Archive for Brad Wilmouth

MSNBC: ‘Molotov Cocktail’ Trump Hopes ‘Sick’ Rally Causes ‘Riot’

<p>On Tuesday's <em>All In</em>, recurring MSNBC guest and <em>Slate</em> columnist Michelle Goldberg asserted that President Donald Trump is going to Phoenix "in the hopes of starting a riot" as she declared that his holding the rally so soon after the Charlottesville violence is "sick." Host Chris Hayes then likened President Trump to a "Molotov cocktail" visiting the city.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

MSNBC's Johnson Sees Trump 'Terrorist State,' Cheers Abuse of Pro-Trumpers

In an article posted on Sunday at The Root, race-obsessed MSNBC contributor and The Root politics editor Jason Johnson devotes his column to rationalizing the verbal harassment aimed at two white high school girls who visited predominantly black Howard University as one wore a pro-Trump hat and the other a pro-Trump T-shirt. 

Johnson referred to the pair as "two ignorant young women" and -- even after criticizing the abusive behavior -- still ended up offering "congratulations" to Howard students for "weeding out two young women who obviously lack the intellectual acumen and social graces" to attend the school.

And, a couple days earlier, the MSNBC contributor devoted an article to describing the Trump administration as a "terrorism presidency," and tagged the President as a "terrorist sympathizer."

Yesterday's article, titled "So 2 White Women in 'Make America Great Again' Hats Walk Onto an HBCU Campus..." begins with Johnson commenting that "There are some weeks in history when you just don't want to test black folks' patience."

He then lists out the week Roots first aired on television in the 1970s, the week in 1992 when four LAPD police officers were acquitted after beating Rodney King, and then, as the third example, he claimed that President Donald Trump gave a "virtual high-five" to white nationalists: "The week white nationalists attacked the city of Charlottesville, Va., and President Donald Trump gave them a virtual high-five for it."

He then recounts:

So it stands to reason that when a pair of white high school girls from New Jersey -- who just happened to be touring Washington, D.C., and just happened to be wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and Trump shirts -- just happened to walk onto Howard University's very black campus, something was about to happen.

The article then displays a tweet by one of the girls recalling the verbal harassment they received, which also included someone stealing the hat.

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

Johnson analyzes the girl's story and suggests that they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction by visiting the predominantly black campus wearing pro-Trump clothing. He then snarks: "So I'm immediately calling b.s. on these blond-haired academic ingenues' story."

Introducing several negative Twitter reactions to the girls visiting the campus, Johnson quips: "Needless to say, Howard students were not amused."

The article then displays several Twitter responses, including one which calls the high school student who tweeting about the experience a "bitch" and chastises her for visiting the campus in pro-Trump clothing.

Johnson criticizes the harassment the two girls received but then claims that the two girls engaged in worse behavior by wearing pro-Trump clothing in the first place:

It's not nice that somebody on Howard's campus took this teen's hat. It's also not nice that someone cursed at the women. But you know what's even less nice? Two ignorant young women with no home training deciding to antagonize a campus full of students less than a week after the President of the United States co-signed terrorist violence against the people of Charlottesville, Va. Then, as is the wont of their type, they attempted to make themselves social media victims instead of the provocateurs that they are.

After predicting that the two girls will end up on Fox News, he then congratulates Howard University students for "weeding" them out:

In the meantime, congratulations to the Howard student body for weeding out two young women who obviously lacked the intellectual acumen and social graces to become future Bison.

A couple of days earlier on Friday, Johnson had posted an article titled, "The President of the United States is a Terrorist Sympathizer. Now What?" in which he begins:

On Tuesday, Donald Trump's equivocation on the Charlottesville, Va., white supremacist rallies that plunged into violence and acts of terrorism forced America to accept an unmistakable, undeniable and horrifying fact: Donald Trump, President of the United States, is a terrorist sympathizer.

He adds:

You can use whatever euphemisms you'd like -- Trump is a terrorist supporter, Trump is terror-curious, Trump is terror-adjacent -- but the basic facts don't change. The President of the United States sympathizes with and will provide aid and comfort to white supremacists, and he's put together an administration to help those groups achieve goals they can't accomplish through democratic means.

He then calls the U.S. under Trump a "terrorist state" as he continues: "The only questions now are how do you live in a terrorist state, how do you resist a terrorist state and, most importantly, can you win?"

He goes on to claim that Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller "are all terrorist sympathizers, and they know it, and are blatant about it."

He goes on to recount:

The last time African Americans faced a President who openly sympathized with a terror state was almost 100 years ago with Woodrow Wilson. Wilson's two terms in office, from 1914 to 1921, were filled with internecine violence against black people by police, aided and abetted by white vigilantes and condoned by a President who threw civil rights leaders out of the White House and reversed existing anti-discrimination policies.

After advocating for the support of black organizations, he warns of terrorism against blacks in the future:

History tells us that the Trump terrorism presidency will not be short, it will not be kind, and it will not end easily. His allies in the white nationalist movement, emboldened by his tacit consent, will continue to attack and kill all across the nation, with deaths moving from speeding cars to Oklahoma City-level violence.

MSNBC Republican Lumps 'Fake' Christian Right in With White Racists

On Saturday's AM Joy on MSNBC, as the show spent much of its time reacting to President Donald Trump's response to white racists rallying in Charlottesville last weekend, recurring MSNBC guest and self-described Republican Richard Painter repeatedly demonized the Christian right as he lumped them in with white racists as extremists who should be denounced by Trump and other Republican leaders to drive them out of the party.

Painter -- a former legal counsel for the George W. Bush White House -- trashed conservative Christians as "fake Christians" and "phony Christians" who "couldn't read a Bible if they tried."

After claiming that Richard Nixon encouraged racist Democrats to join the GOP, the recurring MSNBC guest took aim at Ronald Reagan as he added:

Many of these people who are racists are former Democrats, and Richard Nixon decided he wanted to bring them in for political reasons. And then, unfortunately, Ronald Reagan furthered that movement -- the so-called religious right which, as I say, has absolutely nothing to do with Christian principles, was brought in for political -- we can get these people out. They have driven respectable people out of the Republican party.

He went on to suggest that he holds liberal views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and environmental issues as he praised the pastor of the Church of Presidents for being what he viewed as the right kind of Christian:

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

The church stands for the right of gay people to marry just like other people because that's the Christian thing to do, the right of women to make their own medical decisions about reproductive choice, for protection of the environment for social justice.

Below are transcripts or relevant portions of Painter's rants against the Christian right from the Saturday, August 19, AM Joy on MSNBC:

10:06 a.m. ET

He (Donald Trump) needs to have a personal conversion and renounce and repent for racism, for bigotry, and all the hatred he has espoused thus far. That conversion better be faster than St. Paul on the road to Damascus. He's got to do it now. Third, repudiate the so-called religious right, the fake Christians who've been dominating the Republican party. if he makes it clear that he repudiates them, the Democrats will be checkmated because they are not gonna want Mike Pence if Trump repudiates the phony Christians in the religious right.

(...)

11:22 a.m. ET

We are gonna drive these people from the Republican party. It is not just about the neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan -- it is about the Alt-Right. It is about the so-called religious right who couldn't read a Bible if they tried. It is about the extremists who have sought to take over our party for 30 years.

(...)

Many of these people who are racists are former Democrats, and Richard Nixon decided he wanted to bring them in for political reasons. And then, unfortunately, Ronald Reagan furthered that movement -- the so-called religious right which, as I say, has absolutely nothing to do with Christian principles, was brought in for political -- we can get these people out. They have driven respectable people out of the Republican party.

(...)

11:57 a.m. ET

And I heard that last panel of yours on the so-called evangelical council, and, I got to say, if this President wants to find out about traditional Christian values, he can walk right across the street called the Church of the Presidents where the presiding bishop is an African-American who is a hero to many in the Civil Rights Movement. The church stands for the right of gay people to marry just like other people because that's the Christian thing to do, the right of women to make their own medical decisions about reproductive choice, for protection of the environment for social justice. 

Millions of American Christians are angry at the perversion of our faith by those who purport to read the Bible, who purport to politicize our faith purely for political gain to win elections. And then I hear preachers -- I just heard on your last panel a preacher who thinks he's an economist who's going to attribute to Donald Trump a million jobs that were created by the private sector or by the policies of the Obama administration. And the entire thing is a joke for the Republican party to continue to kowtow to these people who do not stand for traditional American values, don't stand for Christian values, and certainly don't stand for democracy.

CNN's Cooper Claims Trump Advisors Have 'Ties to Hate Groups'

On Monday's Anderson Cooper 360, the smearing of Steve Bannon went so far as to claim that he and other White House advisors have "ties to hate groups" as host Cooper set up a discussion of rumors that he might soon leave the White House. As if the right-leaning Breitbart News might be a "hate group," Cooper cited Bannon's time there, and his quote from more than a year ago about giving a "platform to the Alt-Right." 

Cooper: "Chief strategist Steve Bannon is one of several people in the President's inner circle with ties to hate groups. Bannon is the former head of Breitbart, which in the past Bannon called the 'platform for the Alt-Right.'"

 

 

But, as explained previously by Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak, when Bannon was quoted as referring to it, "Alt-Right" was a less-defined term that had not yet become commonly used as synonymous with white racism as it has over the past year.

None of the five panel members had any problem with Cooper's incendiary characterization of Bannon, even though there were two right-leaning guests present. After liberal CNN commentator Bakari Sellers descried Bannon as a "cancer," and suggested that he is a "Nazi," right-leaning CNN commentator Tara Setmayer agreed with her liberal fellow panel member:

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

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't care if he's a Nazi or a white nationalist -- I put them all kind of in the same category together -- Steve Bannon is a cancer to America, and I have a fundamental problem with someone who was the editor-in-chief of Breitbart who gave a platform to that type of racism, bigotry and xenophobia, being a senior advisor to the President. So if he leaves, I'm going to send him an edible arrangement because he needs to go.

TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I agree. No, I agree with you, and, you know, what Steve Bannon represents is something that I shudder to think about him receiving taxpayer dollars working in the White House in that position of power and influence like that.

As previously documented by NewsBusters, Breitbart News has an established history of defending Israel and documenting and criticizing anti-Semitism. The organization was even founded by a group of conservative Jews who were inspired during a trip to Israel.

CNN Highlights Police Beating Video, But Ignored Video of Officer Being Shot

Several times since yesterday, CNN has presented viewers with dash cam video showing a police officer beating a black motorist because the motorist allegedly resisted arrest. But, just over a week ago, CNN showed no interest when video was released of a black police officer being shot and seriously injured by a suspect who was just recently convicted of attempted murder.

While CNN was ignoring the report, ABC, CBS, and NBC all gave some level attention to the attack on the officer. On Thursday, August 11, ABC's World News Tonight ran a 30-second brief, and NBC's Today the next morning gave viewers a piece of just under a minute. 

The Friday, August 12, CBS Evening News devoted an entire two-minute report to the story while, according to a Nexis search, CNN gave zero attention to the shocking video that shows just how quickly a police officer can be violently attacked.

But on yesterday's CNN Newsroom, and At This Hour, along with today's New Day Saturday, each CNN show ran a full report on the black motorist being beaten by an officer. On New Day Saturday, co-anchor Christi Paul set up the report:

Some disturbing dash cam video we want to show you right now that was released by the Euclid, Ohio, Police Department, and it shows what some people are calling another case of police brutality. Take a look here.

