganda June 23 that President Donald Trump’s strategic attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities could possibly cause oil prices to go to the moon. Trump, in Romm’s view, had to “confront the potential economic blowback from his military strikes on Iran, which threatened to send oil and gas prices soaring at a moment when U.S. consumers are already facing significant financial strains.” That was just before oil prices would plummet well over four percent just a day later on June 24.  In fact, CNN reported that “Oil is falling so much it’s now cheaper than it was before the Iran-Israel conflict.” Oof! Talk about perfect timing, eh Romm? Derp.  What’s even more hilarious is that Romm’s piece concocting the specter of spiking oil prices was plastered onto the front page of the business section of The Times’s June 24 print edition … while prices were already tumbling! In effect, Romm’s analysis was already rendered useless before the newspaper chose to put it in print.  Now, reading Romm’s absurdity in retrospect comically showcases why these journos know as much about the trajectory of the economy as they do about tomorrow’s weather: A spike in oil prices would only add to the mounting political headaches facing Mr. Trump, who has promised to salve stubbornly high inflation dating back to the coronavirus pandemic. Speculating about the future is not "news." It's just spin. It often sounds like...wishful thinking.  Romm continued to bleat how “[a] spike in energy costs could prove especially difficult for American consumers and businesses this summer, given that it could arrive at about the same time that Mr. Trump plans to revive his expansive, steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.” Romm may have to revise that analysis now that oil prices, a major factor in determining aggregate energy prices, are trending in the other direction. Many economists expect those levies to push up prices after years of high inflation,” claimed Romm, who apparently memory-holed the fact that the Trump economy has repeatedly shown these predictions to be ludicrous.  Romm isn’t the only one to beclown himself over Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran conflict.  The Atlantic staff writer David Frum made himself into a meme when he made it seem like Iran had President Trump’s number in a June 21 screed published at 9:00 am ET, “The mullahs of Iran join the bet that Trump always chickens out,” in reference to Trump’s deceptive remark that he would wait two weeks before making a decision on military strikes. Just hours after Frum’s piece went live, U.S. B-2 bombers would strike three of Iran’s nuclear sites with 30,000 pound bunker-buster bombs on Trump’s orders.  On the “two-weeks” deception, a Trump adviser admitted to Axios that “[i]t was a headfake … [Trump] knew the media couldn't resist amplifying it. He knew the Iranians might think he was bluffing. Well, everyone was wrong."  Was Romm taking his reporting cues from Frum? Who knows, but journos writ large should at least try to be a bit more smart with their anti-Trump propaganda.

The Iran crisis of the past two weeks isn’t just about nuclear weapons — it’s also an urgent reminder that border security is national security. Tehran’s terrorist agents are a weapon with a much longer reach than any of the mullahs’ missiles. They’ve been a threat to Salman Rushdie’s life in the United States and Europe for more than 35 years, and in 2022 an attacker sympathetic to the Iranian government cost the author of “The Satanic Verses” one of his eyes and very nearly his life. President Donald Trump has been the target of other Iranian plots. According to court documents, Asif Merchant, a Pakistani man arrested in Texas last year, “indicated an affinity for Iran” when he attempted to hire hitmen to help murder a “political person” believed to be Trump — a scheme thwarted because the associates he sought to recruit were in fact FBI agents. A second plot involved Farhad Shakeri, an Afghan national now on the lam in Iran. In November, federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged Shakeri with providing material support for a foreign terrorist organization and planning to kill Trump on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Shakeri and two associates also stand accused of concocting a plan to murder “a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin who has publicly opposed the Iranian government,” according to Politico. Incidents like these don’t receive much media attention not only because they’re unsuccessful but also because they’re not very unusual — it’s not news that Iran is a sponsor of terrorist mayhem and murder. After American forces bombed three Iranian nuclear-program sites on Saturday, NBC News reported Iran had earlier warned Trump it could activate “sleeper cells” within the United States to retaliate against an attack on its facilities. Rodney Scott, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, alerted CBP agents to the danger the country now faces because of the porous border policies of the Joe Biden administration: “Over the past four years, thousands of Iranian (nationals) have been documented entering the United States illegally and countless more were likely in the known and unknown got-a-ways,” he wrote in an agency memo. Fox News Channel reports more than 1,500 Iranians were apprehended illegally entering via the southern border during the Biden years — and more than 700 of them were released into our country after their arrest. America has bitter experience of terrorism made possible by weak immigration enforcement. Five of the 19 hijackers who pulled off the worst terrorist attack in our history on 9/11, 2001, were in the country on expired visas. But the legal immigration status of the other 14 is at least as much of a scandal — was there really nothing that could be done to screen out these terrorists? Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration and tightening of border controls and admissions guidelines for foreign students and other legal visitors have outraged liberals, but detecting signs of radicalism before an IRGC or al-Qaeda sympathizer has the opportunity to strike is what’s necessary to prevent another 9/11. Iran has for decades used Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies to menace Israel and other nearby neighbors, as well as to kill Americans in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. Liberals in our country think of “globalization” as a benign economic process involving the free movement of capital, people and ideas across borders. But what happens when the people are terrorists, the capital finances their attacks, and the ideas are anti-Semitic and anti-American? Globalization extends the battlefields of regional wars to our own land and airspace. The voters who returned Trump to the White House think globalization has been a raw deal for their livelihoods and a solvent to their communities. But globalization has also changed the nature of war, heightening the need for vigilance at our borders. Iran doesn’t have missiles that can reach our shores, but it has other weapons that can. Firmer control over who comes into our country is what’s required to take that weapon away from Iran — and every other dangerous regime. Israel was able to launch its preventive war against Iran’s nuclear program because it had successfully degraded and largely defanged Hezbollah. There would be no two-front war for Israel — one over Iran, the other at home. America is blessed to have two oceans separating us from the conflicts of the Old World and no neighbors who hate us for our religion or way of life. The security we enjoy on our continent, and throughout the Americas, has been the envy of other great powers for two and a half centuries. But the tranquility our geography and history afford us has to be defended against the dark side of globalization, including the transcontinental terrorism it makes possible. Winning the wars of the future calls for stopping them from ever getting started within our borders. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com.

The vice mayor of a small city in Los Angeles County may be regretting her apparent taunting challenge to gang members to organize resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations after the feds reportedly opened an investigation about the post. Cynthia Gonzalez reportedly posted a video of herself asking gang members in Los Angeles why they haven't stepped up to defend their turf against federal agents as the feud between local officials and the Trump administration continues. 'You guys tag everything up, claiming hood, and now that your hood's being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain't a peep out of you!' "Not for nothing, but I want to know where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles," said Gonzalez in a video posted on social media by Bill Melugin of Fox News. "Cholos" refers to Hispanics, primarily Mexican-Americans, who are gang members. She went on to call out specific gangs of the area by name, including Florencia 13, which is connected to the Mexican Mafia. "18th Street, Florencia, where is the leadership at? Because you guys are all about territory, 'This is 18th Street,' and, 'This is Florencia.' You guys tag everything up, claiming hood, and now that your hood's being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain't a peep out of you!" she continued."It's everybody else who's not about the gang life that's out there protesting and speaking up. We're out there, like, fighting our turf! Protecting our turf, protecting our people! And like where you at?" she added. "Bien calladitos!" she repeats, which is Spanish for "very quiet!" RELATED: LA Dodgers say they blocked ICE agents at stadium after campaign to pressure team to condemn deportations Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images "Dude, they're running amok all up on your streets! On your streets and in your city! And [look], when the big gangs, the guns come in, nothing but like quiet, and we're out here, the regular ones that have never been jumped in, out here, calling things out, trying to organize people, trying to do the thing!" Gonzalez continued. "So don't be trying to claim no block, no nothing, if you're not showing up right now, trying to like help out and organize. I don't want to hear a peep out of you once they're gone!" she added. She reportedly later deleted the video. Melugin said that federal sources told him FBI agents had visited her home, and an investigation was opened into the video. The FBI told Fox it could not confirm or deny the investigation. He also said he reached out to Gonzales and the city of Cudahy but received no response. Although Cudahy is a small town by area, which is just above one square mile, it has among the highest density ratios in the U.S. because of its 22,800 residents. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Democrats unanimously voted against a resolution Tuesday formally condemning the destructive anti-ICE riots that took place in Los Angeles, California. The resolution narrowly passed the House, with 217 Republicans voting in the affirmative while 206 Democrats voted in the negative. The riots protesting ICE deportations in Southern California involved rocks being hurdled at law enforcement and attendees waving foreign flags. 'Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not.'Even as multiple cars burned in a news clip, one anchor described the riots as "relatively peaceful" and "relatively calm," reminding many viewers of the "fiery but mostly peaceful" BLM riots of 2020, according to CNN.