Iran and America, Yulia and Maria, everybody's at war

'You asked me a question, now allow me to answer it'

A number of provisions of the House‘s Big, Beautiful Bill Act—the main legislative vehicle for fulfilling President Donald Trump’s campaign promises—have been thrown out in recent days, complicating Republicans’ efforts to pass the 10-year fiscal framework before Independence Day on July 4. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough—essentially the Senate referee—decides on whether or not provisions in the budget reconciliation process follow Senate rules.  In such cases, she is invoking the “Byrd rule,” which is meant to restrict the process to budgetary policy only. The rule is named for then-Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who was the rule’s main sponsor when it was adopted in 1985. There are a few reasons a parliamentarian might to toss a provision under the Byrd rule: If it does not produce a change in spending or savings that is more than “merely incidental”; if it is not in compliance with budgetary instructions; if it increases deficits beyond the 10-year window; if it is outside a committee’s jurisdiction; or if it affects Social Security. In order to overcome such overruling, Republicans would have to get 60 votes to overturn each ruling, per Senate custom. That’s very unlikely given the current partisan divide in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Here‘s how the bill has been changed in recent days. Food Stamps MacDonough has thrown out some of the reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to millions of Americans. Specifically, the parliamentarian has struck provisions that would have barred noncitizens from accessing food stamps and would have forced states to share a larger amount of the cost of the program if they have a higher payment error rate.  Those amount to a gutting of the House and Senate agriculture committees’ work on the bill and will do damage to the overall spending reductions of the bill.  State Border Enforcement Another provision on the chopping block was “state and local assistance”—authorizing states to assist the federal government in carrying out immigration enforcement. “This subsection authorizes states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which are federal functions,” write Senate Budget Committee Democrats in their outline of the Byrd rule casualties.  Beyond precluding the federal government from saving money on these operations, the parliamentarian’s ruling also deals a blow to the bill’s work to help fulfill Trump’s promises on border security. Selling Off Postal Service EVs Slashed from the bill is a provision that “mandates the sale of all the United States Postal Service’s electric vehicles and infrastructure to support its electric vehicles.” While perhaps not a massive setback for congressional Republicans, it means that this element of former President Joe Biden’s presidency will live on. Is a Parliamentarian’s Ruling Final? The Senate parliamentarian’s rulings are something of a setback to Republicans, but they are not necessarily final. A simple option is to amend and resubmit the provision so that the parliamentarian no longer considers it in violation. The Senate can also motion to waive the parliamentarian’s ruling, which requires 60 votes—an unlikely outcome given Republicans’ 53-seat majority and Democrats’ unanimous opposition to the bill. There is also the option of having the presiding officer of the Senate—Vice President JD Vance—choose to ignore the parliamentarian’s rulings. This would send an earthquake through Washington and shatter precedent. For context, back in 2021, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., urged Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule MacDonough striking a $15 minimum wage provision in the American Rescue Act, a reconciliation package. “I’m sorry—an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve,” Khanna said in 2021. “This is an advisory, not a ruling. VP Harris needs to disregard and rule a $15 minimum wage in order.” Harris ultimately did not pursue this. There is also the option of removing a parliamentarian, which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., did with then-Parliamentarian Robert Dove in 2001. These latter two options are extremely unlikely, but they are in the Republicans’ toolbox if they consider MacDonough’s rulings do considerable damage to the main legislative vehicle for enacting Trump’s agenda. The post Provisions of ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Get Scrubbing in Senate in Parliamentarian’s ‘Byrd’ Bath appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer is urging the speedy passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act—the main legislative vehicle for President Donald Trump’s campaign promises—by contending that eliminating taxes on overtime pay would be a show of support for law enforcement. The Daily Signal has learned that Emmer, R-Minn., will be joined Tuesday by James Stuart, the former sheriff of Anoka County, Minn., to tout the tax relief the 10-year fiscal framework would bring. Stuart will speak at the House leadership’s press conference in support of the bill. The bill “holds promise for every American, including the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line daily to keep us safe,” Emmer told The Daily Signal in a statement, adding: I’m proud to welcome retired Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart to Washington this week to share how no tax on overtime pay will improve the lives of officers in Minnesota and across America. Stuart is currently the executive director and CEO of the Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, a pro-law enforcement nonprofit organization formed in 1885 that counts dozens of sheriffs across the state as members. “No tax on overtime pay would benefit peace officers across Minnesota and our country by putting more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow,” Stuart said in a statement. “I thank Congressman Emmer and House Republicans for their work to advance this policy, and I urge Congress to get it across the finish line to send our protectors a clear message of respect and support.”  GOP leadership in both chambers of Congress are working to pass the legislation by their preferred deadline of Independence Day on July 4.  Congress breaks for recess on June 27, though, so the deadline could come sooner. The post Whip Emmer: Pass ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ to Support Police appeared first on The Daily Signal.

