Awful Lot of American Firepower Pointed Iran's Way at the Moment

The liberal victim mentality will lead to its sycophants making insane comments in order to justify hating America. That truth was on full display during Wednesday’s edition of The View as moderator Whoopi Goldberg and co-host Sunny Hostin proclaimed it was worse to be black in American than live under the oppressive theocratic regime of the ayatollahs in Iran. Hostin also insisted that Israel needed to use “diplomacy” when dealing with an enemy threatening to nuke them, not bombs. What triggered Goldberg’s rage was right-leaning co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin pointing out the fact that people in the Iran were actually being oppressed by their government. “But let's remember too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don't adhere to basic human rights,” Farah Griffin accurately noted, to which Goldberg demand she not bring that up because the U.S. was worse: GOLDBERG: Let's not do that because if we start with that, we've been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car! [Applause] FARAH GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, but where Iranian regime is today is nothing compared is nothing compared to the Unites States! GOLDBERG: Listen, I'm sorry! They used to just keep hanging black people! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s not even the same! I couldn’t step foot wearing this outfit in Iran right now. After a fracas back and forth, Farah proclaimed the fact that it was better to live in America today than to live in Iran. “Not if you’re black,” Goldberg and Hostin echoed each other: FARAH GRIFFIN: Okay. I think it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran. GOLDBERG: Not if you're black! HOSTIN: Not for everybody! GOLDBERG: Not if you're black! FARAH GRIFFIN: Guys, don't compare us to Tehran. No one at this table should go to Tehran. Farah Griffin went on tell them at “it’s important we remember that there are places much darker than this country.” Goldberg shouted her down by sneering: “Not everybody feels that way! Not everybody feels that way!”     Earlier in the show, Hostin was upset “that Israel preemptively struck Iran” and thought it was “very problematic.” She was almost immediately interrupted by co-host Joy Behar who confronted her on how Iran had been threatening to wipe Israel off the map for decades. Still Hostin pushed the lie that it was “illegal” for a country to preemptively strike another in all scenarios (Click “expand”): BEHAR: Because I think that the Iranians and the Israelis believe Iran would like to completely destroy Israel. FARAH GRIFFIN: They call for the destruction. BEHAR: Iran is an actual existential threat to Israel. HOSTIN: But that does not – HAINES: They also fund Hamas. BEHAR: So, they’re saying, if you're trying to kill us, we want a nuclear bomb – we don't want you to have a nuke. HOSTIN: That is fine, but you have to do that legally. And under international criminal law, you are not supposed to do this. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, Iran’s launched tons of missiles against Israel in the last few years. BEHAR: I'm not sure Iran does things legally. HOSTIN: But under international law, Israel should not be preemptively striking another country. Hostin took on a more ludicrous position when she rabidly insisted that a country’s only recourse when staring down the barrel of a nuke being pointed at it was “diplomacy” because “You can’t just bomb a country”: BEHAR: Well, think of it this way. What if Canada was saying they were going to build a nuclear bomb and threatened to kill us all, what would we do? HOSTIN: You have to do it diplomatically, Joy! You can’t just bomb a country! BEHAR: Really? What's diplomatic of having a nuclear bomb and threatening another country? Goldberg backed Hostin up, declaring: “the reason there is diplomacy is so people aren't bombing each other willy nilly.” Co-host Sara Haines tried to argue that Israel was facing an onslaught from Iran-backed terrorist organizations that have been shooting missiles at them for years. “Doesn't mean you can proactively bomb a country,” Hostin ridiculously asserted, essentially arguing that Israel didn’t have a right to defend itself. At no point did Hostin explain how Israel was supposed to negotiate with a country whose position was that they shouldn’t exist and that all the Jews needed to die, but Hostin was adamant that you couldn’t call her an anti-Semite: And by the way, I want to say this so I don't get a bunch of hate mail. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic! I'm criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu! I am criticizing Israel! I'm not an anti-Semite! But under international criminal law what is happening now is not legal! That's the bottom line! The real bottom line was that while Hostin liked to boast that she’s a former federal prosecutor, she had not actively practiced law in years and was not trained on international law. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 18, 2025 11:06:00 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, that’s what I think is very problematic, because what people aren't talking about is that Israel preemptively struck Iran. And so, I think the conversation would be very different if another country preemptively sent missiles to this country, right? No one would be saying this is fine with -- JOY BEHAR: Whoa, whoa, whoa, can I interrupt you? HOSTIN: Sure. BEHAR: Because I think that the Iranians and the Israelis believe Iran would like to completely destroy Israel. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: They call for the destruction. BEHAR: Iran is an actual existential threat to Israel. HOSTIN: But that does not – SARA HAINES: They also fund Hamas. BEHAR: So, they’re saying, if you're trying to kill us, we want a nuclear bomb – we don't want you to have a nuke. HOSTIN: That is fine, but you have to do that legally. And under international criminal law, you are not supposed to do this. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, Iran’s launched tons of missiles against Israel in the last few years. BEHAR: I'm not sure Iran does things legally. HOSTIN: But under international law, Israel should not be preemptively striking another country. And President Trump just said yesterday, he demanded Iran's unconditional surrender and threatened to kill its supreme leader. He wrote, “we know where the so-called supreme leader is hiding. He’s an easy target, but is safe there. We are not going to take him out - kill – at least not for now.” That is also illegal under this country’s – um – executive order – and these executive orders have been going ongoing since Gerald Ford. The current executive order says you cannot threaten nor can you kill the leader of another country. We really need to have a bird’s eye view of what's going on. If that’s okay for Israel to do, if that’s okay for our president to do, is that okay for another country to do to us? That is unsafe and illegal. BEHAR: Well, think of it this way. What if Canada was saying they were going to build a nuclear bomb and threatened to kill us all, what would we do? HOSTIN: You have to do it diplomatically, Joy! You can’t just bomb a country! BEHAR: Really? What's diplomatic of having a nuclear bomb and threatening another country? HOSTIN: First of all, they don't necessarily have a nuclear bomb. President Obama, one of his foreign policy wins was that he had an agreement with Iran. BEHAR: No, but they're building it. HOSTIN: Well – well, Trump actually – FARAH GRIFFIN: Obama acknowledged that they were building it. HOSTIN: Trump actually – um - rolled back the -- out of that bill. And that's why I think Israel took this opportunity because if there had been an agreement between the U.S. and Iran, a nuclear agreement Israel could not have bombed. And so, they decided to bomb. SARA HAINES: Israel has had a target on its back it’s enter existence from every terrorist organization known to man, and Iran is the world leading state-sponsor of terrorism. HOSTIN: Doesn't mean you can proactively bomb a country. HAINES: I’m just saying. These are the people that attacked them. They fund Hamas. I understand why they’re doing it. HOSTIN: Do you think it’s illegal? Let me remind people about the Iranian woman who was killed for miswearing her hijab. A vast majority of that country is not happy with the people in power. HOSTIN: So, we don't like what another country is doing and so we can bomb? HAINES: I'm not going to defend the legalness of a terrorist nation that has been funding people killing people for decades and saying, ‘they're not follow – [Crosstalk] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I want to throw this in there. You might want to think about this because the reason there is diplomacy is so people aren't bombing each other willy nilly. HOSTIN: Yeah. HAINES: Which is why I commend what’s going on right now, cause the U.S. is not actively involved. GOLDBERG: Well, now. They're not actively involved because by law -- HOSTIN: They're not supposed to be. GOLDBERG: - he can't make that decision uni – [flubs saying “unilaterally”] what is wrong with my face? [The cast saying “unilaterally” in unison] FARAH GRIFFIN: But by the way, Iran has launched ballistic missile attacks U.S. forces in Iraq, just three years ago, preemptively! They have attacked Israel, preemptively. GOLDBERG: Understood. Understood but – FARAH GRIFFIN: They are a terrorist nation. HOSTIN: So, should we do what they do? FARAH GRIFFIN: No. As I said, the people of Iran have self-determination, and they want the ayatollah gone they should do it internally through a democratic process. HOSTIN: And by the way, I want to say this so I don't get a bunch of hate mail. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic! I'm criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu! I am criticizing Israel! I'm not an anti-Semite! But under international criminal law what is happening now is not legal! That's the bottom line! GOLDBERG: That's the thing. So, the question then becomes, do you -- that's why you have a U.N. That's why you have all these folks who come together. And yeah, it's a pain - HAINES: And they’re working on it right now. GOLDBERG: It's slow. FARAH GRIFFIN: But let's remember too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don't adhere to basic human rights or international law. GOLDBERG: Let's not do that because if we start with that, we've been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car! [Applause] FARAH GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, but where Iranian regime is today is nothing compared is nothing compared to the Unites States! GOLDBERG: Listen, I'm sorry! They used to just keep hanging black people! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s not even the same! I couldn’t step foot wearing this outfit in Iran right now. GOLDBERG: Oh, no! That's not what you mean to say. It is the same. FARAH GRIFFIN: No, it’s not. The year 2025 in the United States is nothing like -- if I stepped foot wearing this outfit in Tehran right now. [Crosstalk, Haines trying to bring up Mahsa Amini] FARAH GRIFFIN: I can't have my hair showing. I can’t wear a skirt. I can’t have my arms out. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: And it’s for us to judge? FARAH GRIFFIN: I literally said it's up to the Iranian people. HAINES: Yes, it is up to them. GOLDBERG: And that's why I'm saying it is the same! Murdering someone for their difference is not good whoever does it! It’s not good! [Applause] So, that's why I said you weren't saying what you -- what I heard was not what you meant. FARAH GRIFFIN: Okay. I think it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran. GOLDBERG: Not if you're black! HOSTIN: Not for everybody! GOLDBERG: Not if you're black! FARAH GRIFFIN: Guys, don't compare us to Tehran. No one at this table should go to Tehran. GOLDBERG: Let me tell you about being in this country. This is the greatest country in the world. [Applause] I know that. I know that. We all know that. But every day we are worried. Do we have to be worried about our kids? Are our kids going to be shot because they're running through somebody's neighborhood? They are not big deals -- I don't mean to say they're not big deals to you. Cause that’s not what I meant. HAINES: Because we are all women and they aren't doing well there either. They are not doing will in Iran. They're not educated. They cannot have property. They cannot be – HOSTIN: She’s talking about the United States. GOLDBERG: I'm talking about here. FARAH GRIFFIN: Nobody wants to diminish the very real problems we have in this country. GOLDBERG: Well, good. FARAH GRIFFIN: That’s no one’s intent. GOLDBERG: Good. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think it’s important we remember that there are places much darker than this country. And people who deserve rights – GOLDBERG: Not everybody feels that way! Not everybody feels that way! Listen, I'm sorry. When you think about the fact that we got the vote in 1965 and -- FARAH GRIFFIN: But you can -- they don't have free and fair elections in Iran. It's not even the same universe. HAINES: They can’t go out of their house, women. GOLDBERG: You know what, there's no way I can make you understand. (…)

Massachusetts District Judge Shelley Joseph denied wanting to help an illegal alien evade federal detention by helping him exit a courtroom through a back door.In 2018, Joseph was presiding over a drug possession hearing for Jose Medina-Perez, a man from the Dominican Republic who had already been deported from the U.S. in 2003 and 2007.During the hearing, the judge asked for the official recording of the proceeding to be turned off while she had a discussion with the defense attorney, allegedly to talk about how to help the illegal immigrant evade ICE agents. This week, the defense attorney testified as to what was said during the unrecorded period.'It sends a dangerous message that political activism is more important than the rule of law.'Attorney David Jellinek testified on Monday that during a 52-second off-the-record sidebar conversation, he told Judge Joseph he wanted to get his client, the