President Donald Trump went on the attack against the media and Democrats on Tuesday, furious over coverage of his repeated claims that a deal to end the Iran war was near.

He suggested that even if Iran surrendered unconditionally, the media and “Dumacrats” would claim Iran had won.

“If Iran surrenders, admits their Navy is gone and resting at the bottom of the sea, and their Air Force is no longer with us, and if their entire Military walks out of Tehran, weapons dropped and hands held high, each shouting ‘I surrender, I surrender’ while wildly waving the representative White Flag, and if their entire remaining Leadership signs all necessary ‘Documents of Surrender,’ and admit their defeat to the great power and force of the magnificent U.S.A.,” Trump wrote, “The Failing New York Times, The China Street Journal (WSJ!), Corrupt and now Irrelevant CNN, and all other members of the Fake News Media, will headline that Iran had a Masterful and Brilliant Victory over The United States of America, it wasn’t even close. The Dumacrats and Media have totally lost their way. They have gone absolutely crazy!!!”

In March, Axios reported that Trump had claimed the Iran war was close to an end 12 times.

The current ceasefire is tenuous, as Iran is now warning of retaliation after the U.S. performed limited strikes on Monday, NewsNation reported.

READ MORE: Trump’s Texas Endorsement Was Designed to Punish His Own Party: Report

Image via Reuters 

President Donald Trump’s $1.776 billion “slush fund” is a “multitool for corruption and maintaining MAGA discipline,” argues The Bulwark‘s editor, Jonathan V. Last, suggesting there are multiple ways Trump can use the fund — all involving corruption.

One of the obvious ways is bribery, writes Last. Another way is “more subtle,” he says. “It’s about holding people on side.”

Last reminds readers the president figured out that by using private lawsuits in civil court, he could “legalize bribery and extortion.” He explains, “that’s what his defamation suits against CBS and ABC were.”

“Trump understood that while it might be illegal to go to CBS and ABC and demand that they pay him protection money, he could use a civil lawsuit as justification for creating a private legal contract that amounted to the same thing,” writes Last. “He further understood that if he filed a civil suit against the U.S. government and then became president, he could direct the government to settle with him on whatever terms he desired.”

That’s how the $1.776 billion fund was created.

Last notes that Trump’s fund sunsets — disappears — just before he leaves office, so no other president can use it. But there’s another reason.

“If you were Trump, would you pay out money before your last days in office?” Last asks. “Because I would not.”

He argues that it’s more effective to pay out a few people early during the life of the fund to establish its legitimacy, then stop.

By stopping, you turn the problem of having just “1,700 million-dollar portions” into “tens of billions of dollars worth of promises.”

“Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you; you just have to wait a little bit longer,” Trump might say, while those who filed claims could be “thinking that, since he’s going to pay up at the very end, there’s enough cash for them to get theirs.”

That is how Trump can use the fund to solve the problem of being a “politically weak” lame duck president.

“Maybe the POTUS is becoming unpopular, so candidates need to distance themselves from him,” Last writes. “Maybe party elites are thinking about the future and how to take over once the old man is gone.”

The fund offers “the promise of a tangible reward for Republicans to stay on his side. Be nice to him. Do what he asks. Don’t freelance. And maybe there’s a pot of gold for you at the end of the rainbow.”

“It will encourage them to modulate what they say. And within the rest of the Republican ecosystem, having more people on-side than there otherwise would be will have a force-multiplier effect. Seeing people stick with Trump will cause more people to stick with Trump.”

Image via Reuters

Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace is running for governor of South Carolina while waging a two-front campaign to amend both the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions to bar anyone she claims has loyalties “not to America” from holding office.

Her proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution would effectively ban naturalized U.S. citizens from becoming federal judges, or holding seats in Congress or Senate-confirmed positions in the federal government, The Hill reported.

She targeted three Democratic U.S. members of Congress in her statement last week.

“Ilhan Omar. Shri Thanedar. Pramila Jayapal. All born in foreign countries, none were citizens by birth,” she wrote on social media. “All sitting in the United States Congress. All making clear every single day their loyalty is not to America.”

“The people writing America’s laws, confirming America’s judges, and representing America on the world stage should have one loyalty: America. Not any other country,” she added. “For too long we have allowed foreign born members to hold seats in this government while making clear they are America last, not America first. We see it every day. This constitutional amendment will put an end to it.”

Mace did not offer any examples of lawmakers putting “America last.”

READ MORE: GOP Senators Finally Admit the Truth About Trump’s War — Kristol Warns Damage Is Done

On Tuesday, Mace expanded her proposal to include her home state.

She called for “the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, members of the South Carolina General Assembly, Justices and Judges of this State, and all statewide elected executive officers to be natural born citizens of the United States.”

“Every single state across the country should ban foreigners or foreign-born individuals from being governor, from being lieutenant governor, and from serving in state legislatures,” said Mace in a press release.

She acknowledges that one of her current opponents for governor is “a foreign-born candidate.”

On social media, Mace is also pushing her proposals.

“If you want to lead America, you should be from America,” she wrote.

“If the President must be natural born, so should members of Congress. No more foreign-born candidates on the ballot. Americans should run America,” she also said.

“The President must be a natural-born citizen. Why stop there. Should foreigners or foreign-born be allowed to be in positions of power like Congress, Governors, or god-forbid our Judges – YES or NO?” she asked.

The Hill noted that 26 members of Congress are “foreign-born,” with 19 of them being Democrats.

According to the Harvard Graduate School of Education, eight of the 56 signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence were not born in America, 48 were.

READ MORE: Trump’s Texas Endorsement Was Designed to Punish His Own Party: Report

Image via Shutterstock