UK to Ban 'Palestine Action' After the Group that Vandalized RAF Planes Last Week

On Monday, CBS Mornings Plus interviewed Emily Pennington, a writer, photographer, and advocate against President Trump’s recent cuts to the National Park Service (NPS), who lashed out at the Trump administration as "vindictive towards the national parks” and warned of the significant hit the parks would take in the coming month: Right now, the National Park Service has about 16 percent fewer full-time employees than they did just a year ago, and 39 percent fewer seasonal employees, which are the backbone of the summer operations of the national parks when they get really busy and they need extra restroom cleaning, gate operators, people working in different food and beverage operations. So yeah, it's a really staggering time for the parks right now.     While layoffs may have an impact on national parks, the concerns raised by Pennington and others should be tempered. Part of the difficulty of accurately assessing the situation was the lack of official information given about layoffs. The NPS had not provided an official count of employees let go at each park or what roles any former employees held. However, based on publicly crowdsourced information, the number of employees lost at each national park had been found. According to the information gathered, only seven out of the 63 national parks had lost more than 10 employees. 41 of the parks had five or less layoffs; 16 of those had none. While the budget cuts are certainly hard for those who were laid off, they currently pose no clear threat to the state of the National Park System. Some of the employees Pennington listed, such as those working in food and beverage operations, are not federal employees and would not be touched by the cuts. Still, Pennington tag-teamed with co-hosts Vladimir Duthiers and Adriana Diaz to lay out plans for how visitors can combat the effects of these budget cuts: I would say just be very, very aware of leaving no trace, making sure you bring extra, maybe, toilet paper and hand sanitizer because the restrooms literally might not be cleaned as often as usual this year. Going early, like, plan a cool sunrise hike or sunrise scenic drive. That way you're not impacting the gate during the very, very busy, you know, late morning/early afternoon hours, things like that. Of course, there was no evidence that bathrooms would be cleaned less than usual or that entry gates would be understaffed. With the lack of information available on the firings, such statements are purely conjecture intended to spread fear over Trump’s budget. Duthiers lamented that America had strayed from President Roosevelt’s vision for our national parks: It feels almost as if we are so far removed from what Teddy Roosevelt planned and intended for us with national parks with the way that we behave now. (...) I do encourage everyone to go back and read what Teddy Roosevelt wrote about why he was creating these national parks. Interestingly, what Roosevelt had to say about national parks included very little mention of the NPS. In fact, the NPS was not even founded by Roosevelt. He only protected the land. Rather than increase spending on the Department of Interior, he, much like Trump today, reduced it, moving the Forest Service to the Department of Agriculture to better manage natural resources and make government spending more efficient. Budget cuts to the National Park Service were far from an attack on the natural resources of the United States, nor should they be cause for concern. Layoffs are typical in any organization, and the NPS can and will adapt and allocate its resources to meet any challenges that may arise. Luckily, the natural beauty of the parks will still be there, even if getting through the entry gates takes a little bit longer. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. CBS Mornings Plus June 23, 2025 9:43 a.m. EST VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: Welcome back to CBS Mornings Plus. Allow us to channel our friends at CBS Sunday Morning with a mini moment in nature. That is old faithful at Yellowstone National Park, one of many parks Americans are visiting this summer. But some parks are feeling the strain of staffing shortages and budget cuts, with potentially more to come. Writer and photographer Emily Pennington visited all 63 national parks and shares stories from her journey in her memoir, Feral: Losing Myself and Finding My Way in America's National Parks, and she joins us now to share some insider tips. Good morning! EMILY PENNINGTON: Good morning. It's great to be here.  