Co-anchor Victor Blackwell added:

And, look, you've got this officer who pulls a man out of the car and just begins violently beating him. This is during a routine traffic stop.

Correspondent Brynn Gingras then devoted a full report to the matter similar to what she presented to CNN viewers twice on late Friday morning.

Below are complete transcripts of the reports that aired on CNN's New Day Saturday, ABC's World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, and NBC's Today:

#CNN's August 19 New Day Saturday:

CHRISTI PAUL: Some disturbing dash cam video we want to show you right now that was released by the Euclid, Ohio, Police Department, and it shows what some people are calling another case of police brutality. Take a look here.

VICTOR BLACKWELL: And, look, you've got this officer who pulls a man out of the car and just begins violently beating him. This is during a routine traffic stop. Let's get more now from CNN correspondent Brynn Gingras

[clip of video]

BRYNN GINGRAS: Blow after blow.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Why is he still punching him, though?

GINGRAS: That's a Euclid, Ohio, police officer on top of 25-year-old Richard Hubbard III. This is Hubbard's arresting photo, his face swollen from those punches.

[clip of video]

GINGRAS: The scuffle was also captured on police dash cam video obtained by the News Herald, and happens two and a half minutes into a traffic stop. Officer Michael Amiott said in a written statement he pulled over Hubbard because a license plate showed the car's owner had a suspended license. Hubbard didn't own the car, but the person driving with him did. Then, in an official statement, Amiott explains what he says happened in the video. 

Quote: "Richard quickly pulls his left arm from my grasp and in front of his body and out of my control and view. ... I attempted two knee strikes on Richard both had missed. ... He was attempting to hold onto my legs as I did so. ... The suspect continually called us 'weak.'"

Amiott is now on paid administrative leave from the department while the incident is under review. Records show Amiott resigned from a different Cleveland area police department three years ago after an investigation found he lied about a traffic stop. But for this case, his union is sticking by him, saying quote: "We hope that people will not rush to judgement, but rather will understand the literally split-second decision and response required of our police."

The video has gone viral, highlighting tensions between police and the public. Hubbard didn't want to make any comments to CNN, but the ACLU and NAACP said they were appalled by the brutality. Though this happened last weekend, the Euclid police chief didn't response to the public outcry until Thursday. He released a statement on a Facebook page apologizing for his delay and promising a thorough investigation.

#Friday, August 11, CBS Evening News:

ANTHONY MASON: Newly released video shows a robbery suspect shooting a South Carolina police officer at point blank range. The jury saw the video this week at the gunman's trial for attempted murder. Here's Mark Strassmann.

MARK STRASSMANN: This video was recorded by the officer's camera glasses that he bought himself on Amazon for thirty dollars. As officer Smith approached the suspect, 29-year-old Malcolm Orr pulled a .9 millimeter handgun from his pocket and opened fire. Orr fired eight times, half the shots wounding Smith in his arm, neck and torso. A year and a half later, Officer Smith recalled the terror of that moment.

OFFICER QUIINCY SMITH: The first shot hit me in the neck, and it felt like something flicked me in my neck. It was enough force to knock me on my back.

STRASSMANN: The officer retreated to his cruiser to call for backup.

OFFICER SMITH: I thought I was going to die right then, and I told dispatch, you know, to tell my family I love them because I didn't think I was going to make it.

OFFICER SMITH: Dispatch, please tell my family I love them.

STRASSMANN: Responding officers arrested Orr.

MAN IN COURTROOM: That's Malcolm Orr. He attempted to kill this officer, and almost did, with malice.

STRASSMANN: This week, that video helped convict Orr of attempted murder. He received the maximum sentence of 35 years in prison. Officer Smith remains on medical leave. He hopes to return to work January 1. Anthony, all the officers in his department are now required to wear vest cameras.

MASON: Mark Strassmann with a video that reminds us just how dangerous a police officer's job is.

(...)

#Friday, August 11, Today show on NBC:

MATT LAUER: And newly released video captures the moment a South Carolina police officer was shot multiple times on New Year's Day in 2016. Officer Quincy Smith responding to a suspicious person call when he spotted the suspect who then refused to comply with the officer's commands. [clip of video] Officer Smith was shot several times. He was shot in both arms and the neck. He managed to run back to his vehicle where he could be heard giving a message to his family.

OFFICER QUINCY SMITH: Dispatch, please tell my family I love them.

LAUER: Officer Smith survived. He has since recovered from his wounds. The shooter was convicted this week of attempted murder, and was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

(...)

#Thursday, August 10, World News Tonight on ABC:

DAVID MUIR: To the index of other news tonight, chilling video just now released of a police shooting in Estill, South Carolina. [clip of video] Incredible to see. The officer was wounded, responding to a call of a suspicious person, his camera glasses recording it all. Prosecutors say Malcolm Orr never got off his cell phone when he opened fire, shooting Smith four times on New Year's Day in 2016. Orr has now been convicted of attempted murder, sentenced just this week to 35 years in prison.

Mitchell Surprised Ted Cruz 'More Compassionate and Loving' Than Trump

On Friday's Morning Joe on MSNBC, while discussing Republican reactions to President Donald Trump's handling of the Chalottesville white racist violence, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell managed to take a jab at Texas Senator Ted Cruz as she declared: "Who would have thought that Ted Cruz would be more compassionate and loving and show more character this week than the President of the United States?"

At 7:26 a.m. ET, after host Joe Scarborough asked about the reactions of business leaders and Republicans, Mitchell declared that she was "discouraged" at the current political climate as she began:

I'm an optimist -- I have never been as discouraged as I have been this week about our country -- not the people of our country, but the leaders of our country. There is a central corruption of the spirit at the core of all of this, and people have overlooked a lot of the financial self-dealing and a lot of the other things along the way. But when you keep making excuses, you get to the center of it. 

She then seemed surprised about being impressed with Cruz's reaction to Charlottesville as she continued:

And there is -- as Peggy Noonan was calling for love --  all I see is self-love, and that is not leadership. So I don't know where the -- I don't know where we go here. I do think you have Senators -- Tim Scott, others -- Ted Cruz -- who would have thought that Ted Cruz would be more compassionate and loving and show more character this week than the President of the United States?

She then concluded:

It's just totally confounding. I'm waiting to see what House leaders do, but someone has to go and -- thinking back, someone has to be the Hugh Scott and Barry Goldwater who go to the White House and say, "This cannot continue. You have got to get this into shape."And I don't know when that happens and who those people are, and whether he will listen.

MSNBC Guests: 'Racists All Over' 'RepubliKlan Party'; Trump 'National Security Threat'

On Wednesday's All In show on MSNBC, substitute host Joy Reid presided over two recurring MSNBC guests who hurled hyperbolic accusations against Republicans into a discussion of President Donald Trump's reaction to the Charlottesville violence. In one segment, "life-long Republican" Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson asserted that "my Republican party has racists all over it."

In a later segment, Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi -- who has a history of going on over the top rants -- accused Republicans of being the "RepubliKlan party," and declared that President Trump "is now the nation's number one national security threat."

At 8:27 p.m., host Reid asked Wilkerson -- a supposed Republican who usually gives liberal commentary on the news network -- to react to Trump's press conference that has been attracting so much criticism. Her Republican guest, apart from identifying himself as a Republican, sounded indistinguishable from a liberal as he responded:

Joy, you know I've said in the past that my party -- my Republican party has racists all over it. Ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy when we invited all those hard case Democrats -- of which one was my grandmother in South Carolina -- into the ranks of the Republican party -- we've had that element to deal with.

Near the end of the show, Reid spoke with Republican strategist Gianno Caldwell to discuss his concerns about Trump's reaction to the Charlottesville violence -- particularly the President's odd suggestion that some of the attendees of the white racist rally were "good people." When it was fellow guest Fernand Amandi's turn to speak, the Democratic pollster went on a rant against the Republican party:

What Trump did yesterday was kill the Republican party. Whatever was left of any moral authority that the Republican party had in the denouncing of this type of hate, Donald Trump killed it. And what exists today, 24 hours later, it's not the Republican party, it's the "RepubliKlan" -- the "RepubliKlan" party.

Caldwell then did something that Republican guests on MSNBC don't typically do: He actually argued against his liberal fellow guest and defended the Republican party. Caldwell began his objections by injecting, "I don't agree with that. Man, I didn't -- I didn't realize I was coming in to --"

After Amandi continued his rant by ridiculously complaining that no Republicans have switched parties over Trump, Caldwell got his chance to defend the GOP:

First and foremost, I reject the comments of the other guest. I believe they were intellectually dishonest. There have been Republicans all over who have condemned the comments of President Trump.

Reid -- seemingly not aware of some of the Republicans who have criticized Trump -- injected: "By name?"

Her Republican guest continued:

And in numerous instances -- yeah, John McCain -- you want to talk about them? We can talk about a number of individuals that have done so. But the truth of the matter is, the Republican party is not a party of -- full of racists. Certainly there are some folks within the Republican party just as there are in the Democratic party that are racist and those support racism, but that is not the whole party.

When it was Amandi's turn to speak again, his ranting continued as he repeated his "RepubliKlan" smear, and then claimed that President Trump is the " number one national security threat" for the country:

Unfortunately, this is the Republican party -- or the "RepubliKlan" party as I said earlier -- that exists today. And until we see patriots of conscience to the extent that those are left will leave this party and denounce this President -- not his words -- denounce him by name. The President is the purveyor of hate. The President is now the nation's number one national security threat because his words have opened a Pandora's box that will hurt and kill Americans.

Just this past weekend, Amandi was on Reid's weekend show -- AM Joy -- where he used his rant of the day to accuse some of President Trump's advisors of being "Nazis."

And Colonel Wilkerson has his own checkered history as a recurring MSNBC guest. Just a few weeks ago, he recited an anti-Semitic quote to suggest that "the Jews" are the "biggest enemy" of Christians in the Middle East. And, a couple years ago, he hinted that he would like to do harm to Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer for siding with conservatives on the Iran nuclear deal. The recurring MSNBC guest vaguely declared that "I won't say what I'd like to do" to Schumer -- a Jewish Democrat who sometimes sides with Republicans on matters concerning Israel's security.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Wednesday, August 16, All In with Chris Hayes:

8:27 p.m. ET

JOY REID: And lastly, just, I want to get your take on that press conference that Donald Trump had. As a lifelong Republican, what was your reaction to his press conference?

COLONEL LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FORMER COLIN POWELL AIDE: Joy, you know I've said in the past that my party -- my Republican party has racists all over it. Ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy when we invited all those hard case Democrats -- of which one was my grandmother in South Carolina -- into the ranks of the Republican party -- we've had that element to deal with. 

And now we're seeing what dealing with that element over the last 30, 40 years has done to the Republican party. Now, it is responsible in many ways for Donald Trump, and yet it doesn't know how to possess him or to disown him. It's stuck with him. And it's going to deal with that. And I'm afraid that, at the end of that time, we may see this party having committed suicide.

REID: Wow, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who minces no words. That you very much. I really appreciate your time.

(...)

8:56 p.m. ET

GIANNO CALDWELL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: There's instances where Democrats do bring up race which -- for no purpose at all. It's just everything is about race. Certainly that does occur. But, in this scenario, this is rightly put. This is about race. This is about a President who doesn't understand race relations in this country. This is about a President who said that there were some good people among Nazis and white supremacists. 