illegal alien, out of the courthouse without interacting with ICE, the Boston Herald reported.The attorney said he was aware of a back door used by court officers for criminal defendants and told the judge he would use it with her permission. Jellinek said, according to the Boston Herald, that he knew he was "on the edge" of ethical and legal standards, but said he did not break the law.In a report from CBS Boston, the transcript of the hearing revealed that Jellinek had another reason for wanting to help his client evade ICE.RELATED: Judge back under fire for allegedly helping twice-deported illegal alien accused of drug crimes evade ICE Jellinek reportedly stated that he thought ICE was looking for the wrong man and wanted time to investigate and prove that fact.When Judge Joseph was asked if she thought her discussion with Jellinek meant he wanted to "go out the back door," Joseph replied, "Oh, God no."Joseph was also asked in the CBS Boston report whether she knew the words "avoid ICE" meant to avoid federal authorities in "any improper way," to which she replied no.Joseph also said she would "absolutely not" have been a party to anything illegal like that, either.According to the Boston Herald, Joseph could face devastating punishments.Special counsel Judith Fabricant from the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct has recommended Judge Joseph be indefinitely suspended and stripped of her $207,855 salary for an alleged failure to uphold the standards of a judge.The commission cannot remove a judge, but Fabricant suggested that a referral to lawmakers for Joseph's removal should be made.RELATED: NYC comptroller locks arms with man to prevent ICE arrest: 'Show me your warrant!' Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph (C) cries after leaving federal court in Boston on April 25, 2019. Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News that Judge Joseph's actions represent a troubling breakdown of public trust in the judicial system."When a sitting judge allegedly aids a twice-deported criminal in evading federal law enforcement, then attempts to cover it up by disabling a courtroom recorder, it sends a dangerous message that political activism is more important than the rule of law," Craney said.Craney added that accountability on the bench "must be restored" and that the hearing was "long overdue."The case will likely not be settled until at least early August, however, as a hearing officer said the parties involved have until July 3 to file briefs and then until July 10 to respond to them.A written report and recommendation for the CJC comes 30 days after that, which would be around August 10.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front Blaze Media IllustrationAfghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.So which is it?Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Originally named Lugee Alfredo Giovanni Sacco, his other hits included "Two Faces Have I" and "Rhapsody in the Rain." The post Lou Christie, ‘Lightnin’ Strikes’ Singer, Dead at 82 appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

The '90s saw an incredible number of adventure games come out, some of which have gone on to become classics in the decades since. For every Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango, or King's Quest 6 that's still celebrated today, though, there are other, just as compelling entries to the genre that have fallen into obscurity. One of them is Azrael's Tear, which combines the conspiratorial backdrop of Deus Ex or Gabriel Knight 3 with the first-person perspective of Myst and Riven to create something distinct. Now, nearly three decades since it first arrived, it's easier than ever to play Azrael's Tear, thanks to a relaunch on GOG. Continue reading 30 years later, obscure Myst style adventure game has suddenly been relaunched

Researchers think the Inca sacrificed these llamas as a way of bonding with the people living in their newly-conquered territory. The post The Incas Buried These Llamas Alive 500 Years Ago — And They’re Perfectly Preserved Today appeared first on All That's Interesting.

While their stomach contents prove that some of their last meals included woolly rhino and a small bird called a wagtail, experts still aren't sure how they died, though some think they may have been trapped when their underground den collapsed. The post Scientists Just Uncovered The Story Behind Two 14,000-Year-Old Wolf Puppies Found Perfectly Preserved In The Siberian Permafrost appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Only a longtime Chicago resident could fully appreciate the chaos and hopelessness of this contest.

'Stop that News!' MSNBC Conspicuously Dumps Out of Pete Hegseth Touting Trump’s ZERO Border Feat