DUTHIERS: Good to have you. So we are entering the travel season now. It's going to be very busy. You've reported on the impact of budget cuts, the shortages. It feels almost as if we are so far removed from what Teddy Roosevelt planned and intended for us with national parks with the way that we behave now. PENNINGTON: Yeah, I mean, originally the national parks were literally set up to be for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people. And right now, unfortunately, we're seeing an administration that's being a bit vindictive towards the national parks. Right now, the National Park Service has about 16 percent fewer full-time employees than they did just a year ago, and 39 percent fewer seasonal employees, which are the backbone of the summer operations of the national parks when they get really busy and they need extra restroom cleaning, gate operators, people working in different food and beverage operations. So yeah, it's a really staggering time for the parks right now. ADRIANA DIAZ: So it's going to feel a little different possibly for tourists who want to visit these parks this summer. What are your insider tips, having visited all of them, for anyone wanting to visit a park this summer with their family, what should they bring? What should they do? What should they keep in mind? PENNINGTON: Yeah, absolutely. Well, because there are a lot of staffing cuts and budget cuts as well to the National Park Service, I would say just be very, very aware of leaving no trace, making sure you bring extra, maybe, toilet paper and hand sanitizer because the restrooms literally might not be cleaned as often as usual this year. Going early, like, plan a cool sunrise hike or sunrise scenic drive. That way you're not impacting the gate during the very, very busy, you know, late morning/early afternoon hours, things like that. DUTHIERS: You know, I do encourage everyone to go back and read what Teddy Roosevelt wrote about why he was creating these national parks… (...)

After The View made embarrassing headlines last week with moderator Whoopi Goldberg and co-host Sunny Hostin suggesting that it was worse to be black in America than live in Iran, ABC News seemingly appointed chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl to be their babysitter during Monday’s discussion of the U.S.’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Karl kept the cast on the rails as they peppered him with questions about the constitutionality of the strikes and why President Trump kept them a secret. “I'm happy to have you here, believe me,” fill-in moderator Joy Behar told Karl, as they shared a seemingly nervous laugh. It’s worth noting that Behar had clashed with Hostin last week as the two argued over how dangerous Iran was and whether or not they should be hit militarily. Conveniently overlooking how Trump had said he would make a decision on striking Iran “within” two weeks, Behar bemoaned how quickly Operation: Midnight Hammer had come. Karl had to explain that the deadline was partially a ruse and partially sped up because “the Iranians were not engaging at all” in negotiations: BEHAR: Okay. He was going to give diplomatic negotiations more time to play out, and then less than 48 hours later, this attack was under way. So what changed and what was he actually trying to accomplish here? KARL: I mean, look, the two weeks measure was clearly a bit of a head fake. I mean, not entirely, I wouldn't say the decision was finally made. All indications are that he didn't actually make the decision to so-called pull the trigger until Saturday, you know, and then the attack commenced. But obviously all the wheels were already in motion. (…) He really wanted that moment. I mean, I think he thought he could have a Kim Jong-un movement with the supreme leader of Iran and have a big deal right before the bombs were going to drop. The Iranians were not engaging at all and he made the decision.     Behar continued to bemoan the suddenness of the strikes. She even question why Trump would want to keep the strikes secret: BEHAR: So why did he keep it a secret for the surprise version? KARL: I mean, absolutely the diversion. You saw the way that -- all indications were that B-2s were flying towards Guam. Everybody thought, okay, so we're getting in position to be ready. They wanted to have some element of surprise. Let's face it, there wasn't that much an element of surprise, I mean, this had been in the works for a long time, but to have the final moment be a surprise. Seemingly ignorant of the concept of “breakout time” for nuclear proliferation, Hostin griped to Karl about Israel had been warning about Iran for 30 years. She even suggested “nothing” had changed in that time period. Karl had to explain to her that four president (Democrats and Republicans) understood that Iran having nukes was a threat, and what had changed was Iran’s weakness: HOSTIN: Yeah. Since 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu has said Iran is either two years ago, three