Archive | July, 2017

The List => Top 10 Greatest Hits From Scaramucci’s Stint as WH Communications Director (VIDEO)

Posted on 31 July 2017

Anthony Scaramucci was brought into the White House to fine-tune President Trump’s message and banish the leakers. Despite a short …

The post The List => Top 10 Greatest Hits From Scaramucci’s Stint as WH Communications Director (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

J.K. Rowling Smears Donald Trump With Lies About Disabled Boy

Posted on 31 July 2017

Liberal celebrities love to hide behind what makes them look good. Especially if it’s fake news.

As of July 31, the author of the Harry Potter series J.K. Rowling is still accusing Trump of ignoring a disabled child and calling the POTUS “stunning and horrible.”

After a deceptively edited video of President Trump allegedly refusing to shake the hand of a child in a wheelchair went viral on Friday and Saturday on Twitter, celebrities attacked Trump as a “monster of narcissism.” However, the full video was eventually released and surprise, the story was fake news. The president did not ignore the child in a wheelchair.

While people like Chelsea Clinton took down their angry re-tweets about Trump in this scenario, billionaire author J. K. Rowling refused. Three days later, her 8-tweet thread rant about Trump is still standing, even with her retweet of the video. (The video itself has been taken down, Rowling’s retweet remains.)

She has moved on to tweet about other topics, pointedly, it seems, refusing to acknowledge her mistake, and even liberals are critical.

CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted out Chelsea Clinton’s statement, that she had “undone the retweet” of Rowling’s thread. Stelter described Rowling’s thread as “bogus.”

                             

Liberal journalist Piers Morgan accused the author of “using a disabled boy to falsely smear someone.” He also called her tweets “abusive” and “damaging.”

                             

Even the mother of the disabled child put out a statement saying “Trump did not snub my son.” The reason why he was waving his hand around in front of the president? He was showing off his secret service badge.

Rowling’s full tweet thread reads: “Trump imitated a disabled reporter. Now he pretends not to see a child in a wheelchair, as though frightened he might catch his condition. This monster of narcissism values only himself and his pale reflections. The disabled, minorities, transgender people, the poor, women (unless related to him by ties of blood, and therefore his creations) are treated with contempt, because they do not resemble Trump. My mother used a wheelchair. I witnessed people uncomfortable around her disability, but if thy had a shred of decency they got over it. So yes, that clip of Trump looking deliberately over a disabled child’s head, ignoring his outstretched hand, has touched me on the raw. That man occupies the most powerful office in the free world and his daily outrages against civilized norms are having a corrosive effect. How stunning, and how horrible, that Trump cannot bring himself to shake the hand of a small boy who only wanted to touch the President.”

                            

                            

It takes a certain amount of humility and virtue to admit an error.

NBC & ABC Demand HHS Sec Protect ObamaCare From Trump’s ‘Sabotage’

Posted on 31 July 2017

On Sunday, both NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s This Week were so desperate to protect ObamaCare that the hosts interrogated Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and demanded that he accept the failing law. At the top of Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd warned: “…the President threatens to sabotage ObamaCare….Will President Trump try to push ObamaCare over the edge?”

In a contentious interview with Price minutes later, Todd eagerly cited a Washington Post headline that proclaimed: “It’s not ObamaCare anymore. It’s our national health-care system.” He then turned to the cabinet official and urged: “Do you accept that the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act as we know it are dead and now your job and the job of Republicans is to make the system work better?”

After Price detailed the numerous ways in which ObamaCare was failing and not helping Americans receive health care, Todd brushed all those facts aside and declared: “You know how to count votes, you know where the votes are. It’s pretty clear a full repeal can’t be done….What is one thing that you want Congress to do right now that’s doable, that’s realistic, that can help you implement the Affordable Care Act better?”

Later in the exchange, Todd pressed:

Do you feel it is your job at HHS to implement the Affordable Care Act as it was meant to be or are you there to – some people think you don’t want to see it work, so that’s why we’ve seen cancelled TV advertising, the attempts to not get people to enroll, the cancelling of contracts that help with enrollment. And so some have accused that you do not want to see it work as it was intended. Can you explain?

The anchor hoped Price would get on board with the Democratic Party agenda and start promoting ObamaCare: “So if they come up with a fix that helps…are you then going to implement the Affordable Care Act as it was meant to be, including encouraging people to sign up, encouraging enrollment, encouraging Medicaid expansion?”

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

On This Week, fill-in moderator Martha Raddatz had a similarly aggressive discussion with Price, fearing: “Well, the President also talked repeatedly this week about letting ObamaCare implode. As recently as Friday he was calling for that….Is he going to let it implode, or as he says, do the right thing for the American people?”

She further worried:

HHS has the ability to further destabilize the marketplace by stopping cost-sharing payments to insurers, not enforcing the individual mandate, working internally to undermine it. You have said nobody is interested in sabotaging the system. So are you going to help it implode or try to fix it?

After asking multiple questions on the topic, Raddatz still queried: “Secretary Price, I just want to go back to this – the President saying ‘imploding.’ Is what the President is proposing, letting the existing system fail, putting the needs of patients first?”

The biased interviews were brought to viewers by Boeing, Neutrogena, IBM, and Mercedes.

Here are transcripts of the questions put to Price on the July 30 Sunday shows:

Meet the Press
10:35 AM ET

DONALD TRUMP: Secretary Tom Price is also here. By the way, are you going to get the votes? He better get them. Oh, he better. Otherwise I’ll say, “Tom, you’re fired.”

CHUCK TODD: Joining me now is that Tom, from Atlanta, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price. Secretary Price, welcome back to the show, sir.

TOM PRICE: Hey, Chuck

TODD: I know you still have a job –

PRICE: Thanks, good to be with you.

CHUCK TODD: You still have a job. I assume the President was a little bit tongue in cheek. But let me ask you – let me start there. Ask yourself this, what could you have done differently? I’m sure you’re asking yourself that considering what happened this past week. What could you have done differently to have a different outcome?

(…)

TODD: You know, it’s interesting, there was a headline this morning in The Washington Post that I’m curious if you accept the premise of. And the headline was simple, “It’s not ObamaCare anymore. It’s our national health-care system.” Do you accept that the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act as we know it are dead and now your job and the job of Republicans is to make the system work better?

(…)

TODD: Look, you were an elected official, you know how politics works. You know how to count votes, you know where the votes are. It’s pretty clear a full repeal can’t be done. It’s pretty clear somehow rescinding the Medicaid expansion, that the support is not there. So what’s realistic? What do you ask Congress to do now? What is one thing that you want Congress to do right now that’s doable, that’s realistic, that can help you implement the Affordable Care Act better?

(…)

TODD: Alright, with all due respect, you gave me an explanation of what you’d like to see but you didn’t give me a specific. And I want to ask you about a specific that the President tweeted about. He said this yesterday, “If a new health care bill is not approved quickly, bailouts for insurance companies and bailouts for members of congress will end very soon.” Now he appears to be referring to these payments that your department has been making monthly. And I know there is some legal questions about whether this has been appropriated by the legislative branch or not. But the insurance companies have said this month to month reimbursement of propping up the insurance markets is creating more uncertainty and they would like to see some yearly – yearly certainty there. Can you say for certain that the, all of these insurance payments are going to be made every single month while the Affordable Care Act is law?

(…)

TODD: Do you feel it is your job at HHS to implement the Affordable Care Act as it was meant to be or are you there to – some people think you don’t want to see it work, so that’s why we’ve seen cancelled TV advertising, the attempts to not get people to enroll, the cancelling of contracts that help with enrollment. And so some have accused that you do not want to see it work as it was intended. Can you explain?

(…)

TODD: But Secretary Price, I understand that, but it’s clear the votes aren’t there. So if they come up with a fix that helps, essentially gives some certainty to the insurance companies to go into rural markets, are you then going to implement the Affordable Care Act as it was meant to be, including encouraging people to sign up, encouraging enrollment, encouraging Medicaid expansion?

(…)

TODD: Alright Secretary Price, I’m gonna have to leave it there, run out of time a little bit. I appreciate you coming on and sharing your views, sir.

PRICE: Thanks, Chuck.

This Week
9:10 AM ET

MARTHA RADDATZ: President Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price joins me now. Mr. Secretary, this week, President Trump said you were responsible for the passage of the health care bill. Here’s what he said about you.

DONALD TRUMP: Hopefully, he’s going to get the votes tomorrow to start our path toward killing this horrible thing known as ObamaCare that’s really hurting us. He better get them. Oh, he better. Otherwise I’ll say, “Tom, you’re fired.” I’ll get somebody.

