President Donald Trump fulfilled yet another campaign promise on Tuesday when he withdrew the United States from the horrible, no good, very bad Iran nuclear deal.

Unsurprisingly, former President Barack Obama lashed out at his successor within hours of the decision in defense of yet another piece of his legacy that had been scuttled.

According to The Daily Caller, Obama released a lengthy statement that sought to explain how Trump had made a terrible decision and made the world a less safe place.

Obama asserted that Trump's withdrawal from the deal "turns our back" on America's allies and all of the "leading diplomats, scientists and intelligence professionals" who had helped craft the deal.

Though he admitted that there are always changes in policies and priorities between one administration and another, he seemed to assume that his vaunted deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran was untouchable.

He whined that the "consistent flouting of agreements" that he had entered into risked "eroding America's credibility" with the rest of the world's major powers.

There's just one thing though ... it was Obama himself who eroded America's credibility on the world stage, and despite his concerted efforts over eight long years to take our nation down a notch or two, the U.S. nevertheless remains the world's only superpower that stands above all others.

He also asserted that Iran hadn't violated the nuclear deal -- yet -- and stated that Trump's decision forced us to choose between "a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.”

Ummm ... we already faced that dismal choice with the Iran nuclear deal in place. Trump's decisive action added a third choice -- renegotiation -- this time from a position of strength with a man who understands leverage and how to negotiate far more than his predecessor did.

We won't bore you with anything else from Obama's defense of his signature foreign policy "achievement," because, let's face it ... we've heard quite enough from him over the years already, thank you very much.

[show_poll poll_id=139]

Trump made it clear from day one that he was opposed to the Iran nuclear deal and would withdraw from it given the opportunity.

That opportunity presented itself and Trump acted purposefully, and there is nothing Obama can do about it other than whine and complain.

Over the past several years, countless liberals have harshly criticized President Donald Trump for his alleged mistreatment of women, chief among them Democrat New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

But now Schneiderman faces allegations of his own far worse than what he had accused Trump of, allegations so terrible they prompted him to resign his powerful office mere hours after the story broke.

According to a bombshell expose from The New Yorker, no less than four women have come forward thus far -- two anonymously and two on the record -- to accuse the disgraced politician who portrayed himself as a defender of women of committing violent physical, psychological and sexual abuse against them.

Their stories range from verbal abuse to painful slaps and even choking, often while highly intoxicated.

This despicable behavior typically occurred in bed and all of the women made clear that they did not consent to any sort of "rough" sexual activity with him.

When the women would attempt to break off their relationships with him, fight back or speak out, he would threaten to kill them to maintain their silence.

Schneiderman initially explained to The New Yorker that the allegations were no big deal and mere "role-playing" and consensual activity, but as noted, the women asserted otherwise.

Rather presciently, then-businessman Trump cryptically tweeted in regard to the now-formerly powerful Democrat in Sept. 2013 with an allusion toward such disgusting sexual behavior, comparing him to disgraced N.Y. politicians Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer.

Trump tweeted, "Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone - next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner."

It is widely known that Trump doesn't drink, but he has always attended parties with the powerful elite in which others were drinking and gossiping, and no doubt has learned plenty of dark secrets along the way.

[show_poll poll_id=130]

It would appear from that tweet and others around the same time that Trump was aware of Schneiderman's violent and abusive behavior toward women.

That must make the eventual hypocritical fall of a powerful critic and rival all the more satisfying for him.

The anti-Second Amendment gun grabbers here in America often point to the strict gun control imposed upon the United Kingdom as an example of how gun violence can be stopped.

But banning guns and disarming the law-abiding population doesn't stop criminals from committing gun violence, as three teenagers were shot -- one of whom died -- in and around London over the weekend.

According to Yahoo News, two young teens aged 13 and 15 were found wounded after being shot in broad daylight on Sunday in the U.K. capital.

Both of the victims were found in separate but nearby locations in the London suburb of Harrow within moments by Metropolitan Police. They were quickly rushed to the hospital with non-life threatening head injuries, at least one of which was caused by shotgun pellets.

Police have yet to recover a firearm or identify a suspect and an investigation is underway to see if the two incidents are related.

Those shootings occurred just hours after a 17-year-old boy was shot and killed in the south London suburb of Southwark on Saturday night.