So, when I hear that, I wonder, "President Trump, who are these good people you're referring to?" Because certainly good people don't pal around with white supremacists and Nazis. And if there are some folks who just want to hang around, then obviously they're racist people. So this situation I think is very different than some others that I've seen over the years.

(...)

FERNAND AMANDI, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: What Trump did yesterday was kill the Republican party. Whatever was left of any moral authority --

CALDWELL: I disagree with that.

AMANDI: -- that the Republican party had in the denouncing of this type of hate, Donald Trump killed it. And what exists today, 24 hours later, it's not the Republican party, it's the "RepubliKlan" -- the "RepubliKlan" party.

CALDWELL: Man, I didn't -- I didn't realize I was coming in to --

AMANDI: And anyone who is still a part of this -- excuse me, sir -- anyone who continues to be part of this party, I have not seen one Republican member of Congress or the Senate leave the party. I have not seen them switch parties. What we have seen is mealy-mouthed denunciations of racism which every single American is on paper -- but it's been a lot of cheap talk and very little, Joy, by way of real action. 

And I have to say, I was really disappointed by former Presidents Bushes today -- who have shown tremendous willingness to criticize many of the policies of President Trump -- but even in their statement today -- where they appropriately denounced the racism -- and they denounced that hate that Donald Trump's comments assuredly brought about to this country, they didn't call him out by name. And if they -- as former ex-Presidents -- proud Republicans are unwilling to do it -- who is willing to do it next, Joy?

JOY REID: And, Gianno, this is, I guess, the question. Can you remain in the party of Donald Trump as a person of color?

CALDWELL: First and foremost, I reject the comments of the other guest. I believe they were intellectually dishonest. There have been Republicans all over who have condemned the comments of President Trump.

REID: By name?

GIANNO: And in numerous instances -- yeah, John McCain -- you want to talk about them? We can talk about a number of individuals that have done so. But the truth of the matter is, the Republican party is not a party of -- full of racists. Certainly there are some folks within the Republican party just as there are in the Democratic party that are racist and those support racism, but that is not the whole party.

(...)

AMANDI: Unfortunately, the latest numbers suggest even John Kasich -- who was one of the more prominent "never Trump" Republicans -- would get crushed in a primary. Unfortunately, this is the Republican party -- or the "RepubliKlan" party as I said earlier -- that exists today. And until we see patriots of conscience to the extent that those are left will leave this party --

CALDWELL: So similar to the Democrats with institutional racism?

REID: One at a time, one at a time.

AMANDI: -- and denounce this President -- not his words -- denounce him by name. The President is the purveyor of hate. The President is now the nation's number one national security threat because his words have opened a Pandora's box that will hurt and kill Americans.

Maher, Meacham, Zakaria Admit Immigration Concerns Not Necessarily 'Racist'

On Friday's Real Time show on HBO, host Bill Maher, historian Jon Meacham, and CNN host Fareed Zakaria all admitted that it is not necessarily "racist" for one to have concerns about whether immigrants are assimilating properly into American culture after Maher brought up Zakaria's recent article criticizing Democrats on the subject. After Zakaria made an argument similar to his recent commentary, Meacham -- a former Newsweek editor -- noted that assimilation by immigrants has always been a legitimate topic of concern before blaming Republicans for making it look "racist" to have such a debate. Meacham:

But it also plays into a perennial tendency -- you can pick and choose Founders' quotes for these things -- but even Alexander Hamilton ... said that you have to be careful about immigrants who might not adapt to the national spirit. ... We have just been ambivalent about the numbers of folks we've wanted to allow in at different times. And so it's not racist to debate immigration. And, unfortunately, because I think the rhetoric on the Republican side has gone so far, it feels that way.

After Zakaria agreed, "Yeah, I think that's right," Maher went back to the CNN host's article:

And you also quote this guy Samuel Huntington in the article, who says, "Would America be America if it wasn't founded by British Protestants, if it was founded by the French, the Spanish, or the Portuguese?"

After arguing that the U.S. would be similar to Mexico, Brazil, or Quebec if they had not been colonized by Britain, Zakaria added: "There is a kind of culture that binds us together, and it's important to ask: How do we try to make sure that immigrants buy into that culture?"

Maher then agreed that it is not "racist" to simply have concerns about immigration not being managed properly:

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

So if we ask questions about Muslim immigration, we would like it -- people like Dr. (Richard) Dawkins and myself -- not to just [be] looked upon as, "Well, it has to be a racist reason for that." It's not -- first of all, it's not a race, it's a religion. But we're talking about those shared values.

Zakaria repeated his recent criticism of liberals on the subject:

And part of what has happened is, on the left, there's been a kind of multiculturalism that says, "Everything is equal -- all these other cultures are equal." And, look, I can say, as an immigrant, if I wanted to maintain Indian culture, I could have stayed in India. The reason I came to America is because I admired American culture.

The normally far-left Maher agreed:

Right. The first things I said on my old show was, "If you're going to come to the Melting Pot, melt a little. You've got a melt a little." You can't take a drivers' license photo in a burka -- we have to see your face.

CNN's Sanders Falsely Claims Gorka Called 'Brown People' a Problem

Appearing as a guest on Monday's New Day, liberal CNN political commentator Symone Sanders not only repeatedly smeared White House advisors Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka as "white supremacist sympathizers," but she even deceptively claimed that Gorka had characterized "brown people" as a problem.

At 7:53 a.m. ET, as she debated former Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli over the issue of why President Donald Trump had not more explicitly condemned white supremacy ideology, Sanders took aim at Bannon for associating himself and Breitbart News in the past with the "Alt-Right" movement:

My disagreement because Steve Bannon when he was over at Breitbart just a year ago, he said that he was proud that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is nothing but white supremacy in khakis. Steve Bannon has been a curator of the Alt-Right.

But, as Breitbart editor Joel Pollak clarified on ABC's The View last February, when Bannon referred to the "Alt-Right," the relatively obscure term had not yet come to be defined as "white supremacy" in the way that it has over the past year, so her claim about Bannon embracing the "Alt-Right" is misleading.

The CNN commentator then went after Gorka as she continued:

You played audio from Sebastian Gorka just moments ago on your show where he basically said, "It's not the white supremacists -- look at these brown people in the Middle East." And so it's not aspersions that have been cast onto these individuals -- these are words that these folks have used. 

But the audio of Gorka from an interview with Breitbart last week did not refer to anyone as "brown people." Sanders's comments might not have intended to be claiming an exact quote, but her choice of words certainly could have been construed that way. Gorka's exact words were, as played earlier on CNN:

It's this constant, "Oh, it's the white man. It's the white supremacists. That's the problem." No, it isn't, Maggie Haberman. Go to Sinjar, go to the Middle East, and tell me what the real problem is today. Go to Manchester.

In context, Gorka was discussing a recent interview on MSNBC in which he had argued that terrorist attacks in the U.S. by radical Muslims should not be considered "lone wolf," leading liberals to cite Timothy McVeigh and terrorism involving white radicals, even though the topic of conversation was specifically terrorism from radical Muslims.

Sanders added:

White supremacist sympathizers are seemingly advising the President of the United States. And that is jarring and concerning to me. This is the people's house -- white supremacy has no place in our administration.

A bit later, the liberal commentator went after Bannon and Gorka again as she claimed they were sympathetic to white supremacists and neo-Nazis:

When President Trump took the podium on Saturday, a woman was dead -- she was murdered by white supremacist neo-Nazis. He did not use those words -- that terminology. You have white supremacist neo-Nazi sympathizers apparently in the White House in Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon. This is not just rhetoric. This is very real for people all over America.

Toward the end of the segment, she beat on the point again:

We need to hear from the President of the United States today. We need to hear him say the words "white supremacy, KKK, neo-Nazis," and then we need actions to follow up with those words. We need him to reverse the policy change that the United States of America is looking at white supremacists in terms of in our counterterrorism program. He needs to remove the white supremacists around him -- white supremacist sympathizers. That is Steve Bannon and Gorka.

MSNBC Guests Claim 'Nazis' Are in White House; Supporting 'a Lot of' NFL Players

During Sunday's AM Joy on MSNBC, during discussions of the white racist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, White House advisors Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, and Stephen Miller were repeatedly referred to by panel members as "Nazis" or "white supremacists." And in one segment, as the group fretted over Colin Kaepernick's outcast status in the NFL, ESPN columnist William C. Rhoden oddly claimed that "a lot of players" in both the NFL and Major League Baseball "have kind of support from these people -- the Nazis or white supremacists," as host Joy Reid responded in agreement.

At 10:54 a.m. ET, recurring MSNBC guest Fernand Amandi of Bendixen and Amandi International went on a rant as he claimed that "I think America owes Colin Kaepernick an apology this morning, and the NFL owes him a job." After noting that private businesses like the NFL have a right to behave as they wish on the Kaepernick matter, he then launched into smearing Trump White House advisors as "Nazis" as he added:

But you know what's not a private business, Joy? The federal government. And if Colin Kaepernick can be out of a job for exercising a peaceful First Amendment right, why are the three Nazis in the White House -- Bannon, Gorka and Miller -- whose jobs are funded by we, the taxpayers -- why are they still working today?

A bit later, Rhoden made his strange claim that many athletes are supported by "Nazis or white supremacists" with Reid indicating agreement:

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

WILLIAM C. RHODEN, ESPN'S THE UNDFEATED: And I think those of us who believe in our rights as human beings, or we don't support police violence, we've really got to stand up. We've got to stand up. And, by the way, I think a lot of players in the NFL and Major League Baseball, a lot of them have kind of support from these people -- the Nazis or white supremacists. I think it's really up to all those people, all of these sports that have these very public positions to let --

JOY REID: Yeah.

RHODEN: -- it be known that, you know what, we're not about this, you know --

REID; Yeah.

RHODEN: -- we're not about this, we're not about this type of hatred.

REID: Yeah. We are unfortunately out of time.

In a later segment at 11:23 a.m. ET, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart echoed Amandi's smearing of Trump advisors as he proclaimed:

Alt-Right is nothing but white supremacy in black tie. Let's talk about what it is, and that the President of the United States has a white supremacist mere feet from him in the Oval Office. We are talking about Charlottesville today because people like Steve Bannon, people like Gorka, people like Miller, other people who are probably sprinkled throughout this administration believe this point of view.

Maher Wishes for Stock Market 'Crash' to Hurt Trump Politically

Appearing as a guest in a pre-recorded interview for the Sunday, August 13, Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, far-left HBO comedian Bill Maher declared that he hopes there is a "crash" in the stock market so that it will hurt President Donald Trump's political support. A bit later, he also repeated a discredited myth parroted over and over again by the Left that Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, as a "dog whistle" to appeal to racism.

At one point in the interview, Zakaria wondered what has "surprised" the HBO host so far about the Trump presidency.  Maher expressed his surprise that the stock market has not crashed already, and then added that he is "hoping" that it does:

I thought he would crash the stock market, and I still think he will. I'm hoping actually because that's one thing that would maybe lose him a lot of support in the Republican party. But I thought and predicted -- and I was wrong -- that the stock market hates volatility and uncertainty. And who is more volatile than Donald Trump? But I guess I underestimated their greed because they still want their tax cut.