RADDATZ: Safe to say you still have your job and I know you say it was a joke, but there was message to you there. What could you have done differently? Do you feel you let the President down?

(…)

RADDATZ: Well, the President also talked repeatedly this week about letting ObamaCare implode. As recently as Friday he was calling for that. But this is what he said last February.

TRUMP: From a purely political standpoint, the single best thing we can do is nothing. Let it implode completely. But it’s not the right thing to do for the American people. It’s not the right thing to do.

RADDATZ: So what is it going to be? Is he going to let it implode, or as he says, do the right thing for the American people?

(…)

RADDATZ: This week, he said he was going to let it implode. Is that what he’s going to do?

(…)

RADDATZ: But he says let it – let ObamaCare implode, then deal. What does that mean?…So How’s he going to deal with it?

(…)

RADDATZ: Okay, let’s talk about what you’re gonna do. HHS has the ability to further destabilize the marketplace by stopping cost-sharing payments to insurers, not enforcing the individual mandate, working internally to undermine it. You have said nobody is interested in sabotaging the system. So are you going to help it implode or try to fix it?

(…)

RADDATZ: Secretary Price, I just want to go back to this – the President saying “imploding.” Is what the President is proposing, letting the existing system fail, putting the needs of patients first? I understand your views on ObamaCare.

(…)

RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specifics. As for insurance subsidies, the President tweeted, “If a new health care bill is not approved quickly, bailouts for insurance companies and bailouts for members of Congress will end very soon.” How soon could HHS stop paying cost-sharing payments to insurers? Next month? Has the President made a decision?

(…)

RADDATZ: Okay, what about the individual mandate? Is the President considering directing one of his agencies not to enforce it? Have you ruled that out?

(…)

RADDATZ: President Trump did sign an executive order allowing HHS to waive the individual mandate. Again, so that’s still an option, right?

(…)

RADDATZ: Thanks very much for joining us this morning, Secretary Price.

PRICE: Thank you, Martha.

Brian Williams Cheers McCain’s ‘Moral Courage’ to Preserve ObamaCare

Posted on 31 July 2017

Late night MSNBC anchor Brian Williams on Friday cheered the “moral courage” of John McCain and two other Republicans to derail ObamaCare repeal efforts. The journalist also hoped for GOP “heroes” in the mode of Republicans who stood up during Watergate. Narrating McCain’s vote against repeal, Williams touted, “In the well of the Senate, it came down to one very dramatic moment… Much was made of that moment, a moment of moral courage, a man staring down his own mortality yet again.” 

Not wanting to leave out the other two GOP moderates, he asked former radio host Charlie Sykes: “My question to you: Is that kind of courage, for people cheering them on, going to be contagious?” 

On Thursday’s show, the MSNBC host praised McCain’s “profile in courage.” 

Earlier, while talking to Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, Williams looked for “Watergate” courage from the GOP: 

As we always say, the heroes of Watergate were, for the most part, Republicans. At least the surprise as it un-spooled. And the surprise in the end. Are you looking for that same thing of course coming off last night? Murkowski, Collins and McCain in the well of the Senate. Are you looking for Republicans to change their behavior and comments? 

Anytime a liberal journalist is hailing courageous Republicans and calling them heroes, it’s pretty safe to assume it’s for embracing liberalism in some way. It might be a good idea to ignore advice from people who don’t have the interests of conservatives or Republicans at heart. 

A partial transcript: 

The 11th Hour 
7/28/31
11:23pm ET

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Steve, as we always say, the heroes of Watergate were, for the most part, Republicans. At least the surprise as it un-spooled. And the surprise in the end. Are you looking for that same thing of course coming off last night? Murkowski, Collins and McCain in the well of the Senate. Are you looking for Republicans to change their behavior and comments? 

STEVE SCHMIDT: Of course. Look, we have two parties in this country right now. We may well see a real independent candidacy in 2020. 

11:51

WILLIAMS: In the well of the Senate, it came down to one very dramatic moment. Senator John McCain walks in, asks to be recognized, raises that right arm broken three different places in North Vietnam, a quick indicator with a thumbs down. The Democrats briefly react, Senator Schumer waives off any verbal reaction. But with that, it was done. Seven years of talk about repeal and replace done in one hand gesture. 

Our panel remains with and we’ll go to Charlie Sykes. Charlie, much was made of that moment, a moment of moral courage, a man staring down his own mortality yet again, not the first time in his life. But let’s also talk about the courage of Murkowski of Alaska and Collins of Maine, because without those two women, there is no moment like that for John McCain. My question to you: Is that kind of courage, for people cheering them on, going to be contagious?

Camerota Denies Liberal Bias, Fox &amp; Friends 'Unnecessarily Stoked Outrage'

Posted on 31 July 2017

CNN host Alisyn Camerota has been making appearances recently to discuss her new book, Amanda Wakes Up, which is a fictional work that is nevertheless based in part on her past experiences working as a FNC host for the weekend edition of Fox and Friends. Camerota — who left FNC to join CNN three years ago — has been showing this past week a greater willingness to criticize her former employer — yesterday on CNN’s Reliable Sources, going so far as to charge that her old FNC show “unnecessarily stoked outrage” and “took a really myopic view of, say, President Obama or the current administration.” She even suggested the show has sometimes been “toxic” or “foxic.”

Additionally, in an appearance on CNN Tonight, Camerota tried to fend off charges of bias by arguing that people only think she has ideological biases because she asks contrarian questions to her guests, therefore pressing some from the left and some from the right. But the CNN host does, in fact, have a demonstrated pattern of tilting left on her CNN show, New Day, over the past three years.

On Tuesday’s CNN Tonight, Camerota recalled that the main character in her book, Amanda Gallo, works for a news network called “Fair News.” After relating that “Fair News” was based on her “imagination” of what a balanced network should be like, she lamented that “it ends up becoming like a Frankenstein monster of a network.”

After informing viewers that his guest used to be a weekend host for Fox and Friends, Lemon chose a passage from the book in which the Amanda character lamented making activists on both sides of the abortion issue angry because she asked questions posed from opposite sides of the issue. Camerota then denied being a biased journalist as she responded:

You know that feeling of, depending upon what segment you do, then social media can light up with calling you names and trying to put you into a box, and you’re either a “conservative maniac” or you’re a “liberal, left-wing nut.” 

She added:

And I do think there’s something to that, that then you must be doing something right if you get hate from both sides. It’s unpleasant, regardless of what side it comes from, but I do think that people have a hard time fitting me into some box, which I’ve always seen as sort of a feather in my hat.

It’s true that asking contrarian questions can be a useful tool in getting guests to clarify or strengthen the case for their point of view, but CNN’s New Day show does not always press its political guests equally — especially on certain issues — as evidenced further down. At times she has even repeated misinformation that ends up being beneficial to the left-leaning point of view.

As for Sunday’s Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter introduced his segment with Camerota by making clear that much of the novel was based on Camerota’s experiences working for Fox News:

Alisyn Camerota says not all news is created equally. In real life, she’s the co-anchor of New Day here at CNN, and now she’s also a novelist — the author of a brand new book titled Amanda Wakes Up. The fictional Amanda is Amanda Gallo, a young reporter who lands a dream job as a co-host of a cable news morning show called Wake Up USA on the Fair News Network, whose motto is “True and Equal.” Is this Camerota’s way of revealing what it was like to work at Fox News? Well, sort of.

A bit later, Stelter picked up on a passage from the book in which Camerota had described the news network in the book as being a combination of “fun” and “toxic,” and coined the term “foxic” as an obvious jab at Fox News. Stelter:

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

But you did have a line I wanted to quote. Your character at one point says, “The crazy part about” our show Wake Up is “sometimes it’s really fun and sometimes it’s really toxic. That’s quite a hybrid, you know. It’s almost like we should invent a new word for our brand of news that combines fun with toxic.”

He added:

And the word your character suggests is “foxic,” which, again, made me think of Fox. I wonder if that’s what it was like for you at Fox and Friends. It was fun but also toxic?

Camerota more directly tied the word “toxic” to her former employer as she recalled an actual conversation with a friend:

That passage that you happen to have pulled was a real conversation that I had — I mean, not verbatim, but with a woman who was on the air, but a dear friend of mine. And she and I met for lunch, and I was frustrated one day during these years when I wrote it because I did feel that way, that the show that I was on, it was — there was a lot that was great about it. It was really spontaneous live TV.