That victim was identified as Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton, and his mother stated that he was not a member of a gang and was hoping to be an architect when he became an adult.

Also occurring in another area of London over the weekend was a "large altercation" that ended with an acid attack that seriously injured three men aged 17, 22 and 27.

Despite strict gun control laws, shootings are obviously still occurring in the U.K., and when criminals can't get their hands on a firearm, they simply resort to using knives or other weapons, including acid.

Nor has gun control reduced violent crime, as London's murder rate surpassed that of New York City just a couple of months ago.

[show_poll poll_id=125]

In fact, knife crime in London surged by 23 percent in 2017, and 60 people have already been murdered in the city since the beginning of 2018.

This and other grisly tales emerging out of London completely undercut the liberal mantra that gun control will create some sort of violence-free Utopia, which we all know simply isn't the case.

The mainstream media has made it clear that they are absolutely obsessed with former porn star Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, who is alleged to have had an affair a dozen years ago with then-businessman Donald Trump.

Given that obvious obsession with all things Stormy, it was no surprise when she made an appearance as herself during the cold open sketch of Saturday Night Live this weekend in which she had a phone conversation with the president, played by Alec Baldwin.

According to Independent Journal Review, the sketch began with Baldwin's Trump on the phone with his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, played by Ben Stiller, to discuss the Stormy Daniels situation.

Stiller's Cohen first called Trump on a pay phone prior to switching to a "burner phone" to avoid anyone eavesdropping  -- even as two bored FBI agents were seen listening in -- and then became confused and ended up calling a number of other members of Trump's family and administration.

Cohen eventually got back on the line with Trump, who instructed him to call Daniels while he listened in quietly, only to quickly interrupt and take over himself after hanging up on Cohen.

Trump asked Daniels to "stop making such a big deal out of this. Everyone knows it's just an act," to which Daniels replied, "I work in adult films, we're not really known for our acting."

Asked what would make everything go away, Daniels stated, "A resignation."

“Yeah, right. Being president is like doing porn. Once you do it, it's hard to do anything else,” Trump replied. He then noted how he'd "solved" the problems on the Korean peninsula and asked how he could solve their own problems, but Daniels would have none of it.

“Sorry, Donald. It's too late for that,” said Daniels. “I know you don't believe in climate change, but a storm's a-coming, baby.”

There may well be a "storm a-coming," but it likely won't be the result of this overblown tempest in a D-cup that is the media's obsession with Stormy Daniels, and it may not even be aimed at Trump.

[show_poll poll_id=122]

The real storm that is brewing is the upcoming Department of Justice Inspector General's report on the widespread malfeasance of the DOJ and FBI during the prior Obama administration, and it isn't a laughing matter at all.

Stormy Daniels and the liberal media better enjoy laughing during the rest of her 15 minutes of fame, because it is almost over.

We have all heard the countless excuses offered up by failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for why she lost the 2016 election, one of which is to blame women voters for not overwhelmingly choosing her.

But now that blame-casting on women voters has been echoed by former first lady Michelle Obama during remarks delivered to the 2018 United State of Women Summit.

According to The Daily Caller, Obama stated, “In light of this last election I’m concerned about women, about how we think about ourselves and each other."

"I think more about what is going on in our heads, where we let that happen,” she added in reference to President Donald Trump's election, quite literally questioning the thought processes of the women who voted for him.

“So I do wonder what young girls are dreaming about when we’re still there, when the most qualified person running was a woman, and look what we did instead,” Obama said.

Michelle Obama suggested that women hold themselves to a higher standard than men do, and in light of that claimed, “Women are still suspicious of one another.”

“If we’re not comfortable with the notion that a woman could be president, compared to what?” she asked rhetorically.

That, of course, drew resounding applause from the audience of liberal feminists.

However, Obama has it all wrong in her assessment of women not being "comfortable" with another woman as their president.

The vast majority of women -- as well as a majority of men -- would have no problem with a female president ... Democrats just choose the absolutely worst woman to run as the first female nominee.

[show_poll poll_id=120]

Had the Democrats not picked an utterly corrupt and unlikeable woman in Hillary Clinton as their nominee, they very well could be celebrating the election of the first female president of the United States right now.

Unfortunately for them, and apparently much to the dismay of liberal women like Obama, there were enough other women out there who decided on their own to go a different route than corrupt progressive leftism and decided they'd rather see Trump as their president.