A bit later, after Zakaria asked why his guest believes Trump voters support him so loyally, Maher accused Presidents Reagan and Richard Nixon of employing racism:

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

It's almost a protest vote, you know. I'm not surprised because there are -- now, there is a certain percentage of people who are, I think, racist, and that's part of his appeal. And, you know, his dog whistle was louder than any dog whistle we've heard -- and the Republicans have been playing that game since Nixon and the Southern Strategy, and Reagan opening his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. That's been going on a long time, but he just did it in a much more blatant way, so he can't deny that that's part of it.

Friedman: US Should Offer Peace Treaty, Full Relations to North Korea

Appearing as a guest on Friday's New Day on CNN to discuss the recent tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman went so far as to recommend that the U.S. should offer to recognize the legitimacy of the North Korean regime -- which functions as a giant prison for its population -- in an effort to get the oppressive government to give up its nuclear weapons. He then argued that, even though North Korea would likely reject the offer, it was important to get countries like China and Russia to not view the standoff as "two crazy men threatening each other with fire and brimstone."

At 7:26 a.m. ET, Friedman began presenting his suggestion:

It seems to me, the only rational, long-term strategy for the United States is to, one, deter the North Koreans by our own anti-missile systems. We're doing that, we've been doing that, we're continuing to do that effectively. And to tighten the economic sanctions around them so they will stop testing these missiles and ultimately agree to a de-nuclearization deal. I think the best way to go about doing that is by putting on the table a very clear American peace offer to the North Koreans: "If you fully de-nuclearize and end your missile program, we will offer you full peace, full diplomacy, full engagement, economic aid, and an end to the Korean War. If you don't, we will tighten the economic sanctions."

He continued:

And by putting this plan on the table, the entire world would see who is the person who is actually threatening the stability of the Korean Peninsula. That, then, would keep Russia, China the Japanese and the South Koreans all on our side, which will make the sanctions even stronger. That's how you really mess up the North Koreans. I think we play into their hands when you engage in a tit for tat, fire and brimstone threats which ultimately I think have no long-term sustainability and are frightening the allies we need to sustain sanctions.

A bit later, he added:

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

But that rhetoric has to be tied to a long-term strategy -- both military of building up our missile deterrence around North Korea and diplomatic of enlisting more and more of the world -- particularly China, Japan, and South Korea -- on sanctions against North Korea. That's what ultimately threatens that regime and puts a choice before them of either you de-nuclearize or you really will completely run out of money. That is what will really squeeze them. What plays to their strength is if we look just like we're equals, two crazy men threatening each other with fire and brimstone.

After Cuomo asked, "Why hasn't that been tried? And if it has been tried, why hasn't it worked?" Friedman argued that such an offer has been "implicit" in the past and then added:

What I'm saying is make it explicit -- not as an act of weakness because that explicit declaration that we are ready to end the war with you, open an embassy in Pyongyang, engage in economic trade and aid, etc. That is precisely what will give us the moral high ground to sustain sanctions for a long, long time. Then, the Chinese can't say we are the threat, then the Russians can't say we are the threat. We've actually got the Russians and Chinese on our side now in the latest UN vote. We want to keep them there. We want to create a situation where North Korea looks around, and the entire world, including its neighbors, are against it, and it's under tighter and tighter sanctions noose.

After substitute host Brianna Keiler wondered if North Korea would be willing to make such a deal since open relations would undermine the regime's control over the civilian population if they were allowed to interact with the world, Friedman responded:

Well, sure. By the way, I have very little belief the North Koreans would accept such an offer in the near term. But this is about: What is a long-term, sustainable strategy for tightening the noose and weakening their regime? They're not going to accept this -- such a proposal tomorrow. But what it does do is give us the moral and strategic high ground to sustain economic sanctions for a very long time. That puts us in a much stronger position than we are right now.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, August 11, New Day on CNN:

TOM FRIEDMAN: It seems to me, the only rational, long-term strategy for the United States is to, one, deter the North Koreans by our own anti-missile systems. We're doing that, we've been doing that, we're continuing to do that effectively. And to tighten the economic sanctions around them so they will stop testing these missiles and ultimately agree to a de-nuclearization deal.

I think the best way to go about doing that is by putting on the table a very clear American peace offer to the North Koreans: "If you fully de-nuclearize and end your missile program, we will offer you full peace, full diplomacy, full engagement, economic aid, and an end to the Korean War. If you don't, we will tighten the economic sanctions."

And by putting this plan on the table, the entire world would see who is the person who is actually threatening the stability of the Korean Peninsula. That, then, would keep Russia, China the Japanese and the South Koreans all on our side, which will make the sanctions even stronger. That's how you really mess up the North Koreans. I think we play into their hands when you engage in a tit for tat, fire and brimstone threats which ultimately I think have no long-term sustainability and are frightening the allies we need to sustain sanctions.

(...)

But that rhetoric has to be tied to a long-term strategy -- both military of building up our missile deterrence around North Korea and diplomatic of enlisting more and more of the world -- particularly China, Japan, and South Korea -- on sanctions against North Korea. That's what ultimately threatens that regime and puts a choice before them of either you de-nuclearize or you really will completely run out of money. That is what will really squeeze them. What plays to their strength is if we look just like we're equals, two crazy men threatening each other with fire and brimstone.

(...)

CHRIS CUOMO: Here's what I don't get -- and forgive me for this. I understand what you're saying -- its sounds very reasonable. Why hasn't that been tried? And if it has been tried, why hasn't it worked?

FRIEDMAN: It's a good question, Chris. We have never actually put a full-fledged treaty on the table. We have never gone to that length so far. I think it has to do with a worry by some administrations that some of that would look weak on our part. I think it would actually look -- would be an incredible source of strength because what I'm describing to you, Chris, is actually the bottom line of the diplomacy we've been trying all along. It has always been implicit in our position that if the North Koreans denuclearize and end this threat, we are ready to end the Korean War, which has been open now since its inception -- we're just in an armistice. 

That's always been implicit in our position. What I'm saying is make it explicit -- not as an act of weakness because that explicit declaration that we are ready to end the war with you, open an embassy in Pyongyang, engage in economic trade and aid, etc. That is precisely what will give us the moral high ground to sustain sanctions for a long, long time. Then, the Chinese can't say we are the threat, then the Russians can't say we are the threat. We've actually got the Russians and Chinese on our side now in the latest UN vote. We want to keep them there. We want to create a situation where North Korea looks around, and the entire world, including its neighbors, are against it, and it's under tighter and tighter sanctions noose.

BRIANNA KEILAR: But how does that work? And I wonder what the Kim regime would think about that idea, Tom, because: Would they be looking at China and say, "Opening up economically, opening up diplomatically -- look at what's happened to China"? I mean, certainly you still have a communist regime there, but arguably there could be in North Korea if you do open up diplomatically and economically, then you're opening up what is a hermit kingdom, allowing the North Koreans to see the outside world and realizing things are not as their government has been telling them.

FRIEDMAN: Well, sure. By the way, I have very little belief the North Koreans would accept such an offer in the near term. But this is about: What is a long-term, sustainable strategy for tightening the noose and weakening their regime? They're not going to accept this -- such a proposal tomorrow. But what it does do is give us the moral and strategic high ground to sustain economic sanctions for a very long time. That puts us in a much stronger position than we are right now.

MSNBC Republican Claims 'Racist' GOP Policies, Racist Rally 'Is the Republican Party'

On Saturday's AM Joy, recurring MSNBC guest Kurt Bardella hyperbolically claimed that the white racist rally taking place in Charlottesville, Virginia, "is the Republican party on display," and declared that "a lot of" Republican policies are "racist." He also took aim at the right-leaning Breitbart News as he alleged that the rally -- which by that point had turned violent -- "is exactly the kind of stuff that they want to have happen and they hope to spread elsewhere."

Bardella -- a Republican known for distancing himself from Breitbart News after departing as its spokesman last year -- has made a name for himself appearing on both CNN and MSNBC bashing both President Donald Trump and his former business client. In this appearance on AM Joy, his over the top attacks on fellow Republicans made him fit quite well into the caricature of an MSNBC Republican who shows up mainly to agree with liberal guests without contributing any right-leaning analysis.

Before President Trump released a statement concerning the Charlottesville rally, the MSNBC program's group of panelists were calling on the President and other Republicans to condemn the white racist groups involved in the demonstration. After reading a statement from RNC chair Ronna McDaniel that had just been released, Bardella called for "more leadership" from Republicans and then added:

This is the Republican party right now that's on display -- Donald Trump's Republican party. And if they don't want to be tied to it, if they don't want to be associated to it -- people like Mitch McConnell, you know, Speaker Paul Ryan, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Anybody who proclaims to be a leader who doesn't want to be associated with this type of hatred and racism, bigotry and ignorance, they need to speak out right now loud and clear.

A bit later, host Joy Reid asked if Breitbart News would try to "distance themselves" from Alt-Right groups, leading Bardella to take aim at his former business client as he accused them of condoning the racist activity:

Well, they haven't yet. There's not a single bit of content right now on their homepages about what's going on right now -- the largest, the biggest story right now in American today -- and there are crickets on it. So that tells me that this is exactly the kind of stuff they want to have happen and that they hope to spread elsewhere. 

He then took aim again at the Republican party with a typically liberal argument about it being racist to put criminals in jail as he added:

And, frankly, you know, the Republican party needs to change its philosophy on a lot of things to prevent this type of stuff from happening. A lot of their policies like that are racist. When they talk about incarceration over drug treatment, that targets minorities pure and simple.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Saturday, August 12, AM Joy on MSNBC:

11:54 a.m. ET

KURT BARDELLA, FORMER BREITBART SPOKESPERSON: The chairwoman of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel, did just tweet: "The hate and bigotry on display in Charlottesville is dangerous and cowardly." So we have at least one person at the national level now who has spoken out. I agree with Joan (Walsh) that we need a lot more leadership right now -- vocal leadership -- from Republicans, from Republican leaders, elected leaders in Congress and in Washington. 

This is the Republican party right now that's on display -- Donald Trump's Republican party. And if they don't want to be tied to it, if they don't want to be associated to it -- people like Mitch McConnell, you know, Speaker Paul Ryan, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Anybody who proclaims to be a leader who doesn't want to be associated with this type of hatred and racism, bigotry and ignorance, they need to speak out right now loud and clear.

(...)

JOY REID: And, Kurt Bardella, you know, Breitbart, there has been inklings that they want to expand, they want to expand into Europe, they want to expand as a business. At some point, are they going to, in your view, start to distance themselves from this, what they call the "Alt-Right," this white nationalist movement.

BARDELLA: Well, they haven't yet. There's not a single bit of content right now on their homepages about what's going on right now -- the largest, the biggest story right now in American today -- and there are crickets on it. So that tells me that this is exactly the kind of stuff they want to have happen and that they hope to spread elsewhere.

And, frankly, you know, the Republican party needs to change its philosophy on a lot of things to prevent this type of stuff from happening. A lot of their policies like that are racist. When they talk about incarceration over drug treatment, that targets minorities pure and simple.

MSNBC's Johnson: Trump Wants to Bring Back 'Violence &amp; Discrimination' Against Blacks

In his column this week at The Root, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson made his latest launch into hyperbole as he claimed that the Trump administration "wants to return America" to the days of "white grievance, violence and discrimination" against blacks, referring to the Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 in which white workers opposed the promotion of blacks to better jobs.

Johnson also coined the term "White Pride Week" to mock recent decisions by the administration on race-based college admissions and immigration policy changes.