She then further took aim at Fox and Friends as she added:

At its best, it’s spontaneous and fun and unpredictable, and you never know what’s going to happen. But I also thought — as I said, I wrote much of this during the 2012 election. It unnecessarily stoked outrage.

After Stelter injected, “Just to tick people off — just to make viewers angry?” Camerota fretted over FNC’s coverage of President Barack Obama as she continued:

I guess. Or to — that took a really myopic view of, say, President Obama or the current administration — only saw them one way through a sort of outrageous lens. And I thought that there was a way to be a little bit more open-minded about seeing everything. And I still feel this way, by the way. I mean, again, I channel that experience even today, and I always try to say, “Well, what would the other side say?” In fact, there’s more than just two sides. Sometimes there’s many sides. And so anytime you think that you have such, you know, righteous indignation about something, it wouldn’t hurt to look at it from the other side.

Since she joined CNN in 2014, Camerota has built up quite a record of left-leaning journalism and bias against the conservative point of view.

On June 1 of this year, Camerota pressed a Republican guest from the left on the issue of the Paris Accord and global warming, but, when facing a Democratic guest later, merely asked for his view without challenging his left-wing response.

On June 3, there was a repeat performance when her New Day show pressed two Republican guests from the left on the issue, but did not press any liberal guest from the right. While co-host Chris Cuomo hosted one of the two Republicans, Camerota hosted both a Republican and a Democrat while showing an obvious double standard. Camerota spent much of the time with her Republican guest fixated on President Donald Trump claiming global warming was a “hoax,” but did not offer any challenge from the right for her Democratic guest on the global warming issue.

On February 23, Camerota made herself the third liberal voice in a debate where two liberal guests were already bullying one conservative guest over the issue of transgender bathroom access in public schools.

On January 31, the CNN host gave credence to the myth peddled by the Left that Breitbart News and Steve Bannon are anti-Semitic — in spite of Breitbart’s established history of documenting and criticizing anti-Semitism, and of defending Israel.

On January 27, she gave no pushback when far-left Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez blamed the NRA for an increase in shootings in Chicago. The CNN host merely cued him up to attack the NRA further as she cited crime statistics and then followed up: “Do I understand you correctly, in terms of what you think is at the root of that? You think it’s because the NRA — because of their lawsuits, they were able to dismantle some of the gun laws, and that’s what is at the root of this problem?”

On January 25, she actually pressed far-left Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison from the left as she wrongly claimed that President Donald Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy would bar NGOs from discussing “contraception,” even though the policy would only withhold funding if they perform or encourage abortion.

On October 6, 2016, the New Day program showed a blatant double standard as both major party vice presidential candidates appeared in separate segments on the same show. Co-anchor Cuomo repeatedly pressed Republican Mike Pence, but Camerota was soft on Democrat Tim Kaine.

On August 2, 2016, Camerota gave a liberal guest a forum to bash President Donald Trump over the Khizr Khan controversy without informing viewers of her liberal background.

On May 16, 2016, Camerota gave a liberal activist for transgender rights an unchallenged forum to blame the North Carolina bathroom law for the suicide of two transgenders, an increase in calls to suicide hotlines by transgenders, and the hospitalization of her own child due to stress caused by attention to the law.

On March 3, 2016, Camerota invited race-obsessed former MSNBC analyst Michael Eric Dyson to accuse Republicans of racism with little pushback, and provided a forum him to repeat the discredited canard tying Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign to the site of racially motivated murders from years earlier.

On August 5, 2015, Camerota distorted the findings of a poll to absurdly claim that 80 percent of Americans want abortion “kept legal” when, in fact, the poll in question found that a majority of Americans leaned against most abortions being legal.

Between June and early July of 2015, Camerota held a series of panel discussions with likely voters in which the panels were mostly stacked with liberals with few expressing conservative views.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, July 25, CNN Tonight, and the Sunday, July 30, Reliable Sources:

#From the July 25 CNN Tonight:

11:50 p.m. ET

ALISYN CAMEROTA: It’s my experience basically of 25 years of my career boiled down into her — Amanda’s trajectory — Amanda Gallo — of a year and a half. She basically figures it all out in a year and a half, what took me in 25 years go figure out. But the — it’s set at Fair News, and what Fair News is, it was sort of my imagination — sort of my utopian dream of someday being at a network where people didn’t try to put you in a partisan box of some kind because it would be a big tent for left and right, and old and young, and North and South. And then, as you’ll see in the book, it ends up becoming like a Frankenstein monster of a network.

DON LEMON: So, for those of you who don’t know, Alisyn — because Alisyn is on in the morning — you’ve always been on in the morning since you’ve been in cable news pretty much. You came from Fox — you anchored the weekends at Fox, and I would watch you and Dave who’s now here now on weekends at Fox.

(…)

LEMON: You write about, when you go in to your boss, Benji, right, and he’s concerned about the attention that a segment on abortion is getting on your Twitter. … She says, “When I was challenging the woman’s attorney, they said I was a right-wing, anti-abortion woman hater. And when I was challenging Fluke,”, who was a male, “they said I was a left-wing liberal baby killer. Those were the more pleasant ones. Benji snorted, ‘Then you must be doing something right!'”

Do you agree with that? Because you recently quit Twitter because of this craziness like this.

CAMEROTA: But, look, you know that feeling of, depending upon what segment you do, then social media can light up with calling you names and trying to put you into a box, and you’re either a “conservative maniac” or you’re a “liberal, left-wing nut.” And I do think there’s something to that, that then you must be doing something right if you get hate from both sides. It’s unpleasant, regardless of what side it comes from, but I do think that people have a hard time fitting me into some box, which I’ve always seen as sort of a feather in my hat.

(…)

#From the July 30 Reliable Sources:

11:49 a.m. ET

BRIAN STELTER: Alisyn Camerota says not all news is created equally. In real life, she’s the co-anchor of New Day here at CNN, and now she’s also a novelist — the author of a brand new book titled Amanda Wakes Up. The fictional Amanda is Amanda Gallo, a young reporter who lands a dream job as a co-host of a cable news morning show called Wake Up USA on the Fair News Network, whose motto is “True and Equal.” Is this Camerota’s way of revealing what it was like to work at Fox News? Well, sort of. Here’s what she told me about Amanda Wakes Up.

(…)

STELTER: You’ve spoken to me in the past about Ailes’s sexual harassment, about him harassing you and other colleagues. I don’t see that come across in the book in this fictional world of morning TV. But you did have a line I wanted to quote. Your character at one point says, “The crazy part about” our show Wake Up is “sometimes it’s really fun and sometimes it’s really toxic. That’s quite a hybrid, you know. It’s almost like we should invent a new word for our brand of news that combines fun with toxic.”

And the word your character suggests is “foxic,” which, again, made me think of Fox. I wonder if that’s what it was like for you at Fox and Friends. It was fun but also toxic?

ALISYN CAMEROTA: That passage that you happen to have pulled was a real conversation that I had — I mean, not verbatim, but with a woman who was on the air, but a dear friend of mine. And she and I met for lunch, and I was frustrated one day during these years when I wrote it because I did feel that way, that the show that I was on, it was — there was a lot that was great about it. It was really spontaneous live TV. At its best, it’s spontaneous and fun and unpredictable, and you never know what’s going to happen. But I also thought — as I said, I wrote much of this during the 2012 election. It unnecessarily stoked outrage.

STELTER: Just to tick people off — just to make viewers angry?

CAMEROTA: I guess. Or to — that took a really myopic view of, say, President Obama or the current administration — only saw them one way through a sort of outrageous lens. And I thought that there was a way to be a little bit more open-minded about seeing everything. And I still feel this way, by the way. I mean, again, I channel that experience even today, and I always try to say, “Well, what would the other side say?” In fact, there’s more than just two sides. Sometimes there’s many sides. And so anytime you think that you have such, you know, righteous indignation about something, it wouldn’t hurt to look at it from the other side.

Atlantic Mourns Loss Of Obama DHS Official, Attacks Trump Policies as 'Psychological Ghettoization'

Posted on 31 July 2017

The resignation of a key Obama DHS holdover, George Selim, has left many liberals seething as the department has begun to incorporate Trump policies. One example of this could be found in Monday’s edition of The Atlantic where contributing editor Peter Beinart mourned the end of an era. Praising Selim as a stalwart conservative Republican who had wrongfully been misjudged, Beinart went on to denounce key Trump officials such as Sebastian Gorka for their newfound influence. Explaining away the administration’s policies as “psychological ghettoization,” his article concluded that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing “exactly what ISIS and al-Qaeda want.”