The best hope of the Democrat Party to unseat the Republican governor of Massachusetts just threw in the towel on his gubernatorial bid and exited the race.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, that candidate was former Newton, Massachusetts Mayor Setti Warren, and he cited "insurmountable" financial odds as the reason for his decision to drop out.

"We took a hard look at the numbers and what it would take to run a winning campaign against the incumbent governor," Warren told The Boston Globe.

Insurmountable challenge

"I just saw the challenge was insurmountable, based on the ability to raise the money and the resources," he continued.

"I wanted to run a campaign that would have the capacity to win,’" Warren added. "I saw that we are not going to be able to do that."

Warren, an Iraq War veteran and former aide to John Kerry, was the frontrunner among Democrats to take out popular GOP Gov. Charlie Baker, based on his name recognition, prior political experience and fundraising ability.

Progressive platform rejected

Surprisingly, the progressive platform he adopted didn't do him any favors, as it seems policies like single-payer healthcare, free college tuition, high-speed rail and increased income taxes aren't as popular in Massachusetts as they once might have been.

Warren reportedly raised a mere $16,034 in the first two weeks of April, as compared to the haul of $251,587 brought in by Baker.

The progressive candidate also only had about $51,644 total on hand after campaigning for a year.

Meanwhile, Baker sits flush with roughly $7.9 million in his re-election campaign account and has experienced little trouble in raising funds.

[show_poll poll_id=112]

Warren's unexpected exit from the race is a serious blow for Democrats who expected to easily snatch away the governorship of a blue state that President Donald Trump lost by 27 points to his Democrat rival.

So much for the vaunted "Blue Wave" of enthusiastic Democrat voters who were going to usher in a new progressive era by wiping out Republicans across the board. They can't even win in one of their own deep-blue states.

Many concerned Americans and others around the globe watched with a horrified mixture of anger and sadness as the United Kingdom's courts and National Health Service effectively sentenced a sick young child to death and ordered him removed from life support systems.

Despite the protestations of his parents and offers from hospitals in other countries to take care of him, government bureaucrats decided that the value of little Alfie Evans' life was not worth enough for them to spend additional resources treating a mysterious illness. And according to Breitbart, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was one of those who was absolutely stunned by the death sentence imposed on little Alfie Evans.

He took to Twitter to share the boy's story as an object warning against the inhumane evil of socialized medicine.

Cruz shared the background of Evans' short life and struggle with an unknown illness that caused significant damage and left the toddler in a coma.

He noted that Evans' parents -- Tom Evans and Kate James -- sought permission from the U.K. government to take their child elsewhere for treatment when the NHS proved incapable of diagnosing or treating Evans.

Even the Pope interceded and the Italian government granted citizenship to Evans while an Italian hospital offered to transport and treat him.

"But UK and European courts have denied their right to seek alternate treatments for their son and instead have forcibly kept him in a hospital. Now they have turned off the ventilator and are waiting for him to die," Cruz tweeted on Wednesday.

Cruz pointed out the similarities to that of the Charlie Gard case in 2017, and noted, "It is a sad irony that while the people of the UK are busy celebrating a royal birth, its government is brushing off a commoner’s right to life."

He continued, "It is a grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the National Health Service (NHS) vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects."

At that time, young Evans was still clinging to life even after he had been removed from life support, and Cruz urged the government to make the right decision and called for prayers of support for Evans and his parents.

[show_poll poll_id=110]

Recall the ruthless and condescending mockery suffered by Sarah Palin when she warned years ago of the "death panels" inherent in a socialized medical system. Well, this is precisely what she so fervently warned about.

Shame on Britain.

A largely underreported story over the past year is how the Republican Party is flush with cash through successful fundraising efforts. Meanwhile, the Democrats are virtually bankrupt as funds have barely trickled in.

That financial shortfall was already posing a significant issue for Democrats as they head into the 2018 midterm elections, but failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may have just made it worse for them. According to the Intercept, Federal Election Commission filings revealed that the Democrat Party apparatus has been compelled to pay roughly $2 million for access to Hillary Clinton's email lists of donors and voters from the 2016 election.

Clinton's group, Onward Together, received $1.65 million from the Democratic National Committee for the valuable donor and voter information that was compiled by the Hillary for America campaign in 2016.