The MSNBC contributor's article from Monday, August 7, titled, "Hey, Jeff Sessions: Remember When 6,000 White Americans Went on Strike to Keep Black People from Getting Promoted?" began by referring to the Trump administration's habit of designating theme weeks to draw attention to selected issues. He then snidely added: "And to kick off August, the administration launched 'White Pride' Week to highlight the plight of the oppressed white American male. "

In parentheses, he then cracked: "Actually, I'm not sure if that was the official title, but it was pretty close."

He then clarified that the targets of his mockery were recent decisions by the administration to act against race-based college admissions, and to change immigration policy:

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

With Attorney General Jeff Sessions announcing that the Justice Department would start suing colleges for discriminating against white guys, and Trump's senior policy advisor Stephen Miller announcing cuts in immigration from nonwhite countries, the dog whistles were so loud, "the Hound" could hear it with one ear missing.

Johnson then claimed to see "overtly hostile action" against blacks as he added: "This overtly hostile action from the federal government against black education, employment and lives is the perfect run-up to today's critical racial anniversary."

Instead of making a rational, thoughtful case in favor of raced-based admissions like, say, arguing that it promotes racial integration by pushing students out of natural social bubbles to curtail self-segregation, the MSNBC contributor ventured into hyperbole.

Most of the article was devoted to recalling the infamous 1944 Phladelphia transit workers strike in which white workers went on strike for several days to protest the decision to give black workers the same rights to be promoted to better jobs as white workers. The strike -- which hindered war production by shutting down the city -- only ended after the Roosevelt administration intervened and pressured the strikers to return to work.

After recounting this story of actual racism and blatant discrimination against blacks, Johnson ended his column by suggesting that the Trump administration wishes to take America back to those more oppressive times:

It's important to remember that, while all of this occurred 73 years go, with a stroke of a pen, a tweet and a few white nationalists at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Trump administration wants to return America to those days of white grievance, violence and discrimination, no matter what legitimate challenges our nation faces.

Roland Martin Frets Trump 'Putting Thousands of African-American Troops at Risk'

On Wednesday's New One Now, far-left host Roland Martin bordered on caricature when he teased the show by asking if President Donald Trump is "putting thousands of African-American troops but more importantly their families at risk" by talking tough on North Korea, as if the lives of white troops were not worthy of note if war broke out.

And, as a segment was devoted to griping over alleged "voter suppression" efforts by the Justice Department, one guest provocatively demanded that Republicans "come get your racist cousins" in the DOJ as he asserted that "This is racism, white nationalism, and part of Jeff Sessions's strategy to turn back -- roll back the 20th century."

Shortly after 7:00 a.m. ET, after beginning the tease by recalling current flooding in New Orleans, Martin turned to "voter suppression" as he continued:

In another move by the Trump administration to reverse Obama-era policies and to trample on voting rights, the Department of Justice now supports a plan in Ohio to purge eligible voters from the rolls -- another mass voter suppression campaign by Donald Trump.

The left-wing host then oddly suggested that the show would discuss how African-Americans specifically would be impacted by potential war in North Korea as he added:

Lots of scary talk about North Korea nuclear weapons, most of it coming from President Trump. Is that putting thousands of African-American troops but more importantly their families at risk? We will talk with retired Army General William "Kip" Ward in a simulcast with the Tom Joyner morning show.

Martin never got around to explaining why he was concerned specifically about how African-American troops but not white troops would be impacted by war as the racial element was dropped when retired General William Ward as a guest discussed the North Korea situation.

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

Earlier in the show, Martin did devote a segment to one of his favorite topics -- Republicans allegedly trying to engage in "voter suppression" to hurt black voter participation. The most incendiary portion came when guest and Professor Greg Carr of Howard University accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of racism. After Martin commented that "The political folks are the ones driving this in DOJ," Carr responded:

Absolutely. GOP, message to you: Come get your racist cousins. This is racism, white nationalism, and part of Jeff Sessions's strategy to turn back -- roll back the 20th century. The parallel is in the period after Reconstruction when the states began in their state constitutions to roll this back. 

That's why you have to have a federal government. There's a reason why no career lawyers signed onto this brief. They have moved this to the political apparatus. And you got an attorney general -- I'm sorry, secretary of state -- in Ohio who's running for governor, and all of these cats are trying to get it close enough to steal. If they can get it close enough to steal, they will steal it. They will steal it.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Wednesday, August 9, News One Now:

7:01 a.m. ET

ROLAND MARTIN, IN OPENING TEASE: In another move by the Trump administration to reverse Obama-era policies and to trample on voting rights, the Department of Justice now supports a plan in Ohio to purge eligible voters from the rolls -- another mass voter suppression campaign by Donald Trump.

Lots of scary talk about North Korea nuclear weapons, most of it coming from President Trump. Is that putting thousands of African-American troops but more importantly their families at risk? We will talk with retired Army General William "Kip" Ward in a simulcast with the Tom Joyner morning show.

(..)

7:11 a.m. ET

MARTIN: All right, folks, we've been covering voter suppression on this show over the last several years, and we now see more of this by the Trump Department of Justice. The Department filed a brief in an Ohio case headed to the Supreme Court which reversed the Obama administration's position in favor of voting rights. Under current Ohio law, if a voter has not cast a vote in two years, the state will send them a notice by mail. 

If the voter does not respond to that notice and casts no ballot for the next four years, he or she will be purged from voter rolls. Well, that's a problem because, again, it impacts voters. The Ohio voting -- so, first of all, again, that's what happens to Ohio. It goes to the Supreme Court. ... Again, another example of this Trump administration and Republicans desiring to suppress the vote.

(...)

MARTIN: And what's crazy about this is, if you choose not to vote, first of all, I wish folks do vote, but if you choose not to vote, fine. But what's the logic in removing people just because they didn't vote?

KRISTEN CLARKE, LAWYERS COMMUNITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW: That's right. This -- there is no logic to what the state of Ohio is doing.

(...)

MARTIN: According to analysis by Reuters, neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor African-American residents will be hit hardest by this purging effort. We keep saying it -- Republicans, look, if you want black votes, Donald Trump said, "What the hell do you have to lose?" We see a lot. This consistent Republican efforts to purge voters.

(...)

MARTIN: And that's the fundamental issue right there. The political folks are the ones driving this in DOJ.

GREG CARR, HOWARD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES: Absolutely. GOP, message to you: Come get your racist cousins. This is racism, white nationalism, and part of Jeff Sessions's strategy to turn back -- roll back the 20th century. The parallel is in the period after Reconstruction when the states began in their state constitutions to roll this back. 

That's why you have to have a federal government. There's a reason why no career lawyers signed onto this brief. They have moved this to the political apparatus. And you got an attorney general -- I'm sorry, secretary of state -- in Ohio who's running for governor, and all of these cats are trying to get it close enough to steal. If they can get it close enough to steal, they will steal it. They will steal it.

On CNN, Schlapp Calls Out Media Double Standard on Abortion Vs. Climate 'Science'

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's New Day on CNN to discuss polling showing that many Americans do not trust President Donald Trump, after the issue of Trump not believing in the global warming theory preferred by liberals was raised, the American Conservative Union's Matt Schlapp got into a heated exchange as he called out host Chris Cuomo for discounting science on the issue of when human life begins.

Schlapp: "It's about science. And guess what, you're wrong on the science, many of you who believe that people on the pro-life side aren't looking at the science of it. Come on, the science is on my side of the unique human nature of every unborn child."

In spite of the fact that a human embryo fits the scientific definition of a living being from the moment of conception, Cuomo insisted the issue is "not about science" as he responded: "It's not about science -- it's about ethics, religion, and morality, is what abortion's about. It's not about science."

After insisting "Nobody's making abortion about science," Cuomo added:

Nobody knows. You can believe it begins at conception. You can believe it begins 40 days after the way the Jews do. You can believe in viability. There is no known component to it. That's not what the science is behind climate change, Matt. They're not the same thing.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, August 8, New Day on CNN:

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

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: I haven't delved into your poll. All I will tell you is you've got to take some responsibility -- all of us do -- on the coverage of this. When you call the President a liar or other people do for 200 days -- which I think, even on climate change, to hear the coverage to say people like me who are skeptics over the idea that man is causing the globe to put itself in a position that it's so warm that human life will not be able to be sustained, I'm a skeptic of that. I'm not a liar.

CHRIS CUOMO: You're also not a scientist. And when you have 13 agencies and scientists from the government saying something and they're worried about being suppressed, it's a credibility issue, and that's why three out of four people say they don't trust the White House.

SCHLAPP: it's wrong for people in the media to say that people on issues of abortion, of climate change, on the size and scope of government --

CUOMO: How is abortion and climate change the same thing, Matt?

SCHLAPP: It's about science. And guess what, you're wrong on the science, many of you who believe that people on the pro-life side aren't looking at the science of it. Come on, the science is on my side of the unique human nature of every unborn child.

CUOMO: It's not about science -- it's about ethics, religion, and morality, is what abortion's about. It's not about science.

SCHLAPP: There's a political difference in -- just because somebody is on the other side, please don't call them a liar. That's not helping the country.

CUOMO: But who's calling -- listen, hold on a second, Anna (Navarro), hold on a second because I get a lot of this. You like to throw a label on something you don't like. I get it -- politically persuasive. But it's also BS a lot of the time, Matt. Nobody's making abortion about science. I didn't even bring up the issue.

SCHLAPP: It is about science.

CUOMO: You did. Abortion -- the idea of when life begins, guess what.

SCHLAPP: Is science.

CUOMO: Nobody knows. You can believe it begins at conception. You can believe it begins 40 days after the way the Jews do. You can believe in viability. There is no known component to it. That's not what the science is behind climate change, Matt. They're not the same thing.

SCHLAPP: The science of when life begins is unquestionable. And the question on climate change, actually there's a great diversity on the science. And we do have political disagreements. But I think it's wrong in this country when we call people who have a contrary position a liar, and that's what's dominating the coverage.

CUOMO: Right, Anna, that's a fair point that if you, just because you disagree, you call someone a liar. i agree with Matt. Disagreement doesn't mean someone's lying, someone's telling the truth. But that's also not the case with a lot of these issues, especially when it comes to climate science.

Kayyem: 'Biggest Threat' from Anti-Govt White Supremacists, Not Radical Muslims

Appearing as a guest on Sunday's CNN Newsroom to preview the same evening's CNN special on terrorism in the 1990s, CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem was twisting herself into knots to downplay the threat of terrorism from radical Muslims by claiming that the "biggest threat" is from "white supremacists or sort of anti-government terrorism."

Kayyem incoherently conflated the standoffs at Waco and Ruby Ridge with terrorism as if the two incidents terrorist attacks, even though those were botched attempts by federal agents at making arrests in which it is far from clear that any terrorist attacks were being planned.

She also included the Columbine school shootings, even though no anti-government or white supremacist motives were attached to their plans for mass murder.

Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph and Oklahoma City bombing culprits Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols would seem to be the only examples of anti-government domestic terrorists covered on the special who have actually succeeded in creating a large number of casualties in the past 30 years, in contrast with the thousands killed in attacks by Muslim radicals.

The special also included the left-wing Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, and the 1999 attempt to target America's Millennium celebrations.