“…Selim’s departure likely heralds a wider gulf between Muslim communities and the federal government. Zaki Barzinji, who served as the White House liaison to Muslim Americans in Obama’s final year, notes that “even Muslim groups that were critical of CVE felt they could talk to him, express their criticisms. They’re going to be completely cut off now.” Abed Ayoub of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee agreed. “We didn’t buy” CVE, he said, but “at least there was the communication with the community. We didn’t agree on most things but hearing our voice was important.” Now, he argues, American Muslim activists won’t even bother to talk to the federal government. When the Trump administration does something they dislike, they’ll move immediately to protests and lawsuits. Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, argued that with Selim’s departure, “the idea of community partnership has become obsolete.”

Once upon a time, Americans took pride in claiming that America’s culture of integration and religious tolerance made the United States less susceptible to jihadist radicalization than countries in Europe. Selim’s departure is another sign that this self-congratulatory story is out of date. The Trump administration, Al-Marayati told me a few months ago, is “building a European model,” a model of “psychological ghettoization.” Which is exactly what ISIS and al-Qaeda want.

The Bush and Obama administration’s outreach to Muslim communities was often clumsy and fraught. And Selim, who oversaw much of that outreach, had plenty of critics. But even so, Barzinji worries: “We won’t know what we had until it’s gone.”

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

In addition to attacking the policies of the Trump administration, Beinart also went after Mark Levin’s Conservative Review which had broken the story of the Selim resignation. Beinart pushed back against several of Conservative Review’s claims such as Selim having hosted hundreds of meetings of Muslim groups with ties to radical Islam. He even went as far as to question the very idea that Muslims have been the primary source of domestic terrorism in recent years.

From the beginning, CVE encountered two very different forms of opposition. The first was from conservatives who saw it as politically correct way to avoid calling Islamic terrorism by its name. In June 2016, Senator Ted Cruz declared that by adopting such “meaningless policies as the ‘countering violent extremism’ initiative,” the Obama administration was “willfully blinding itself to the real threat.” After Trump’s election, Sebastian Gorka declared that, “I predict with absolute certitude, the jettisoning of concepts such as CVE.”

Ironically, however, CVE also met opposition from Muslim organizations, which insisted that despite its ecumenical veneer, it still treated domestic terrorism as a primarily Muslim phenomenon, even though the data suggested otherwise. Thus, some activists argued, the program stigmatized Muslims as potential terrorists rather than treating them like any other group of Americans.

The Conservative Review article that reported Selim’s resignation claimed that he had “admitted to hosting hundreds of meetings with officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),” a claim Selim disputed to me. But what’s truly ironic about the charge is that CAIR strongly opposed CVE. Dawud Walid, executive director of the group’s Michigan chapter, told me that “the outreach Mr. Selim was involved in was just soft intelligence gathering and CVE in and of itself was still a program that overwhelmingly focused on American Muslim community even though it claimed not to be.”

Liberal Late Night Pines for Obama: ‘Could Go a Week’ Without Mockery

Posted on 31 July 2017

The writers from liberal late night TV pine for the days of Barack Obama when they could go a whole week without making fun of the president. According to an article in Variety, “the general consensus” among writers who appeared at a panel in Beverly Hills is “I don’t want this job.” Writer for The Daily Show, Hallie Haglund complained, “To try to find a new way to go after that can be really boring.” 

Variety journalist Debra Birnbaum summarized, “[Haglund] pointed out that during the Obama administration, the show could go a week without using a clip of the President.” Perhaps the Los Angeles Times explained the liberal thinking best in 2009 by saying that the comedy shows just weren’t interested in making fun of Obama: 

As late-night talk show hosts and other television comics who trade in political humor know, cracking wise about the new president, who marked his 100th day in office last week, is apparently not very funny for most of the people, most of the time. Not surprisingly, to guard against a frosty or uncertain reception, TV’s leading political humorists have largely backed away from their ritual comic hazing of the president, a colorful tradition in the medium, especially in its late-night time slots, since at least the Nixon administration.

Yet, in the first 100 days of Donald Trump, late night comedy savaged the Republican: 

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University counted an incredible 1,060 jokes directed against Trump during the President’s first 100 days in office.

That’s more than ten times as many barbs as aimed at all Democrats — combined — during the same period (95), and considerably more than both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton received during the entire first year of their presidencies (936 and 440 jokes, respectively).

In the Variety piece, Christine Nangle, the head writer for Comedy Central’s The President Show seethed, “There’s so much more hate and resentment than we possibly could have imagined … This man [Trump] didn’t come out of nowhere.” 

Hard to imagine that these comedy writers are having trouble relating to Trump supporters. 

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

Jezebel: No One ‘Gives A S**t About Children’ In Trump’s America

Posted on 31 July 2017

Ah, Jezebel. In a society where children don’t sing on the streets for their dinner, the phrase “neo-Dickensian” doesn’t really apply. However, contributor Sarah Seltzer found it relevant in light of the Republican attempt to overturn Obamacare. After all, in her opinion, these times are “bloated by economic and social inequality.”

In her Jezebel article, “We’ve Stopped Even Pretending to Care About Children,” published Friday, Seltzer stated that, “This year, my first year as a mother, my first in Trump’s America, I realized that as a culture, we’ve given up even the pretense that we give a shit about children.”

Yikes. Coming from a website that has in the past advocated abortion countless times, the article read like an artificial attempt to make pro-choice people seem like the good guys when it comes to children.

While she was justifiably disturbed by incidents where toddlers shoot themselves accidentally with guns left lying around their houses, she included these horrible tragedies along with the supposed loss of LGBT rights. Seltzer was upset because there are children “whose gay parents can’t adopt them.” She didn’t forget about the LGBT kids either, who are “suffering” because their “civil rights are being ignored or denied.” In her mind, these civil rights violations were just as bad as a toddler dying because of a gun accident.

But then, she argued, “Our society has always been sick.” This fact is grounded on the argument that the United States is a “nation that routinely bombs foreign kids and was founded on human bondage.” Which begs the question: When has the United States gone out of its way to specifically “bomb foreign kids?”

Instead, she chose to smear the pro-life community. To her, they are guilty of “pushing onward with their narrow agenda” without advocating “family values.” Regardless of the fact that the pro-life community has consistently advocated for traditional marriage, large families and proper education.

There’s a real problem, in her mind, because “the same folks who used to claim families need nurturing mothers at their core actually hate the shit out of us, and our kids.” These people who apparently “hate” her are the ones who are targeting “reproductive rights,” which supposedly impedes the planning of families. Ah yes. Abortion helps families grow.

Instead, one should endorse Obamacare in order to really be “pro-child.” Seltzer begged her readers to “think of children with pre-existing conditions whose medicaid coverage, or life-time caps, are likely to get gutted by Republicans.” And if you really want to be concerned, you should think about “the kids whose moms still die in childbirth in this country at rates far higher than any other in the developed world.”

Coming from an author who has advocated abortion in so many of her pieces, it’s insanely hypocritical. She praised Shonda Rhimes’ abortion episode in the television series Scandal, and she also wanted mothers whose unborn children were diagnosed with Zika virus to choose abortions.  She also called President Donald Trump a “partial birth abortion” before he was elected. Yikes.

Yes, Ms. Seltzer. Please think of the (unborn) children.