years away, two weeks away. I mean, he has been saying that for decades. What has changed? Nothing! KARL: Well, look. What changed here is the opportunity and the belief that the Iranians were weak. That a strike could be effective. Look, four presidents – and I’ve covered all of them – saw the Iran nuclear program as a severe threat. Four presidents contemplated military action against it and held back. Donald Trump has done what they haven't done. But these plans have been in the works, have been drilled, have been examined and they felt there was an opportunity. The Iranian air defenses had been taken out, the Iranian proxies in the region the Hezbollah, the Houthis had been weakened. This was a chance to do it.   Hostin whines that she thinks Trump striking Iran's nuclear sites in unconstitutional and "is certainly a clear violation of international law at the very least." Karl points out that "president after president after president has launched military action without the approval of… pic.twitter.com/TSxbPa068Z — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 23, 2025   Following a commercial break, Hostin was back and complaining about how Trump was violating the Constitution and “international law” with his strikes. Karl had to walk Hostin through how the past several presidents conducted military strikes without the approval of Congress: Well look, constitutionally Congress has the power to declare war. The War Powers Act would make it seem very clear, you need to have congressional approval on this. BUT, president after president after president has launched military action without the approval of Congress. And Congress under Democratic and Republican leadership has complained the president is violating the War Powers Act. This is not new. I mean, I go back, I covered Bill Clinton and the military strikes against Kosovo back in 1999. “We’ve been using the [2001] AUMF to authorize every military strike in about 25 years. So, Congress can't be feckless and then mad when they don't like the outcome,” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin chided. The decision to have the cast pepper Karl with question likely save ABC the embarrassment of having their co-hosts (particularly Hostin) spout off out of pocket. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 23, 2025 11:04:07 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: I'm happy to have you here, believe me. So, on Thursday the White House said that Trump was going to make a decision on Iran within the next two weeks. That's what he said. Remember that? JON KARL: Two weeks. BEHAR: Okay. He was going to give diplomatic negotiations more time to play out, and then less than 48 hours later, this attack was under way. So what changed and what was he actually trying to accomplish here? KARL: I mean, look, the two weeks measure was clearly a bit of a head fake. I mean, not entirely, I wouldn't say the decision was finally made. All indications are that he didn't actually make the decision to so-called pull the trigger until Saturday, you know, and then the attack commenced. But obviously all the wheels were already in motion. In fact, the wheels were in motion a full week beforehand. Shortly after the Israelis made their attack the previous Friday, the President saw it as a sweeping success. I mean, he was very excited about it. I spoke to him that morning and he said, this is excellent. He was no longer saying the Americans weren't involved, he was taking credit for American weaponry being part of it. He was clearly ready to go, but there was a last-minute push for some kind of a diplomatic resolution. He really wanted that moment. I mean, I think he thought he could have a Kim Jong-un movement with the supreme leader of Iran and have a big deal right before the bombs were going to drop. The Iranians were not engaging at all and he made the decision. BEHAR: So why did he keep it a secret for the surprise version? KARL: I mean, absolutely the diversion. You saw the way that -- all indications were that B-2s were flying towards Guam. Everybody thought, okay, so we're getting in position to be ready. They wanted to have some element of surprise. Let's face it, there wasn't that much an element of surprise, I mean, this had been in the works for a long time, but to have the final moment be a surprise. (…) 11:07:18 a.m. Eastern KARL: By the way, I've been covering the Iran nuclear threat, I hate to say it, for literally two decades. And during much of that time, the sense is that Iran was months away from having a bomb. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. Since 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu has said Iran is either two years ago, three years away, two weeks away. I mean, he has been saying that for decades. What has changed? Nothing! KARL: Well, look. What changed here is the opportunity and the belief that the Iranians were weak. That a strike could be effective. Look, four presidents – and I’ve covered all of them – saw the Iran nuclear program as a severe threat. HOSTIN: Yes. KARL: Four presidents contemplated military action against it and held back. Donald Trump has done what they haven't done. But these plans have been in the works, have been drilled, have been examined and they felt there was an opportunity. The Iranian air defenses had been taken out, the Iranian proxies in the region – ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Are weak. KARL: - the Hezbollah, the Houthis had been weakened. This was a chance to do it. (…) 11:17:14 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: Well, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called into question the constitutionality of Donald Trump's actions. He bypassed Congress, potentially violated the war powers resolution. I believe this is certainly a clear violation of international law, at the very least. Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries accused the President of misleading his country as to his intentions. What do you think are the possible ramifications that President Trump could face for arguably overstepping his authority? KARL: Well look, constitutionally Congress has the power to declare war. The War Powers Act would make it seem very clear, you need to have congressional approval on this. BUT, president after president after president has launched military action without the approval of Congress. HOSTIN: Yeah. KARL: And Congress under Democratic and Republican leadership has complained the president is violating the War Powers Act. This is not new. I mean, I go back, I covered Bill Clinton and the military strikes against Kosovo back in 1999. Again -- HOSTIN: That’s why I think that's more of an international law violation. KARL: But, you know, look. It's a Republican Congress right now and he is not getting any blow back within his own party with the exception of Tom Massie. BEHAR: So, what's the good of having it then if they all violate it? KARL: Well, that’s a great question! I mean, that’s – FARAH GRIFFIN: We’ve been using the 2003 AUMF to authorize every military strike in about 25 years. So, Congress can't be feckless and then mad when they don't like the outcome. KARL: Yeah. So, that was after 9/11, Congress passed this Authorization of Military Force against -- it was supposed to be against Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda and has been used over and over and over again. (…)

We’ve got a new, fun interactive series called Worst Media Take of the Week, where you — our loyal NewsBusters visitors and MRC supporters — get to vote on which leftist journalist or celebrity had the worst media take of the week.   Much appreciation to all who voted last week via NewsBusters and the MRC’s various social media sites (Facebook, Instagram and X.com).   The results of the Worst Media Take of the Week are in and the winner is… Whoopi Goldberg! The co-host of ABC’s The View routed the competition with 78 percent of the vote! Goldberg took first place for claiming it’s worse to be a black person in America than to live in Iran. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta finished in second place with 16 percent of the vote. MSNBC analyst Eugene Robinson finished dead last with 6 percent.  The following is a montage of all the nominees:      WINNER (78 percent of the vote)   Whoopi Goldberg: It’s Worse to Be Black in America Than Live in Iran Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin: “I think it’s very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran.”Co-host Whoopi Goldberg: “Not if you’re black!”— ABC’s The View, June 18.   SECOND PLACE (16 percent of the vote)   Jim Acosta Bashes Trump’s “Kim Jong-Un Birthday Parade”  “The President of the United States is a danger to this country. Full stop….Even people in the Republican party were afraid to show up at his birthday parade, the dictator Kim Jong-Un birthday parade that he tried to have….One of the images I took away from the weekend that really stayed with me were those military veterans....who had fought in World War II and said, ‘we defeated fascism the last time. I’m here to do it this time.’”— Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta at Center for American Progress, June 17.   THIRD PLACE (6 percent of the vote)   Eugene Robinson: “No Mandate” For Trump’s “Proto-Fascism” “You had 5 million people in demonstrations around the country against what President Trump is doing. What it brought to mind to me was a number that….Joe Scarborough mentioned earlier, 1.5 percent. That was the margin between the 77 million votes that Donald Trump got and the 75 million that Kamala Harris got. And it’s not this overwhelming mandate for proto-fascism.”— MSNBC analyst Eugene Robinson on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 17.   Thanks again to all who participated!    Funded by James P. Jimirro