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

At 7:52 p.m. ET, on the August 6, CNN Newsroom, after recalling that, in the aftermath of the Cold War era, there was optimism for a more peaceful 1990s decade, the CNN analyst added:

And on the domestic terrorism side, of course what's animating all of them is anti-federal government animus -- Oklahoma City being the most significant and Timothy McVeigh -- access to weapons, and also wanting to play to the media. I think that's a lesson of Columbine, the, you know, the school shooting that shocked the world, but also this sense that they, there was this sort of hero aspect to what they thought they were doing.

After host Ana Cabrera asked if there had been a change in "how America approaches domestic terrorism" since the 1990s, Kayyem made her argument that domestic terrorism is the "biggest threat" as she responded:

So, because I think 9/11 made us think terrorism was only Islamic terrorism, and I think, you know, all of us are guilty of that, you know, that, and what we saw in the '90s was the biggest threat in the United States then and now -- it's hard for us to fathom -- and now is white supremacists or sort of anti-government terrorism targeting individuals and, or, institutions or government buildings. And we tend to think of terrorism only as relates to al-Qaeda or ISIS, and it's just not true. 

Kayyem then mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge as if they were examples of terrorist attacks as she tried to bolster her argument:

The United States has been -- has suffered from domestic terrorism, and the number of cases that we go through in the documentary that's airing at 9 very soon. You're sort of overwhelmed at how many there were, right? You have Waco and Oklahoma City and Ruby Ridge, I mean, all the --

Host Cabrera then jumped in to wrap up the segment.

MSNBC Panel Frets Trump 'Killing the Dream' of MLK Jr.

On Sunday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, as Al Sharpton presided over a discussion of an upcoming march to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in the Civil Rights Movement, the MSNBC host fretted that President Donald Trump is "killing the dream" after one of the guests claimed that MLK Jr.'s "dream" had become a "nightmare" for many.

Rabbi Jonah Pesner of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism complained about "mass incarceration" and "voter suppression" as he commented:

We will be marching and praying with our legs because this is not a nostalgia march, right, we are marching to protect and defend the dream, which for too many people has become a nightmare with mass incarceration, with voter suppression, with people afraid of losing their health care benefits. So it's important that we march -- but that we march for the dream getting protected for the future, not just nostalgia for the past.

Host Sharpton then dismissed President Trump's decision to keep a bust of MLK Jr. in the Oval Office as he responded:

It is not a nostalgia march because we saw when President Trump came into office, President Obama put the bust of Dr. King in the Oval Office. President Trump said, "I'm going to keep the bust, but I'm adding Winston Churchill." But did he put the dream out? Because in the dream of Dr. King, he talked about voting rights -- which is now under siege -- he talked about poverty -- which we are really clearly dealing with as the rabbi just referred to rather.

The MSNBC host then added:

And he talked about criminal justice reform -- he talked about the idea of health care. Dr. King said that in a speech all of this is in danger right now. So this thousand ministers march is to say, "Wait a minute, you can't commemorate the dreamer and kill the dream."

The hand-wringing continued as the Reverend K.W. Tulloss of the National Action Network responded:

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

You're so right, Rev, again, August 28, ministers are coming beyond the wall of the church to really focus on the needs of our community, and these last several months are dismal. Many of our -- many of the policies that are being proposed are aimed at cutting down on the backs of our members, and it's very important again for us as religious leaders to reach out beyond the walls and the press and to make this administration know that our members are at stake.

He then added:

This is why we're here where they're representing our people. We are there to let the folks know that we are there with them, and we want this administration to take notice that, "Hey, this is important, you are messing with people's lives."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portions of the Sunday, August 6, PoliticsNation on MSNBC:

8:16 a.m. ET

RABBI JONAH PESNER, RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER FOR REFORM JUDAISM: We will be marching and praying with our legs because this is not a nostalgia march, right, we are marching to protect and defend the dream, which for too many people has become a nightmare with mass incarceration, with voter suppression, with people afraid of losing their health care benefits. So it's important that we march -- but that we march for the dream getting protected for the future, not just nostalgia for the past.

REVEREND AL SHARPTON: Reverend, it is not a nostalgia march because we saw when President Trump came into office, President Obama put the bust of Dr. King in the Oval Office. President Trump said, "I'm going to keep the bust, but I'm adding Winston Churchill."

But did he put the dream out? Because in the dream of Dr. King, he talked about voting rights -- which is now under siege -- he talked about poverty -- which we are really clearly dealing with as the rabbi just referred to rather -- and he talked about criminal justice reform -- he talked about the idea of health care. Dr. King said that in a speech all of this is in danger right now. So this thousand ministers march is to say, "Wait a minute, you can't commemorate the dreamer and kill the dream."

REVEREND K.W. TULLOSS, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR: You're so right, Rev, again, August 28, ministers are coming beyond the wall of the church to really focus on the needs of our community, and these last several months are dismal. Many of our -- many of the policies that are being proposed are aimed at cutting down on the backs of our members, and it's very important again for us as religious leaders to reach out beyond the walls and the press and to make this administration know that our members are at stake.

This is why we're here where they're representing our people. We are there to let the folks know that we are there with them, and we want this administration to take notice that, "Hey, this is important, you are messing with people's lives." And we recognize that everything is at stake, and that's what we plan to do August 28.

SHARPTON: You know, Rabbi, when I look at the fact that you referred to mass incarceration -- when I look at, when we see the continued cases of police brutality that all of us support good policing, but that we're not dealing with the bad police as well as the fact that this attorney general as said, "I'm even questioning consent decrees." I look at our colleagues in the NAACP this week talking about a travel warning for the state of Missouri because of any number of situations with black motorists in the state of Missouri.

And yet, in the midst of all of this, I look one morning, and ministers are in the Oval Office laying hands on President Trump and praying and saying, "God bless him and strengthen him in what he's doing," without questioning what he's doing. That's why I think some other faith leaders need to come and say, "We're not here to condemn the President, but we're here to uplift justice and fairness. While y'all are blessing this, let's look at what is going on.

MSNBC Guest: Caitlyn Jenner 'Flaunting Her Residual White Male Privilege'

On Friday's The Beat with Ari Melber -- a relatively new MSNBC show that recently replaced Greta Van Susteren's For the Record program -- host Melber not surprisingly assembled a panel of lefties to discuss the week's news for the show's regular "Fall Back" segment.

Former Ebony editor-in-chief Amy DuBois Barnett took aim at Caitlyn Jenner because the transgender Republican was recently seen wearing a pro-Donald Trump hat even after Trump's announced ban on transgenders in the military. Inserting race into the conversation, DuBois griped Jenner is "flaunting her residual white male privilege."

A bit later in the show, Melber went after White House advisor Stephen Miller over his sparring with CNN's Jim Acosta over immigration policy, leading longtime MSNBC contributor Joan Walsh to see Miller's use of the word "cosmopolitan" as a "white nationalist dog whistle."

 

 

When Barnett got her turn to speak, she recalled that Jenner was seen driving in a convertible wearing a pro-Trump hat. After noting that Jenner criticized the announced transgender ban, she added:

She's out here, you know, in her little hat, flaunting her residual white male privilege. It's obvious that the 65 years that she spent as a rich, white man is trumping -- no pun intended, or all pun intended -- the two or three years that she's spent as a transgender woman because that residual privilege is influencing her obvious support of Trump and his -- I have to say, you know  -- homophobic agendas.

A bit later, Melber played a clip of Miller and Acosta with Miller deriding the CNN correspondent for having a "cosmopolitan" view:

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: And it shows your cosmopolitan bias, and I just want to say --

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: It sounds like you're trying to engineer a racial and ethnic flow of people into the country through his policies.

MILLER: That is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you've ever said --

After Melber took his shots at Miller, Walsh alluded to the word "cosmopolitan" having an "anti-Semitic" history, but then surprisingly dismissed the possibility of the White House advisor having meant it as such:

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

JOAN WALSH, THE NATION: And then I heard he got high fives back, you know, back behind the scenes, that people did think it went well -- that the extreme ideologues. "Cosmopolitan" is an insult with very old roots. It can often be anti-Semitic -- I think he's Jewish, so I don't think he's doing that.

MELBER: Yeah, I don't think he meant it that way.

But, as she continued, Walsh still suggested racism by Miller in the exchange: "But it's sort of exotic -- it's sort of just elite -- exotic elites, and it's just a complete nationalist -- white nationalist dog whistle."

Host Melber agreed: "Well, yeah, and he was there to brief on immigration policy, and ended up attacking people in personal language, which was just not a policy presentation."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, August 4, The Beat with Ari Melber:

AMY DUBOIS BARNETT, EBONY MAGAZINE FORMER EDITOR IN CHIEF: My pick for "Fall Back" this week is Caitlyn Jenner, who was seen in Los Angeles this week touring around in a flashy, vintage convertible wearing one of those red, you know, "Make America Great" hats a week after Trump's plan to ban all transgender people from the military. 

And, granted, Caitlyn did come out last week against the ban, and she talked about, you know, the fact that it was discriminatory, etc., but, clearly, clearly, she's a staunch Republican, and clearly she wants to make that known. She's out here, you know, in her little hat, flaunting her residual white male privilege. 

It's obvious that the 65 years that she spent as a rich, white man is trumping -- no pun intended, or all pun intended -- the two or three years that she's spent as a transgender woman because that residual privilege is influencing her obvious support of Trump and his -- I have to say, you know  -- homophobic agendas.

CHUCK NICE, COMEDIAN I, you know, when I, I just became aware of that right when you put that up.

ARI MELBER: You learn things watching The Beat.

NICE: You do learn things watching The Beat. And I just want to say, if only I could get my family to be as faithful to me as Trump supporters are to him.

(...)

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: And it shows your cosmopolitan bias, and I just want to say --

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: It sounds like you're trying to engineer a racial and ethnic flow of people into the country through his policies.

MILLER: That is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you've ever said --

MELBER: Stephen Miller, Joan Walsh, is back. I think he needs to fall back. And it was interesting -- the tell I noticed was at the end of that, there were a couple of exchanges like that, and, at the end, he did that thing you do at the end of, like, a really rough wedding toast where, like, you lose so bad that to not acknowledge it would be worse. So he looks at Sarah Huckabee Sanders and he's like, "Well, this wasn't as planned! Ha, ha, ha, I work at the White House! Bye!" 

JOAN WALSH, THE NATION: And then I heard he got high fives back, you know, back behind the scenes, that people did think it went well -- that the extreme ideologues. "Cosmopolitan" is an insult with very old roots. It can often be anti-Semitic -- I think he's Jewish, so I don't think he's doing that.

MELBER: Yeah, I don't think he meant it that way.

WALSH: But it's sort of exotic -- it's sort of just elite -- exotic elites, and it's just a complete nationalist -- white nationalist dog whistle.

MELBER: Well, yeah, and he was there to brief on immigration policy, and ended up attacking people in personal language, which was just not a policy presentation.

MSNBC Panel: 'Shameful' Sessions Putting Too Many Criminals in Prison

When you hear the words "mass incarceration," you know you're about to see a group of liberals complaining that there are too many criminals in prison, and that more should be released back into society. Such was the case on Thursday's MSNBC Live as host Ali Velshi presided over and voiced agreement with an all-liberal panel with Roland Martin of News One Now and Glenn Martin of Just Leadership USA.

The MSNBC host recalled the recent appointment of a new director of prisons, and then got into reciting prison statistics as he set up the segment:

Let's take a closer look at the job he's going to be facing -- mass incarceration in the United States. In the United States, the U.S. population -- the U.S. makes up five percent of the world's population, but accounts for -- look at this -- 25 percent of the world's prisoners. There are currently 2.3 million Americans behind bars and another 5.6 million under some form of correctional supervision. 