Sean Spicer Pictured Looking Smug as Hell After Scaramucci’s Removal (PHOTO)

Posted on 31 July 2017

Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was at the White House today for President Trump’s first Medal of Honor …

The post Sean Spicer Pictured Looking Smug as Hell After Scaramucci’s Removal (PHOTO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Nasty Never Trumpers Gloat Over Scaramucci’s Firing

Posted on 31 July 2017

News broke Monday afternoon that President Trump removed Anthony Scaramucci as White House Communications Director. Scaramucci was reportedly escorted from White …

The post Nasty Never Trumpers Gloat Over Scaramucci’s Firing appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

WHITE HOUSE: Trump Fired Scaramucci Due to his Expletive-Laden Interview with New Yorker Reporter (VIDEO)

Posted on 31 July 2017

Last Wednesday, White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci called reporter Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker. Scaramucci had been Communications …

The post WHITE HOUSE: Trump Fired Scaramucci Due to his Expletive-Laden Interview with New Yorker Reporter (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

GOOD NEWS: Scaramucci Highly Likely to Still Have Role in Trump Administration

Posted on 31 July 2017

Anthony Scaramucci was removed from his position as White House Communications Director by President Trump at the behest of Chief …

The post GOOD NEWS: Scaramucci Highly Likely to Still Have Role in Trump Administration appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Cernovich on Scaramucci’s Firing: “I’ll Admit It’s Bad Moment… Huge Mistake”

Posted on 31 July 2017

News broke this afternoon President Trump has removed Anthony Scaramucci as White House Communications Director. This was two weeks after …

The post Cernovich on Scaramucci’s Firing: “I’ll Admit It’s Bad Moment… Huge Mistake” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

REPORT: Scaramucci Escorted From White House Grounds After Removal

Posted on 31 July 2017

Anthony Scaramucci was reportedly escorted from White House grounds after being removed as Communications Director by President Trump at the request …

The post REPORT: Scaramucci Escorted From White House Grounds After Removal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

BREAKING: POTUS Trump REMOVES Scaramucci As WH Communications Director

Posted on 31 July 2017

WOW! News just broke President Trump has removed Anthony Scaramucci as White House Communications Director!  New York Times reports: President …

The post BREAKING: POTUS Trump REMOVES Scaramucci As WH Communications Director appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

EPIC! Joe Piscopo Mocks Mad Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff – Hilarious! (Video)

Posted on 31 July 2017

Joe Piscopo Mocks Mad Maxine Waters, John McCain, Adam Schiff Comedian and actor Joe Piscopo went on with Neil Cavuto …

The post EPIC! Joe Piscopo Mocks Mad Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff – Hilarious! (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ouch! Middle Class Trusts GOP over Democrats by 35 Point Margin to Run the US Economy

Posted on 31 July 2017

After decades of destroying jobs, manufacturing, religion, culture, tradition and livelihood the Democrat Party was stunned in 2016 to discover …

The post Ouch! Middle Class Trusts GOP over Democrats by 35 Point Margin to Run the US Economy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Chelsea Clinton Gets Destroyed on Twitter For Lecturing “White Parents” on Racism

Posted on 31 July 2017

Chelsea Clinton, who is known for doing absolutely nothing other than grift through life on her last name thinks she’s …

The post Chelsea Clinton Gets Destroyed on Twitter For Lecturing “White Parents” on Racism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN Gives MS-13 a Platform to Claim Trump Is Helping Them

Posted on 31 July 2017

The establishment press and the left began to build a template after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. Their argument, which eventually gained traction with protest movements during the Iraq War, claimed that any serious attempt to kill, imprison, expel, or otherwise punish terrorists would only help the enemy recruit more terrorists.

A CNN reporter and an opinion writer are now claiming that an equivalent of this bogus argument should apply to the attempt to rid the nation of the scourge of the MS-13 gang.

The left has continued to treat the “going after terrorists creates more terrorists” meme as gospel, even though it was universally recognized (even at the New York Times, though it did so cryptically in its back pages when it happened) that Al Qaeda was successfully expelled from Iraq as a result of the 2007-2008 military surge in what independent war correspondent Michael Yon described as a “victory across the board,” and even though it and other terrorist groups, including ISIS, didn’t begin to meaningfully rebuild in that country until the U.S. abandoned Iraq near the end of 2011.

But a busted leftist meme rarely dies. Either its failure is forgotten, or it gets written into history as if it was really a success, so it can then be applied to new circumstances.

In applying the “going after bad guys creates more bad guys meme” to MS-13, CNN’s Dan Lieberman, in a Thursday report updated Friday morning and repeatedly shown on CNN’s airwaves, attempted to legitimize it by having alleged gang members make the claim — as if murderous thugs would never lie — and personalized it to President Donald Trump (bolds are mine throughout this post):

MS-13 members: Trump makes the gang stronger
On Long Island, some fear crackdown on immigrants is emboldening violent street gang

… The violent gang known as Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, originated decades ago among Salvadoran immigrants in Los Angeles and has since built a criminal network that extends across the US, with thriving pockets in the Washington, D.C. suburbs and here on Long Island, just an hour or so east of New York City. It’s estimated to have 10,000 members nationwide.

President Trump has vowed to wipe them out and will visit Long Island Friday to discuss his plans. But the FBI says the gang is growing.

And several people familiar with MS-13, including two gang members themselves, told CNN they think Trump’s crackdown on immigrants is actually making MS-13 stronger because witnesses are more reluctant to come forward for fear of being deported.

“It’s not like before, where … they (the gang) were more hidden,” said Margarita (a mother whose son who has been an MS-13 recruitment target), adding that a decade after fleeing violence in El Salvador she has never felt more afraid. “People can get deported, so they don’t call the police. So they (MS-13) feel more free.”

“I think it’s emboldening them …”

… But a senior Trump administration official disputed that thinking.

“The reality is that we are removing MS-13 and other criminal gang members in very large numbers, and they are hurting,” the official said.

… While MS-13 has had a presence in the U.S. for decades, the level of violence and activity has risen considerably in the last two years, according to the FBI. And in recent months here, authorities say the gang has been on a killing spree.

… Police in Nassau County say immigrants and victims of MS-13, such as Margarita and her son, should still feel safe coming forward.

“I can say without any doubt … we never, never ask any (immigration) status and we don’t care, on victims and witnesses,” said Detective Sgt. Michael Morino of Nassau County Police’s gang investigation squad.

Lieberman reported that he met with “David and Alex” (assumed names). They claim they are recent MS-13 recruits, and that they would like to escape gang life, but feel that they can’t. These two alleged gang members claim that “They [MS-13] feel like they can do whatever they want, ’cause Trump himself has made everybody fear,” and that “He’s helping them.”

Based on the law enforcement response seen in the last excerpted paragraph, victims and witnesses should have nothing to fear. That they think they do, despite the facts, can be traced to hysterical “pro-immigrant” groups which believe that fanning unfounded fears is an effective anti-Trump political strategy, the potentially deadly consequences be damned, and to much of the establishment press, including CNN in this instance, which provides them assistance.

Then there’s the question of what has happened “in the last two years” which would have revived MS-13.

The answers are that gang members snuck into the U.S. just before and during that time, and that they had far more potential recruiting targets than usual accompany them.

In mid-June, in an exhaustive, 3,200-word rundown of MS-13’s rise chronicled at the Washington Post (“MS-13 gains recruits and power in U.S. as teens surge across border”), three reporters — Justin Jouvenal, Dan Morse and Michael E. Miller — did a generally strong job of explaining how it all happened, with one glaring exception. They managed to do it all without naming the Obama administration or then-President Barack Obama himself — except in this single chart:

UnaccompaniedMinorEntriesTo2016

The Post trio, in presenting the situation as a response to a “humanitarian crisis,” never explained how the Obama administration overtly encouraged over 200,000 unaccompanied minors to cross the U.S.-Mexican border during the final four years of Barack Obama’s presidency.

A week later at National Review, Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, interpreting the true meaning of the Post’s work, provided the damning explanation (paragraph breaks added):

A Renewed MS-13 — Courtesy of Obama’s Lax Immigration Policies
After taking a major hit under Bush, the vicious Central American gang is back.

(Unlike Border Patrol reactions to previous, smaller waves of unaccompanied children during the previous 15 years — Ed.) When the latest surge of Central Americans started, the Obama administration never pivoted to detention. Instead, it spent years on the “let them go” option, approaching the surge as a humanitarian issue rather than a law-enforcement matter. Most groups of illegals that included a child (“family units,” they were called, even though many of the children were borrowed or rented for the purpose) were given the summons and dropped off at the bus station.

As for the supposedly unaccompanied children — virtually all of whom were accompanied by smugglers, who directed them to flag down the Border Patrol once in the U.S. — instead of prompt repatriation, Obama invoked a part of the law that was intended to protect kids who were the victims of human trafficking (basically, sex slavery), even though few if any of them were. Using that trafficking law as a pretext, Obama declared that all arriving minors would be allowed to enter for resettlement in their chosen destination, and released to their parent or sponsor with few questions asked. They were flown, at taxpayer expense, to join their (usually illegal) relatives who had paid to have them smuggled in the first place.

This led a federal judge, in a ruling in a smuggling trial, to decry the government’s collusion with the smugglers: “Instead of arresting [the mother of the child in question] for instigating the conspiracy to violate our border security laws, the DHS delivered the child to her — thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy.”

The result was predictable — the illegals who had been given “permisos” (“permits,” as they came to call the summonses) sent word back that the border was open to them, and they started streaming north.