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries took issue with the resolution, saying he "will not be lectured by extreme MAGA Republicans about questions of law and order." He also disagreed with the classification, saying there was "unrest" but refusing to acknowledge that it was a riot.RELATED: Republican senator makes a stunning admission: 'I can't be somebody that I'm not' Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images Notably, the resolution "recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully" and "condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement." Despite claiming to hold the same values outlined in the resolution, Jeffries and his 205 colleagues voted against the resolution.RELATED: Republicans clash with Democratic lawmakers defending violent anti-ICE rioters Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images California Republican Rep. Young Kim spearheaded the resolution, emphasizing the distinction between peaceful protests and outright chaos and lawlessness. "Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not," Kim said. "Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (I) tried to make his case against campaign contributions on the right in front of Joe Rogan, but the popular podcaster shut him down quickly.Sanders made his pitch against large campaign contributions made by tech billionaire Elon Musk while being interviewed by Rogan on his show.'I think that's probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court has ever made.'Sanders got Rogan to agree that the U.S. has a "corrupt campaign finance system" and then went on to assail the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court."What it says is, 'You're a billionaire. You have now the constitutional right because your money is your freedom of expression,' right?" Sanders explained."So you don't like Bernie Sanders. You can put millions or hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign and express your view about how terrible Bernie Sanders is, and you can buy that election, right?" he added. "That's your constitutional right.""Right," Rogan said."I think that's probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court has ever made. So what is the result of that decision?" Sanders said.RELATED: Bernie Sanders' aide lashes out at women of 'The View' for segment calling him sexist "The result of that decision, let's take us to where we are today, is that Elon Musk, and I know Elon was on your show," Sanders continued, "... He spent $270 million to elect Trump as president. I think that's absurd, that any one person ...""What's the most someone donated towards the Harris campaign?" Rogan interjected."They spent a lot of money on Harris as well," replied Sanders."They spent $1.5 billion just over the course of a couple of months," Rogan responded."You got it!" Sanders said. "I'm not here to say it's just a Republican — that's my point here."Rogan went on to ridicule the powers that would try to defeat any campaign financing reform, which delighted Sanders.A video clip of the debate went viral on social media, with one post garnering more than 1.4 million views in a few hours.Rogan has previously said that he was a supporter of Bernie Sanders as president, but he dropped a surprise endorsement for Trump in the last days before the 2024 election.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — and even some Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — are calling President Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities unconstitutional because he didn’t get congressional approval. They point to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for prolonged or substantial military actions unless responding to an imminent attack, as evidence that his actions were unjustified.AOC and Democratic Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) have even gone so far as to claim that the strikes are an impeachable offense.To get clarity on the issue, Glenn Beck brought in Gabriel Noronha, president of Polaris National Security and former State Department special adviser for Iran. “Did the president need to have congressional permission before striking Iran over the weekend?” Glenn asks.“No, he did not,” is Noronha’s candid answer.“It would have been nice to have. It strengthens the president's hand when he does have congressional authorization for the use of military force. But the Constitution grants him the powers as commander in chief to take all necessary actions, especially in a limited fashion like he just did,” he explains.Glenn agrees, adding, “They never said anything about ISIS when he went after ISIS and shut them down, right? ... Why all of a sudden is this one so different than all of the limited strikes we have seen from all of the presidents recently?”Noronha reiterates Glenn’s frustration, pointing to “Libya 2011” as well as “ISIS 2014-15,” where “more intense” versions of the “the same scenario” played out, but “Democrats didn't say anything” about needing congressional approval.Why the sudden pearl-clutching?“The reason here,” says Noronha, “is because they want to find something to attack President Trump for, but there's nothing on the policy because [the strikes] went so well, so they're going onto the legal crutch just because they don't have anything else.”Ironically, Congress has had multiple opportunities to prevent presidents from attacking Iran. Noronha, who was “in Congress for four years,” says he witnessed at least “a dozen” attempts to “strip the president of the ability to attack Iran,” and every single time, they failed.“They always said, ‘No, we want the president to have the ability to strike Iran if and when it's necessary,”’ he tells Glenn.But when it comes to Donald Trump specifically, there’s always been a double standard.“Congress is so radicalized now,” says Glenn. “They're marching in the streets with people who are burning our cities to the ground.”To hear more of the conversation, watch the video above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Rep. Eric Swalwell Lies Again About 'Deported' 4-Year-Old to Slam VP JD Vance

Texas Teen Karmelo Anthony Indicted for First Degree Murder in High School Stabbing Shocker

Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd Arrive at a 'New' Conclusion About Joe Biden Known to Most for Years