Without noting that, in a nation of 330 million residents, 2.3 million prisoners is substantially less than one percent of the population, he then turned to recounting statistics on the race of prison inmates:

Now, it's not evenly distributed. African-Americans and Hispanics make up about 32 percent of the U.S. population -- much more likely to be imprisoned than their white counterparts. They comprise 56 percent of all incarcerated people in the United States.

Velshi did not mention that crime statistics for decades have shown disproportionately higher crime rates by minorities.

He also did not inform viewers that, since the early 1990s when the prison population was less than half what it is now, there were about 25,000 homicides per years but, after incarceration rates were increased in the 1990s, violent crime plummeted with homicides dropping to around 15,000 a year.

After noting that people in prison have a higher rate of mental illnesses, he went on to compare spending on prisons to spending on food stamps, as if the spending on prisons were unreasonably high.

He then brought aboard both of his guests, and bemoaned that, in the U.S., "we've got way more people as a proportion of our population in jail than any other developed country."

Glenn Martin griped about the Trump administration as he praised the Obama administration for "making clear strides to reduce our prison population," as if releasing criminals back into society were a good thing.

When it was Roland Martin's turn to speak, he derided Attorney General Sessions as a "reclic" and as being "shameful" for wanting to imprison more criminals:

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

Jeff Sessions is a relic to a day that should be buried in American history. All he thinks about is locking folks up. We know that has not been successful. And I would hope that folks like Ralph Reed will bring along his evangelical white Christians to stand against Jeff Sessions. I would hope Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers -- individuals who have talked about criminal justice reform -- will stand up to Jeff Sessions, will stand up to Donald Trump and say this is not the pathway. 

Roland Martin -- who recently complained that O.J. Simpson had been given too long a sentence -- suggested that he supports imprisoning people who have been "heinous" or "very violent" as the recurring MSNBC guest continued:

Look, there are people who are black and who are Hispanic who will say that people who are heinous or who are very violent should be locked up, but, in this country, we are imprisoning people because they can't pay their bail. We're imprisoning people because of low-level crimes. It makes no sense whatsoever, is shameful for what he is doing in the Department of Justice.

Velshi then began complaining about privately run prisons, calling it a "perverse incentive" as he turned to Glenn Martin and posed:

Glenn, we have another issue, and that is the use of private prisons. As an economics guy, there is nothing with a more perverse incentive than private prisons -- right -- because the idea that if you run a prison and your profitability comes from there being more prisoners, is the opposite of what society wants. Society wants fewer prisoners. For-profit prisons want more prisoners.

After Glenn Martin had finished making his own gripes about private prisons, Roland Martin made chimed in, earning agreement from host Velshi:

ROLAND MARTIN: But, Ali, it gets worse than that because, first and foremost, we saw the stock prices of these companies rise dramatically after the election of President Trump. But here's the other issue when it comes to these private prisons. We have been using prisons as an economic indicator driving jobs. You talk about what is sadistic, you literally have had communities competing for prisons --

VELSHI: Yeah.

ROLAND MARTIN: -- because they're saying, "Hey, we need the jobs."

VELSHI: Yeah.

ROLAND MARTIN: Well, here's the problem. You build a prison, you need more inmates because they say, "Well, if we don't have the inmates, we have to shut down. That's crazy. 

As Velshi again agreed, he concluded the segment by recalling polling showing a drop in the percentage of Americans who want to be tougher on criminals -- going from 65 percent to 45 percent between 2003 and 2016. Velshi:

Yeah, absolutely right. I'm going to leave you guys with poll -- Gallup poll comparing 2016 opinions to 2003. In 2003, 65 percent of Americans thought the Justice Department should be tougher on crime. In 2016, that has dropped to 45 percent.

Not mentioned by Mr. Velshi is that the same poll from October 2016 found that only 14 percent believed that he U.S. is "too tough" on criminals while 35 percent believed it was "about right." But those facts would have undermined the cozy liberal discussion about America allegedly doing too much to fight crime.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portions of the Thursday, August 3, MSNBC Live with Ali Velshi:

3:39 p.m. ET

ALI VELSHI: Let's take a closer look at the job he's going to be facing -- mass incarceration in the United States. In the United States, the U.S. population -- the U.S. makes up five percent of the world's population, but accounts for -- look at this -- 25 percent of the world's prisoners. There are currently 2.3 million Americans behind bars and another 5.6 million under some form of correctional supervision. Now, it's not evenly distributed. African-Americans and Hispanics make up about 32 percent of the U.S. population -- much more likely to be imprisoned than their white counterparts. They comprise 56 percent of all incarcerated people in the United States.

Now, it's not just that. People with mental illness are one of the most likely demographics in the country to become imprisoned -- 15 percent of men and 30 percent of women booked into a jail suffer from a serious mental health condition. All of this imprisonment is costly. Estimates put the cost of our prison system at $80 billion a year. For comparison, the government spends about $71 billion a year on SNAP or food stamps.

(...)

The reason I wanted to make that point about the statistics is that our problem in our U.S. prisons is not law and order, we don't have a ton of prison breaks ... mental health is actually a massive problem in our prisons. The idea that people go to prison, go to jail, come out, can't get employed and get back into jail, we've got way more people as a proportion of our population in jail than any other developed country.

GLENN MARTIN: You know, President Trump during the campaign said to black folks in America, "What do you have to lose?" Well, this is the answer to that question. What we have to lose is an entire generation of young -- particularly young people of color, folks who have mental health issues, folks who have addiction issues to mass incarceration. If you look at the previous administration, we were making clear strides -- bipartisan strides --
VELSHI: Right.

GLENN MARTIN: -- to reduce our prison population.

VELSHI: Those strides were in terms of dealing with sentencing, not dealing with disproportionate sentences --

GLENN MARTIN: Getting rid of mandatory minimums, investing in reentry programs. I mean, Congress, in the last decade, has invested in the Second Chance Act, which is the idea that when people are coming out of prison, if we want them to land safely and stay out of trouble, we need to help them -- give them jobs, give them housing, education and so on.

VELSHI: All right, Brother Roland Martin, this is actually part of a larger thing that the Trump administration is doing and the Attorney General is doing, telling police, telling attorneys general in states and law enforcement to come down harder, to find the toughest sentence that you can find under law. It may be related to what President Trump said the other day in Suffolk County talking about not being so nice to suspects. There's a law and order nest that has come back into our dialogue.

ROLAND MARTIN: Jeff Sessions is a relic to a day that should be buried in American history. All he thinks about is locking folks up. We know that has not been successful. And I would hope that folks like Ralph Reed will bring along his evangelical white Christians to stand against Jeff Sessions. I would hope Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers -- individuals who have talked about criminal justice reform -- will stand up to Jeff Sessions, will stand up to Donald Trump and say this is not the pathway. Look, there are people who are black and who are Hispanic who will say that people who are heinous or who are very violent should be locked up, but, in this country, we are imprisoning people because they can't pay their bail. We're imprisoning people because of low-level crimes. It makes no sense whatsoever, is shameful for what he is doing in the Department of Justice.

VELSHI: Glenn, we have another issue, and that is the use of private prisons. As an economics guy, there is nothing with a more perverse incentive than private prisons -- right -- because the idea that if you run a prison and your profitability comes from there being more prisoners, is the opposite of what society wants. Society wants fewer prisoners. For-profit prisons want more prisoners.

GLENN MARTIN: You know, we have a President who ran for office saying he was a business person. Well, if you're a business person, the inspector general put out a report just a year and a half ago showing clearly, not only are we spending too much much money for private prisons, but they don't work. Essentially, people don't get access to rehabilitation, we're spending too much money, they're too violent, the staff there are underpaid in the pursuit of profits, everything about them. Everything about them don't work, and yet here we are doubling down on private prisons as a response to Trump's tough on crime policies.

ROLAND MARTIN: But, Ali, it gets worse than that because, first and foremost, we saw the stock prices of these companies rise dramatically after the election of President Trump. But here's the other issue when it comes to these private prisons. We have been using prisons as an economic indicator driving jobs. You talk about what is sadistic, you literally have had communities competing for prisons --

VELSHI: Yeah.

ROLAND MARTIN: -- because they're saying, "Hey, we need the jobs."

VELSHI: Yeah.

ROLAND MARTIN: Well, here's the problem. You build a prison, you need more inmates because they say, "Well, if we don't have the inmates, we have to shut down. That's crazy. 

VELSHI: Yeah, absolutely right. I'm going to leave you guys with poll -- Gallup poll comparing 2016 opinions to 2003. In 2003, 65 percent of Americans thought the Justice Department should be tougher on crime. In 2016, that has dropped to 45 percent.

MSNBC's Brian Williams Asks If Trump Is 'Lame-Duck President'

President Donald Trump has only been in office six months, and MSNBC host Brian Williams is already asking if he is a "lame-duck President." On Wednesday's The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, during a discussion about the latest news on President Trump with presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Jon Meacham, Williams turned to Meacham and posed: "Jon, if you put it all together, legislative failures, being forced to sign the Russia sanctions veto-proof vote in Congress, and where his polling is, is this a lame-duck President?"

Meacham -- a former Newsweek editor and a recurring MSNBC guest -- recalled polling that has Democrats up for elections that are still more than a year away, and then invoked a quote from FDR as he complained that Americans are not getting the truth "straight from the shoulder" "from the White House."

Williams then undermined his previous question a bit by following up: "And, Michael, a last word. Are we every day forgetting what we often don't like to remember -- and that is how an emergency and an exigency can change a presidency, the conversation in our country in an instant?"

Fretting over White House spokesman Stephen Miller, Beschloss responded:

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

That's exactly right -- for better and for worse. And the scary part of this is that -- I hate to bring this back to Stephen Miller -- that's the same guy who went on all those Sunday shows in February and said the powers of the President are very considerable in national security and will not be questioned. That's not exactly something that fills us with hope.

A bit earlier, as the group discussed Miller's defense of President Trump's new immigration policy to CNN's Jim Acosta, Beschloss likened the poem on the Statute of Liberty to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, as if the poem were as significant as the law of the land. Williams posed: "Michael, when has truth been doubted before the way it's been doubted under this administration by enormous segments of this society?"

Beschloss began his response:

I think never in the history of the presidency. I think we're pretty fair to say that. And even what we saw with Mr. Miller was an example of that. You know, his saying the poem doesn't count because it was put on later, you know, it's sort of like, "The Bill of Rights, it was ratified four years after the Constitution, so the Bill of Rights isn't very important either." You know, we're in a world, and that's probably the least of it. You know, one of the biggest weapons of the presidency has always been the fact that Americans believe in what a President says, and the same thing is true around the world.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portions of the Wednesday, August 2, The 11th Hour with Brian Williams:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Michael, when has truth been doubted before the way it's been doubted under this administration by enormous segments of this society?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I think never in the history of the presidency. I think we're pretty fair to say that. And even what we saw with Mr. Miller was an example of that. You know, his saying the poem doesn't count because it was put on later, you know, it's sort of like, "The Bill of Rights, it was ratified four years after the Constitution, so the Bill of Rights isn't very important either." You know, we're in a world, and that's probably the least of it. You know, one of the biggest weapons of the presidency has always been the fact that Americans believe in what a President says, and the same thing is true around the world. 