But it still didn’t change the policies that were inducing illegals in the U.S. to send for their kids, with administration officials clinging Baghdad Bob–style to the notion that the flow was purely a result of conditions in Central America.

Naturally, neither Lieberman’s piece at CNN nor a Saturday opinion piece attorney Raul A. Reyes, whose body of work appears to tag him as an open-borders, illegal-immigrant amnesty advocate, mentioned the Obama administration, Barack Obama’s name, or the policies of his administration which enabled MS-13’s revival.

But, per CNN’s Lieberman and Reyes, now that MS-13 has been strengthened, cracking down on the gang will only create more gang members and make it even more powerful.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

What’s their alternative? Lieberman doesn’t present one. Reyes claims it’s “a path to citizenship or legalization for the undocumented.” With MS-13, that’s the equivalent of claiming that if we just love the terrorists more and treat them as equals, they won’t attack us. That hasn’t worked out at all with terrorists, and there’s absolutely no reason to believe it would work out well with MS-13.

CNN irresponsibly used alleged gang members to advance a bogus argument which, if followed, would exponentially increase the gang’s strength — and the everyday dangers U.S. citizens face.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Gay Activist Wants to ‘Punish’ Right’; Nets Ignore It and His Donations to Media

Posted on 31 July 2017

LGBTQ activist Tim Gill wants to “punish the wicked” who oppose gay marriage. And part of his agenda includes giving $5.25 million to 25 media groups between 2003 and 2015.

Gill told Rolling Stone “we’re going to punish the wicked” on the “religious right” as part of a shift to focus on nondiscrimination. According to Rolling Stone, Gill is “the nation’s most powerful force for LGBTQ rights.”

Not once between June 29, and July 26, have the broadcast network news programs mentioned Gill’s comments. Nor have they covered the strong backlash from conservative media like The Washington Times and The Federalist.

“For Gill and his allies, nondiscrimination is the new front of the movement: a campaign that pits LGBTQ advocates against a religious right that responded to marriage equality by redoubling its efforts,” Rolling Stone writer Andy Kroll summarized on June 29. Considering how much Gill already supports LGBT causes, that might be substantial.

Gill founded The Gill Foundation in 1994 to funnel millions of dollars into funding LGBT activism — including funding to media groups. The foundation primarily funds “efforts to secure full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people,” according to its website. It has given away more than $322 million since it was founded.

Nearly $5.25 million of that went to media organizations between 2003 and 2015, including nearly $2 million to Media Matters and $1.2 million to The American Independent Institute, two groups run by liberal activist David Brock.

The Gill Foundation also gave at least $1.3 million to 13 public radio and TV groups in Colorado.

MRC Business reached out to the public media organizations that had received funding, asking whether the Gill’s comments reflected their own views and if they would sever financial ties with Gill based on his comments.

Only one group provided a comment following MRC’s request. One other group said it does not discuss donations.

“We will not refuse future support, nor will we return any support we have received this year,” Aspen Public Radio Executive Director Carolyne Heldman said in an email, “We may or may not agree with Mr. Gill’s mission, but our job is to uphold everyone’s right to freedom of speech, a free press, and fair, unbiased reporting and storytelling.”

Colorado Public Radio Communications Vice President Lauren Cameron said “CPR does not discuss the status of any donations, nor do we provide responses to comments made by other organizations or individuals.”

After backlash from conservatives over Gill’s bigoted statements, Kroll penned another story claiming “The controversy over the advocate’s [Tim Gill’s] ‘punish the wicked’ quote reveals the worst aspects of rightwing media.”

According to Kroll, Gill wasn’t targeting Christians because the phrase “the wicked” referred to “anyone who stands in the way of progress on equal rights for LGBTQ people: politicians, activists, lawyers, some people of faith, and plenty more with no religious affiliation whatsoever.”

Kroll also claimed Gill Foundation’s donations to faith groups pushing an LGBTQ agenda further refuted the claim Gill was targeting Christians.

True, Gill has given to religious groups. At least 13 groups received more than $877,000 from the Gill Foundation between 2003 and 2015. But only religious groups affirming LGBTQ issues received funding.

CNN's Fareed Zakaria: Trump Won Because of Bigots

Posted on 31 July 2017

The left’s inability to accept Hillary Clinton’s defeat has led them to fabricate the story that much of America is dumb, racist, homophobic, and sexist. As Fareed Zakaria of CNN put it:

A real sense of cultural alienation that the older white, non-college educated Americans have the sense that their country is changing because of immigrants. Because maybe blacks are getting — rising up to a kind of central place in society. Because of, you know, gays being afforded equal rights. Because of, frankly, a lot of working women.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

He explained that Trump identified the “toxic energy” on the right: “Remember, he runs on the Reform Party — he tries to run on the Reform Party ticket for a while and then he begins to see the toxic energy on the far right. Remember, his first political moves are birtherism.”

Of course, CNN New Day co-host host Alisyn Camerota fully agreed: “Absolutely.”

Zakaria then added that many Americans were mad that the president was black.

He knew that the election of a black president had stirred a kind of ugly racial animus among some people — probably a small subset — but he knew a way to get directly to them. So all of it combined and it was a man who met his moment.

Right. That’s it. It’s not that the policies of the Democratic Party are a disaster. Not that the left has embraced anti-American sentiments. Not that they have embraced illogical and moronic views of “social justice”. It is not even political correctness that drove people to vote for President Trump. Nope. You’re all just a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, cis-gendered Nazis!

Below is the full-transcript of the interview:

CNN New Day – 6:51 AM ET

ALISYN CAMEROTA: So, President Trump’s election win surprised much of the country and tonight there’s a new CNN special hosted by Fareed Zakaria that explains — explores why Trump won.

Let’s take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (1980): The happiest people tend to be the people that are making a nice income, that really enjoy their life and their family life, and not the people of tremendous wealth that are constantly driven to achieve more and more success. You’re expected to be a certain kind of a person and maybe you’re not necessarily cut out to be that kind of a person.

FAREED ZAKARIA: How did that Donald Trump —

TRUMP (then-presidential candidate): Get out.

ZAKARIA: — become this Donald Trump?

TRUMP: I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: And joining us now is Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN’s “FAREED ZAKARIA GPS.” Fareed, great to see you. Answer your own question. How did — how did that sort of what we see there — it looks like a more gentle, sort of romantic Donald Trump talking about how —

BERMAN: He’s a lover, not a fighter.

CAMEROTA: — love should prevail over ambition and work become the candidate Trump we saw there?

ZAKARIA: I think what you see in that part of the documentary is the sort of reinvention of Donald Trump. You begin to realize that the person he is now is a carefully honed persona that he created through trial and error — you know, taking advantage of opportunities, and I think there are a few key moments in his life. The first is he began to realize the power of celebrity and the — and the value of celebrity. I mean, you know, “The Apprentice,” for a while, not as maybe long as he says, was the number one show. There were 28 million people watching it. I think that made him realize my God, this is powerful stuff. That’s when he really gets out of the real estate business and goes into the branding business. But then he also starts feeling the currents of America in very much an intuitive way — I don’t think he had any articulated sense — and he began to feel a few things. The anger — the anger against politicians. Remember, he runs on the Reform Party — he tries to run on the Reform Party ticket for a while and then he begins to see the toxic energy on the far right. Remember, his first political moves are birtherism.

CAMEROTA: Absolutely.

ZAKARIA: — and he knew that the election of a black president had stirred a kind of ugly racial animus among some people — probably a small subset — but he knew a way to get directly to them. So all of it combined and it was a man who met his moment. At the point at which Donald Trump is elected is literally the low point in trust for politicians in Washington. It’s a 50-year low and that’s when Donald Trump, you know — so he got his timing right, which all great performers need.

BERMAN: This is about the man right there and we saw that clip, a lover not a fighter moment, but then there’s the moment. Talk to me about the moment, Fareed. The sort of socioeconomic hunger that existed — or to an extent, still exists in the United States.

ZAKARIA: I think the part of it that I was impressed by in doing the research for this is we know about the economics. We know about the hollowed out factories and the — and the coal mines. And what I was struck by was the other two factors. So that’s if you want capitalism. The other factor is culture. A real sense of cultural alienation that the older white, non-college educated Americans have the sense that their country is changing because of immigrants. Because maybe blacks are getting — rising up to a kind of central place in society. Because of, you know, gays being afforded equal rights. Because of, frankly, a lot of working women. You know, everybody is sort muscling in on the territory that if you think about it, the white working man had. And the final one is class — social class. We don’t talk about it a lot but the election of Donald Trump is really a kind of class rebellion against people like us. You know, educated professionals who live in cities who have, you know, cosmopolitan views about a lot of things. And I think there’s a whole part of America that is sick and tired of being told what to do by this, you know, over-educated, professional elite that Hillary Clinton, in many ways, perfectly —

CAMEROTA: Yes.