While oil markets had been showing fear of a possible retaliatory attack from Iran, the missile attack on U.S. bases actually elicited a positive response.Iran issued a very limited and almost symbolic response when it fired 11 missiles against bases in Qatar and Iraq on Monday. No one was hurt, and some reports say Iran informed Qatar ahead of time.'The market is pricing in a scenario where things de-escalate gradually.'Crude oil markets had ramped up their futures prices after tensions escalated in the Middle East and put oil trade at risk, but after seeing the scale of the response from Iran, markets responded positively and futures prices dropped.U.S. crude oil dropped by 4.1%, and Brent crude oil prices — a global benchmark — fell by 4.35%, according to a CNBC report.The Dow Jones meanwhile jumped by 300 points, signaling a positive response to the attacks.The markets likely saw the limited attack as a de-escalation of tensions, as Iran signaled that it needed to save face but did not want to antagonize the U.S. any further.Brent had previously jumped by over 5% as a result of the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities.“The market is pricing in a scenario where things de-escalate gradually,” said Rystad Energy geopolitical analyst Jorge Leon to CNBC.RELATED: Rubio warns Iran against 'suicidal' closing of Strait of Hormuz; Vance says retaliation will be met with 'overwhelming force' Leon went on to warn that Iran could still roil global markets if it chose to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade waterway.“The worrying thing is that the other extreme scenario where there is a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is still realistic,” he said. “Things could go south very, very rapidly.”On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran that such a move would be "suicidal" because closing the strait would hurt the U.S., but it would also damage other countries that would turn on Iran. About 20% of oil trade, or 20 million barrels, flows through the strait, according to the Energy Information Administration.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CBS has released a report detailing the FBI’s intensified surveillance of Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States — and the timing of their release could not be more curious.Kyle Shideler, a senior analyst for the Center for Security Policy, is well-versed in these sleeper cells and has a theory as to why the FBI is warning Americans about them.“One of the things to pay attention to is the tricky semantics of sleeper cells," Shideler tells BlazeTV host Jill Savage and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson. "When you’re talking about a sleeper cell, are you talking about a group of terrorists who completely blend in with the American mainstream, are not otherwise observable, and then just one day receive a coded radio message and go blow things up?”“That’s usually not how it works. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but typically what we see from cells inside the United States linked to terror groups is that they’re actually very active. They’re usually engaging in propaganda, they’re engaging in fundraising, they’re engaging in recruitment, especially when you’re talking about Hezbollah,” he continues.These sleeper cells, Shideler explains, like to “buy up U.S. military hardware like night vision goggles” and ship them out of the country.“So do you think the CBS report is a genuine scoop, or is this a strategic leak linked to something larger going on?” Peterson asks Shideler.“My instinct is it’s a strategic leak,” Shideler responds. “Someone inside the FBI or the DOJ either wants to make sure that everybody knows that they’re doing their job, which part of your job is not letting everybody know what you’re doing, so fail on that part.”The other reason they might have strategically leaked this information is to “play into a narrative that if Donald Trump should decide to act, we are likely to be hit here.”“I think that’s the subtext to the timing of the leak,” Shideler says.And while most Hezbollah sleeper cells are “fundraising and propaganda cells,” Shideler believes there is cause for concern, as there’s “good evidence that many of them do have some level of military training.”“What they would be capable of could vary broadly,” Shideler warns. “Anything from large-scale vehicular IEDs to small-scale small arms attacks, suicide vest bombings, anything in between.”Want more from 'Blaze News | The Mandate'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.