Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
There was a time – not even that long ago, relatively speaking – when the great majority of Americans+ agreed on at least one thing: that the Islamic Republic of Iran — sworn enemy of both the United States and Israel and the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism — should never be allowed to possess a nuclear arsenal. Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all on record pledging that such a thing could not and would not be permitted. President Donald Trump acted, making good on those past empty platitudes. The establishment media responded by questioning, contradicting, or twisting every word that comes out of the White House or the administration and by practically adopting a pro-Iranian stance.
Then, suddenly, late in the day on June 23, Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire that would be phased in over a period of hours. If it holds, the truce will upend the various narratives being spun by the president’s critics.
American B-2 bombers, fighter jets, and submarines devastated three nuclear facilities in Iran on the afternoon of June 21 (middle of the night, local time). From the moment the news broke, some Democrats – though not all – and their loyal media have thrown everything they can at the president.
In terms of direct and impending physical danger to American assets, interests, military personnel, and civilians, Iran is currently the greatest threat to the United States. The home of the Persians is a brutally oppressive theocracy in which human rights – never mind rights for women, gays, or ethnic and religious minorities – are practically nonexistent. Still, the left-leaning media has taken on a role that is almost beginning to resemble Iranian regime propaganda. The answer to the question why is simple: The one US president who finally took what may have been the inevitable and unavoidable step to cripple the Iran nuclear threat is Donald J. Trump.
It is tempting to wonder if America’s legacy media is loyal, first and foremost, to the American people and way of life. Not that it’s really the media’s role to be loyal to anyone or anything but truth and transparency. But when most of the people reporting and analyzing the events of the day seem almost always concerned with the well-being of anyone but American citizens, they must be viewed with suspicion.
Some members of the political left’s radical progressive wing have openly sympathized with Iran. Iranian flags have already been spotted at anti-ICE and anti-Trump rallies. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had to issue an apology after this statement was posted on its official X account:
“Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran. While this tragic event occurred overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state, and federal partners.”
Others on the left are focusing on the way the president handled the situation. Claims have been made, with CNN leading the charge, that congressional Democratic leaders were not briefed on the US airstrikes ahead of time. The White House concedes that it was unable to reach House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) but asserts that his Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was informed beforehand. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News, “We tried [Rep. Jeffries] before the strike and he didn’t pick up the phone, but he was briefed after … “
Politico is a left-leaning news site that seems to revel in using President Trump’s words out of context. Its current favorite conveniently ambiguous word is “floats” or “floated.” When a reporter recently asked the president if he would use the Insurrection Act to deal with anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles, Trump responded that if there was an insurrection, he would certainly invoke the law. Politico transformed that into “Trump has floated invoking the Insurrection Act.”
The day after the strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, the president posted on Truth Social, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” This is hardly an indication that Trump intends to orchestrate the overthrow of the regime in Iran. Still, someone at Politico reached for the publication’s tiny dictionary and came up with, “Trump floats regime change in Iran, muddying the administration’s message.” Official Trump administration policy is that regime change in Iran is not the goal.
The main line of attack, adhered to by a umber of Trump’s political opponents and their media pals, is that Trump violated the War Powers Act by not seeking the consent of Congress before taking military action. That 1973 law – more accurately, the War Powers Resolution – expanded Congress’ authority over military operations way beyond what is bestowed upon it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Numerous presidents, including the previous two Democratic commanders-in-chief, ordered overseas offensive military operations without first consulting Congress.
Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!
Obama unilaterally authorized airstrikes and almost countless drone attacks in at least seven countries, killing probably hundreds. At least one American citizen was targeted and killed by an Obama-authorized drone, without due process. At least two times (one at a wedding and one at a hospital) civilians were erroneously targeted and killed. Few in the media or within the Democratic Party so much as expressed vague unease or suggested a conflict with the War Powers Resolution during Clinton’s, Obama’s, or Biden’s time at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Yet, several elected Democrats are calling for President Trump’s impeachment over the Iran raid. If the ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, what can they impeach him for – authorizing an airstrike that brought an end to hostilities? Though it should not be assumed that efforts to impeach Trump for supposedly contravening the War Powers Resolutionwould not go ahead, even if he did end the escalating confrontation between the two Middle Eastern enemies.
That’s the heart of the matter. Turrentine and perhaps a growing number of his colleagues who have liberal rather than progressive tendencies are realizing that the loudest voices in their party are concerned only with opposing and obstructing Trump at every turn. If that means siding with terrorists, illegal aliens – even violent and dangerous ones – transnational criminal gangs, and brutal and murderous regimes, that is what they will do.
At this point, it hardly matters whether Trump is a great president, a competent statesman, or even a good man. Even in the face of a possible new peace brought about by the president’s bold action, reactions from the left to the Iran attack have already proven – if more proof were needed – what more and more Americans are coming to understand. Trump’s mere existence has exposed progressives as capable of abandoning any principle and any degree of morality in pursuit of those they see as political enemies.