ZAKARIA: — represented, and that’s why they’re sticking with him.

CAMEROTA: Yes, and that’s why when Democrats think oh, how long can this go on. Surely the chaos will mean that he would never be reelected. Those factors that you’re talking about that got him elected haven’t changed. They still exist in the foreseeable future to 2020.

ZAKARIA: I think that if you think about one of the — those Trump voters, imagine what it would mean for them to say you know what, I was wrong about Donald Trump and “The New York Times” was right. They’re not going to do that. They’re going — you know, who’s going to — there’s a lot of stickiness to his support.

BERMAN: But what shakes that, if anything, Fareed? Does it have to be a different view of what America has become to them or a sense that President Donald Trump has failed to deliver on the things that they were expecting him to deliver on?

ZAKARIA: It’s a great question. I — you know, the research shows that people don’t vote so much on policy issues. I mean, there are — there are studies that show at the end of an election you ask people what party stood for what policies and about more than a third get it wrong. They think the Democrats are for repealing the ACA and the Republicans are in favor. You know, it’s — what they vote for is does this guy get me? Does this person know me? Is he the kind of person — we have David Brooks on the program saying what they ask themselves is this party full of people who look like me? Who are like the people I hung out with in high school and that’s almost like a tribal team loyalty. So I don’t think that — I don’t have a good answer for what will shake it. I think what could change it is if you found a Democratic — now, if the Democrats are all sitting there worrying about what exact economic policy they should have and should they be more, you know, left wing –I think the key is can you connect, you know. Bill Clinton had very, you know, kind of centrist policies but he connected. A white, working-class voter looked at him and said this guy gets me. And unfortunately, they didn’t feel that way about Hillary Clinton.

CAMEROTA: So while we have you, so much happening obviously internationally between Russian and North Korea. What do you think six months in how President Trump — I mean, just today because there seems to now be a different stance toward. Russia, obviously, if he’s signing the sanctions bill. North Korea, once again this weekend, just launched another ballistic missile. How do you think the Trump administration is doing with these international crises?

ZAKARIA: Well, to be fair, in some cases they have handled — the policy response has been appropriate measured. You know, if think about this Russia one. If you look at the — you know, the Syrian case. The problem is I think that it is mostly because of delegation to a few good people, like Jim Mattis. There is no strategy at all. The White House is essentially in chaos or paralyzed. In Russia, they’ve completely boxed themselves in. They can’t follow any policy other than a hardline policy because if they try to do anything cooperative people are going to wonder why is — why is Trump being so nice to Russia, and he has only himself to blame for that. But my point is, in many of these areas because they did not have a strategy because the president still does not know the details. So on North Korea, you know, the idea that gratuitously insulting China by tweeting against it is going to get you anywhere is highly, highly unlikely. So I feel like they have — there hasn’t been much damage done yet but the process feels very chaotic, very ad hoc, very improvisational. And we’re lucky in that we have not still faced — you know, one of the things about the Trump administration to remember is we have not faced a recession, we have not faced a serious international crisis. So all the chaos and dysfunction you’re seeing, that’s just without having really encountered any external problem.

CAMEROTA: Thank goodness. Fareed, thank you very much for all of that. Be sure to tune in tonight for Fareed’s special report, “Why Trump Won,” 10:00 p.m. Eastern only on CNN.Thanks so much for previewing it with us.

CNN’s Stelter Offers No Pushback as Brinkley Loses Mind, Links Trump to Franco and Mussolini

Posted on 31 July 2017

On Sunday’s Reliable Sources, CNN host Brian Stelter offered zero pushback on CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley’s latest unhinged tirade in which he compared President Trump to 20th century dictators Francisco Franco of Spain and Benito Mussolini of Italy.

Brinkley also ripped Trump as overseeing a White House in “utter disarray” and gave The Resistance something to cheer for as he added that Trump’s “unfit for command.” That drew a brief interjection from Stelter, who only asked him to clarify (to which Brinkley doubled down).

Stelter teed up Brinkley with this softball: 

To our historian for some context here. Douglas Brinkley, I find myself reaching for words, trying to figure out how to put a week like his in context. The banners on screen say things like White House in crisis. Anchors say things like chaos, trying to express just how extraordinary the situation is. Help us out, how do you convey what’s going on with the Trump White House? 

Brinkley responded that the White House is in “utter disarray and you can’t really compartmentalize everything because it’s all morphed together as Donald Trump unfit for command in my opinion.”

Stelter stepped in but Brinkley dug in, citing communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s unprofessional New Yorker interview while his administration has been “leaking like crazy.”

“He thinks you can govern by chaos and it’s not working. It is true. He has this 36 percent of the American public backing him. That means over 60 percent of Americans think that he’s doing a miserable job and the rest of the world is laughing,” Brinkley proclaimed before linking Trump’s tweets to how Nixon behaved on his Watergate tapes.

Out of left field, Brinkley went down to the dictatorship path when Stelter put forth the notion that Trump could ideologically move to the center:

Yes, except he’s going independent in a kind of revolutionary way. It’s sort of the Trump movement. You’re either with me or against me. The key to Donald Trump is just this kind of blind fierce loyalty, and that’s what Franco expected in Spain. That’s what Mussolini wanted to do in Italy. I mean, these are kind of ways if you’re asking people to march in lock step with you and we saw John McCain give the big thumbs down to Donald Trump. No, we’re not all in lock step with you. 

Just when you thought the eye-rolling nominees for a future Notable Quotables edition were done, Stelter predicted McCain’s “thumbs down” might be a new sign for one wing of The Resistance:

And journalists love a come back story. They love a story about a new change, a new chapter. I’ll go in record here and predict that that thumbs down is going to become a symbol for anti-Trump Republicans. This is gong to become a sort of meme of some sort.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

Stelter’s reluctance to challenge Brinkley was no surprise, seeing as how he’s repeatedly referred to Trump as a dictator. Stelter has disagreed with my colleague Nick Fondacaro’s assertions in the past, but it’s difficult when he’s said Trump’s behavior was “exactly what authoritarians do,” and that “citizens in dictatorships” identify with the current state of America.

Further, one can throw in his December 11 declaration that Trump’s election warranted a “national emergency” and you have a show that one could make a solid case as being divorced from reality.

This argument is even more of a slam dunk when he’s previously offered no disagreement for Trump-dictator comparisons. CNN political commentator Carl Bernstein and longtime liberal journalist Jeff Greenfield went on February 19 rampages against Trump as someone akin to Hitler and Stalin that saw no disagreement. Here’s Greenfield’s meltdown:

STELTER: Jeff, your impression here. Carl is using words like authoritarian would you agree with that characterization?

JEFF GREENFIELD: Well, that’s certainly the whisper of it. When you use a term like ‘enemy of the people.’ A lot of people have pointed to totalitarian regimes that use that phrase whether it was Stalin or whether it was Hitler. And I’m certainly not going there at this point.

Now here’s what Bernstein uttered in the same hour: “There’s a history of what ‘enemy of the people,’ that phrase means as used by dictators and authoritarians including Stalin, including Hitler.”

One week later, Stelter used the term “authoritarian tendencies” on February 26 in describing Trump’s behavior while interviewing New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet. 

Despite all this, Stelter claimed in an April podcast with BuzzFeed News that he’s not “freaked out” or “crusading” against the President even though he thinks his rallies are “poison.”

To tie all this up, here’s a series of exit questions (to borrow from contributing writer P.J. Gladnick): Has Trump imprisoned any journalists? Have there been any reports of innocent Americans being rounded up and shot by the government? Has there been any word about the government creating labor camps for political enemies or anyone who goes against the State? Have liberal protesters been allowed to demonstrate without being run down by tanks? And finally, are journalists still allowed to do their jobs?

One could do this all day, but those are enough for liberal minds to ponder.

Here’s the relevant transcript from CNN’s Reliable Sources on July 30:

CNN’s Reliable Sources
July 30, 2017
11:05 a.m. Eastern

BRIAN STELTER: To our historian for some context here. Douglas Brinkley, I find myself reaching for words, trying to figure out how to put a week like his in context. The banners on screen say things like White House in crisis. Anchors say things like chaos, trying to express just how extraordinary the situation is. Help us out, how do you convey what’s going on with the Trump White House? 