It also appears that the group charged the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $700,000 for access to the same information.

This is not illegal, as the lists are considered her property, but it still has some Democrats unhappy.

Consider that former President Barack Obama's Organizing for Action "gifted" a similar email list to the party in the years following the 2012 election, even as those lists were considered more valuable than Clinton's.

However, even Obama's "gift" of the email lists left some Dems unhappy as they viewed OFA as a "parallel" organization to the DNC and DCCC that had siphoned off donors and support the party otherwise might have received.

Of course we know how well the Democrat Party did during Obama's tenure in office, losing more than 1,000 elected seats on the local, state and federal level.

That left the party in ruins, and Clinton's massive loss in 2016 only made matters worse.

[show_poll poll_id=106]

Now that the party is broke and getting walloped by GOP fundraising, Clinton's demand that they pay for her voter info is akin to a parasite sucking their host dry ... and that couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people.

Following the revelations of past sexual misconduct against anchor Matt Lauer and reporter Mark Halperin, NBC News has been in some trouble with the #MeToo movement.

That trouble just grew exponentially as one of the network's biggest stars of all time, long-time news anchor Tom Brokaw, was just accused of his own sexual misconduct by a former co-worker, according to Variety.

That would be former NBC correspondent turned Fox News host Linda Vester, who has alleged in multiple interviews with Variety that Brokaw twice attempted to kiss her against her will.

She also alleged that he had once grabbed her inappropriately in a conference room and had showed up uninvited at her hotel room to attempt to coerce her into a sexual affair.

One another occasion, he had showed up at a restaurant where she was with friends and invited himself back to her apartment.

There were also countless messages Brokaw sent to her of a flirtatious nature that she tried to ignore but occasionally felt compelled to reply to.

Those allegations were corroborated by two friends who were informed of what had happened at the time, as well as Vester's own contemporaneous journal entries documenting the incidents.

For his part, Brokaw denied ever making any sort of "romantic overtures" toward Vester, according to a statement from NBC.

Furthermore, it was noted that no similar allegations of sexual misconduct have ever been lodged against Brokaw in the past.

But Vester revealed that she had refrained from complaining about Brokaw's actions at the time due to fear that her career would be ruined.

[show_poll poll_id=93]

She is also hopeful that her coming forward now will help change the culture at NBC that prevents other women from coming forward with similar allegations against popular and protected stars.

Hopefully, Vester's bravery in coming forward will indeed spur more women to come forward to expose the mistreatment they have received at the hands of hypocritical liberal media figures who like to chastise others for the sins they themselves have committed.

It has become increasingly obvious over the years that the major tech companies that hold a near monopoly over cyberspace also tend to have a decidedly left-wing bias.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently addressed this disconcerting reality on his program while discussing the contents of an internal memo he had obtained from Google-owned YouTube.

That April 2017 memo severely undercut the protestations of YouTube against accusations that they have been censoring conservative speech on their purportedly open and unbiased platform.

Instead, it revealed the use of "totally subjective" guidelines for the censoring of videos that appeared to be designed with "maximum political intent."

Carlton pointed to the conservative PragerU series of educational videos as an example of YouTube's censorship and noted how one of their videos challenging the liberal mantra that all police officers are racist was deemed "inflammatory" and demonetized.

Watch here:

That means the publisher could no longer earn revenue through ads and views, regardless of the number of views they received.

As blatant as moves like that are, Carlson noted that YouTube was smart enough to not just scrub their platform of all non-liberal views they don't find agreeable, as that would be far too obvious.

Rather, they tend to quietly place such videos in what is known as a "limited state," a sort of purgatory-type limbo where demonetized videos remain published on the platform but are suppressed and hidden from search results.

That makes them extraordinarily hard for viewers to find, which would be akin to The New York Times being kept off newsstands or the publishers going unpaid for their work.

The memo also revealed that YouTube's criteria for censoring videos was substantially based on vague and undefined terms like "controversial religious or supremacist content," "highly controversial, inflammatory content" or "demeaning language toward protected groups" -- incredibly subjective terms that have different meanings depending upon one's ideological outlook.

[show_poll poll_id=68]

Carlson lamented the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress appeared to be doing nothing about this even as YouTube was "working to undermine sacred American rights."

"They have too much power and are a threat to this country," Carlson warned, and added, "It is time to complain while we still can."