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: It’s an utter disarray and you can’t really compartmentalize everything because it’s all morphed together as Donald Trump unfit for command in my opinion. I mean, you could go and look at Godfather movies and — 

STELTER: You said he’s unfit — let me be clear, you said he’s unfit for command? 

BRINKLEY: I think so. I think when you have a White House communications director that uses the kind of foul language that he does against fellow employees of the federal government and makes threats the way that he did, and that’s supposed to be your solution to the United States as a way they’re going to communicate with the world, it means Donald Trump picked the wrong person to be his communication director. He has a White House that’s leaking like crazy, as just mentioned. There are people ready to whistle-blow. He thinks you can govern by chaos and it’s not working. It is true. He has this 36 percent of the American public backing him. That means over 60 percent of Americans think that he’s doing a miserable job and the rest of the world is laughing. We have a crisis in North Korea and we’re playing these reality TV, big time wrestling games, because Donald Trump was weaned and raised on television, and it’s becoming a TV episodic president, where every day, you’ve got to say something sensational to make sure your name is on the headlines. We had a problem with Nixon. If it’s any president, this is like it’s Nixon. If you listen to the Nixon Watergate tapes, the secret tapes, and you hear Nixon ramble, it sounds like Donald Trump’s tweets and it didn’t turn out well for Nixon. 

STELTER: I was just Googling to make sure I have the facts right, Doug. Back in December, you went down to Mar-a-Lago and met with then-President-elect Trump, didn’t you? 

BRINKLEY: I did. 

STELTER: Did you think things were going to work out this way? 

BRINKLEY: You never know. You know, I don’t do how things are going to work out. If you’re a historian, you try to deal with kind of just deal with real events. There was this moment of hope that he might try to unite the country and do infrastructure, be really the third rail candidate, which he is in ways, not really a Republican. Republicans don’t like Donald Trump.

STELTER: And he’s drifting more in that direction, as being an independent of some sort. 

BRINKLEY: Yes, except he’s going independent in a kind of revolutionary way. It’s sort of the Trump movement. You’re either with me or against me. The key to Donald Trump is just this kind of blind fierce loyalty, and that’s what Franco expected in Spain. That’s what Mussolini wanted to do in Italy. I mean, these are kind of ways if you’re asking people to march in lock step with you and we saw John McCain give the big thumbs down to Donald Trump. No, we’re not all in lock step with you. So, what do you have, six months of a dysfunctional White House, nothing has gotten done, the biggest thing Congress got done was keeping and strengthening sanctions with Russia. But it’s a failed agenda so far, and we’ll have to see whether he’s able to kind of get in a new form of leadership going with a White House chief of staff, but it’s been a wreck so far. 

STELTER: And journalists love a come back story. They love a story about a new change, a new chapter. I’ll go in record here and predict that that thumbs down is going to become a symbol for anti-Trump Republicans. This is gong to become a sort of meme of some sort. 

BOOM! Imran Awan Had Access to Email of Every Member of Congress — SOLD SECRETS to Foreign Agents (VIDEO)

Posted on 31 July 2017

Imran Awan Had Access to Email to Every Member of Congress — SOLD SECRETS to Foreign Agents! Imran Awan worked …

The post BOOM! Imran Awan Had Access to Email of Every Member of Congress — SOLD SECRETS to Foreign Agents (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CAIR Organizes Nationwide Protests Against Israel Over Metal Detectors at Temple Mt. – Just Like in Mecca

Posted on 31 July 2017

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized nationwide rallies against Israel this past weekend. Muslims are upset that Israel installed …

The post CAIR Organizes Nationwide Protests Against Israel Over Metal Detectors at Temple Mt. – Just Like in Mecca appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Boston Globe Marks 25th Anniversary of 'The Year of the Woman' With Democratic, Feminist Mythology on Sexism

Posted on 31 July 2017

The Boston Globe celebrated a liberal milestone on Saturday: The 25th anniversary of The Year of the Woman in Congress, driven by Anita Hill’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, alleging she was sexually harassed by Judge Clarence Thomas. While Hill failed to stop Thomas from ascending to the Supreme Court, she became a heroine in liberal feminist (and media) circles.

Reporter Stephanie Ebbert, who covers “gender issues” for the Globe, posed the question, “25 years after ‘The Year of the Woman,’ what’s changed?” She implied Donald Trump ushered in an era of sexism by defeating Hillary Clinton, without mentioning Clinton’s gross flaws as a candidate, or Bill Clinton’s own voracious sexual appetites, while lumping contentious policy debates over Obamacare as prima facie assaults on women’s rights. Ebbert also fostered the feminist media myths around Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Kamala Harris.

The story included this loaded photo caption: “Vice President Mike Pence sat at the center of a conference table during negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. Only men can be seen in the photograph.”

Twenty-five years ago, women who chafed at the spectacle of an all-male Senate panel grilling Anita Hill over her allegations of sexual harassment rose up and entered the corridors of power. The media dubbed it “The Year of the Woman,” a title that sounded, to many, irritatingly temporary.

It was.

The explosive gains of 1992, which more than doubled women’s meager representation in Congress, gave way to incremental growth that merited no slogan. It would take women another two decades to grow their ranks on Capitol Hill by the 68 percent rate achieved in that single year.

(When the media tried to sell the original Year of the Woman back in 1992, the Media Research Center pointed out they were actually two years late: “…the national media hailed the new phenomenon, spurred by the outrage ‘many women’ felt over the Senate Judiciary Committee’s treatment of Anita Hill and her unproven testimony. The number of women did swell noticeably in both houses of Congress, but this wasn’t the first ‘Year of the Woman.’ In 1990, seven Republican women and two Democrats made the ballot in November for the U.S. Senate. That’s almost the opposite of 1992, when ten Democrats and one Republican ran.”)

Ebbert’s piece read more like a feminist opinion submission than a journalistic offering.

This weekend, a quarter century after the Year of the Woman elevated expectations for women in politics, some 250 women gathered in Boston for the biennial convention of the National Women’s Political Caucus to consider what comes next. These days, women are bristling at fresh images of all-male panels negotiating away their maternity coverage, and though their outrage may prove to be as motivating as it was in the early 1990s, they are confounded to feel it a quarter century later.

….

Still, some feminist activists hope the brutal 2016 presidential election cycle, which showed many women that Americans were willing to endorse a libertine man over an ambitious woman, has triggered a new wave of political engagement.

Lauren Duncan, a Smith College professor who teaches the psychology of political activism, said that the gender-loaded election cycle may prove to be as motivating as the 1991 Senate hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas, where America watched Hill being scrutinized for her allegations of sexual harassment by a powerful man.

….

For many women, all of this is seen through the filter of a president who was captured on video boasting about grabbing women’s genitalia.

After harping on sexual assault and harassment, it’s borderline bizarre that Bill Clinton’s name was not mentioned, and his alleged victims Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick were of course ignored as well.

The new administration has also reversed the government’s course on women’s health issues, trying to unravel Obamacare’s mandatory insurance coverage for birth control, for instance, even after attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act have failed.

Somehow, a Hillary defeat signifies a defeat for all women (never mind the many women who voted against her in 2016 – and her defeat in the Democratic primary in 2008, for that matter). And of course, Sarah Palin, who would have become the first female vice-president if the media’s new hero John McCain had won in 2008, didn’t merit a mention.

Yet, the notoriously bruising political arena may seem all the more perilous after Hillary Clinton’s experience, and progress has been slow. Only 52 of Massachusetts’ 200 state legislators are women.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

Ebbert did find some progress for women legislators, at least when they were blocking conservative-pushed legislation.

When they have a seat at the table, women can sometimes make waves, US Representative Niki Tsongas noted at a reception of the women’s political caucus Friday evening.

Last week’s middle-of-the-night vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act was blocked by the steadfast opposition of two female US senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, along with John McCain of Arizona.

The reported relayed some recent media myths that have already hardened into conventional feminist wisdom.

But even when women are seen in Congress, they are not always heard. Senator Warren was ceremoniously shushed for speaking too long about Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Hashtags ensued.

When the Senate Select Intelligence Committee interviewed Sessions, Senator Kamala Harris’s tough questioning was regarded as overly aggressive; her fellow senators interrupted her in a bid to make her stop interrupting him.