That's what Dwight Eisenhower said. He said, "That's why it is so important that everything I say in public and in private has to be the literal truth." In 1962, for instance, in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Kennedy sent an envoy, Dean Acheson, over to see Charles de Gaulle, the president of France, you know, with pictures to demonstrate that Khrushchev had indeed slipped secret missiles into Cuba. And de Gaulle said to Acheson, "I don't need to see the pictures -- I trust the President of the United States." I wonder if a French leader would -- or another leader would have the same reaction tonight.

WILLIAMS: Jon, if you put it all together, legislative failures, being forced to sign the Russia sanctions veto-proof vote in Congress, and where his polling is, is this a lame-duck President?

JON MEACHAM: Well, as you said a moment ago, time has become so compressed. You know, the Democrats are leading on the generic ballot on the House race, and that's a moment where lawmakers always get nervous. The approval rating is falling. I think, to go to Michael's point, the great question here is: To what extent are facts going to topple the Trump myth? Which is the relationship he has with, you know, roughly a third -- maybe a little bit more than that -- of the country -- that believes -- still believes that he is the vessel of the change they need.

And, you know, I think we're in this odd post-truth era. I'll take Eisenhower from Michael and raise you an FDR who said on Washington's birthday in '42 just as the war was really beginning for America, that "the news is going to get worse and worse before it gets better and better, and the American people deserve to have it straight from the shoulder." The American people deserve to have it straight from the shoulder, and we are not getting that in any measure from this White House.

WILLIAMS: And, Michael, a last word. Are we every day forgetting what we often don't like to remember -- and that is how an emergency and an exigency can change a presidency, the conversation in our country in an instant?

BESCHLOSS: That's exactly right -- for better and for worse. And the scary part of this is that -- I hate to bring this back to Stephen Miller -- that's the same guy who went on all those Sunday shows in February and said the powers of the President are very considerable in national security and will not be questioned. That's not exactly something that fills us with hope.

WILLIAMS: Gentlemen, I can't thank you enough -- let's do this again. Michael Beschloss, Jon Meacham, terrific conversation tonight. Thank you both very much.

MSNBC's Stengel Claims 'Epidemic' of 'Excessive Police Violence, Targeted Racism'

On Tuesday's Deadline: White House, MSNBC contributor Rick Stengel claimed that there has been an "epidemic" of "excessive police violence" and "targeted racism" from the last few years during a discussion of President Donald Trump's recent comments joking about treating criminals roughly.

But it is far from clear that there has actually been an increase in police violence compared to previous years as Politifact argued in 2014 that statistics on police violence had been too incomplete to draw definitive conclusions on a direction of change.

On Tuesday's show, after the ACU's Matt Schlapp declared that Trump "wasn't advocating for police brutality," Stengel -- who used to be a Time magazine editor and later an Obama administration State Department official -- made his claims of "excessive" violence and racism:

No, but he has to represent his constituency. I mean, he, it's just -- that's too cynical, it seems to me. In fact, the problem with the whole -- his remarks is we've come through a period of a couple of years where there's an epidemic of excessive police violence. I mean, we've been reckoning with that all across the country -- excessive police violence, targeted racism, all of these things. So that's the context for all of this.

After Schlapp injected, "And a lot of cops got shot, too. Let's be honest," Stengel added:

Yeah, and -- absolutely. And a President can say, you know, "I've seen all of that, and I condemn all of that, but maybe we've gone too far in the opposite direction and we actually need to be a little more strict about this." That's the way to say it as opposed to just saying, like, "Bang some heads, and, you know, have no restraint." I mean, that's the problem. The problem is the context. He doesn't have history. He's going back to some earlier mindset. I don't, I mean, I think we're not actually in that much disagreement about it.

CNN Guests Bash Transgender Ban, Shld Spend $50 Mill on Sex Changes

On Saturday's CNN Newsroom, two segments ran which both pushed from the left against President Donald Trump's announced ban on transgenders serving in the military. The first segment gave a sympathetic forum to a transgender activist and former US Navy SEAL who ended up absurdly suggesting that the military should sextuple spending on sex change treatment from $8 million to $50 million a year.

And a later segment featured two right-leaning guests who nevertheless both bashed the move from the left by using pointed words like "narrow-minded," "ignorant," and "dumb"; and by predicting that it would be "disruptive," "offensive," and "damaging" for the military.

At 3:30 p.m. ET, host Ana Cabrera teased the upcoming segment before a commercial break, touting a former Navy SEAL who is "standing up to" President Trump. Cabrera:

Coming up here in the Newsroom, one transgender Navy SEAL is standing up to President Trump after his tweets calling for a ban on transgender soldiers in the military. She'll tell us why she thinks the President has now turned his back on a lot of veterans.

After the break, Cabrera introduced retired SEAL Kristin Beck, and gave him a mostly unchallenged forum to complain about the ban. The segment ended with the CNN host asking Beck if he would be willing to "compromise" on the issue of how much the Pentagon spends on transgender medical issues. Beck went over the top as he responded:

Yes, I would compromise. And my compromise would be: Give us the same amount of money you give in those little Viagra pills. So if you're spending $50 million a year on Viagra, then how about doing $50 million per year budgeted toward transgender surgeries or transgender care?

Beck's $50 million number was a reference to reports that the military spends $41.6 million a year on Viagra, $22.8 million on Cialis, and $8.4 million on sex change treatments.

It did not seem to occur to ether Cabrera or her guest that the amount spent on erectile dysfunction treatment may be more economically spread out over many more servicemen as opposed to sex treatments for transgenders who only make up less than 0.5 percent of service members.

Cabrera gave no pushback as she merely wrapped up: "Kristin Beck, thank you so much for your time and your thoughts."

A few hours later, Cabrera hosted a segment with right-leaning guests Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, and Kurt Bardella -- former editor for Breitbart News. After spending the first parts of the discussion by covering conservative media reaction to President Trump flirting with firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, along with the other staff changes at the White House, Cabrera got to the issue of the transgender ban. The CNN host began by playing an audio clip of Trump aide Sebastian Gorka, who had spoken with the BBC on the matter:

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

The military is not a microcosm of civilian society. They are not there to reflect America. They are there to kill people and blow stuff up. They are not there to be socially engineered. We want people who are transgender to live happy lives. But we want unit cohesion, and we want combat effectiveness, and that is why the President is doing this out of the warmth of his consideration for this population.

Turning to Bardella, Cabrera posed: "Kurt, apparently it caught military leaders off guard, including his Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is this transgender ban simply a play to his base?"

After answering in the affirmative, and recalling that Trump spends more on visits to Mar-a-Lago than the military spends on sex change treatments, Bardella then tossed in several negative adjectives to deride Gorka's right-leaning defense of the ban:

This is social policy by tweet, and, you know, and Gorkas's comments, they're just narrow-minded, ignorant, and dumb frankly. And it just shows that, again, there's just a lack of sophistication, awareness of the military structure. 

When it was Rubin's turn to speak, she, too, hit from the left in spite of being a right-leaning columnist:

And so what he's suggesting would be more disruptive, more offensive, more damaging to military morale than anything that LGBTQ members of the military are doing as they honorably serve in places of danger all around the world.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Saturday, July 29, CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera:

3:30 p.m. ET

ANA CABRERA: Coming up here in the Newsroom, one transgender Navy SEAL is standing up to President Trump after his tweets calling for a ban on transgender soldiers in the military. She'll tell us why she thinks the President has now turned his back on a lot of veterans. You're live in the CNN Newsroom.

(...)

Right now, President Trump's transgender military ban is triggering pushback in his own backyard. Protesters are gathering outside the White House today speaking out against the ban. When Trump's surprise announcement came Wednesday on Twitter, a lot of people in the LGBT community turned to a retired U.S. Navy SEAL for reaction -- a 20-year combat veteran once part of the elite Seal Team Six served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa; awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. 

I'm talking about Kristin Beck, the first ex-SEAL to live openly as a woman. She threw down a challenge to President Trump. Quote, "Let's meet face to face, and you tell me I'm not worthy." Kristin, thanks for being with us. Have you received any response from the Trump White House? Has anybody called up, sent an email. reached out in any way?

[KRISTIN BECK, FORMER US NAVY SEAL]

Absolutely. Yesterday, there wasn't a direct response to you, but one of the President's top aides was speaking out -- said President Trump's ban shows his warmth for transgender people. Let's listen to what Sebastian Gorka told the BBC.

SEBASTIAN GORKA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, IN AUDIO FROM BBC RADIO: The military is not a microcosm of civilian society. They are not there to reflect America. They are there to kill people and blow stuff up. They are not there to be socially engineered. We want people who are transgender to live happy lives. But we want unit cohesion, and we want combat effectiveness, and that is why the President is doing this out of the warmth of his consideration for this population.

CABRERA: Kristin, what's your reaction to that?

[BECK]

I want to ask you about what you're hearing from some of your friends serving currently in the military. I know there's a study commissioned by the Department of Defense last year that says that, when it looks at the number of transgender people in the military, there could be as many as 6,600 service members currently, some serving in war zones right now. What are you hearing from them?

[BECK]

When the news first broke of this ban, I know you said the President had no idea what kind of can of worms he just opened, and the LGBT community will organize, will respond, you said. Realistically, what can the LGBT community do about this proposed ban? How do you plan to fight it?

[BECK]

CABRERA: Would you be open to compromise when it comes to the finances that the President and others in Congress have pushed back regarding transgender surgeries or other treatments related to transitioning?

KRISTIN BECK, FORMER US NAVY SEAL: Yes, I would compromise. And my compromise would be: Give us the same amount of money you give in those little Viagra pills. So if you're spending $50 million a year on Viagra, then how about doing $50 million per year budgeted toward transgender surgeries or transgender care?

CABRERA: Kristin Beck, thank you so much for your time and your thoughts.

(...)

7:31 p.m. ET

ANA CABRERA: So, in between attacking Jeff Sessions and then getting rid of Reince Priebus and appointing John Kelly, Trump turned to Twitter to unveil a new ban on transgender military service, and top White House aide Sebastian Gorka had this to say. Let's watch.

SEBASTIAN GORKA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, IN AUDIO FROM BBC RADIO: The military is not a microcosm of civilian society. They are not there to reflect America. They are there to kill people and blow stuff up. They are not there to be socially engineered. We want people who are transgender to live happy lives. But we want unit cohesion, and we want combat effectiveness, and that is why the President is doing this out of the warmth of his consideration for this population.

CABRERA: Kurt, apparently it caught military leaders off guard, including his Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is this transgender ban simply a play to his base?

KURT BARDELLA, FORMER BREITBART EDITOR: Yes. This has nothing to do with military cohesion. This has nothing to do with the cost of having the health care for transgender service members -- of which, by the way, going to Mar-a-Lago every week costs more than it would for the cost of transgender service members. This is all about Trump trying to throw something to the base. There is no plan to actually implement this. There's no directive to DOD -- there's no guidance of how this would actually happen. The Joint Chiefs had no idea this was going to happen. 

This is social policy by tweet, and, you know, and Gorkas's comments, they're just narrow-minded, ignorant, and dumb frankly. And it just shows that, again, there's just a lack of sophistication, awareness of the military structure. And that they are willing and liable to say and do anything to try to change the story at any point if they think it benefits them. They think that it's better for them if the Democrat apparatus and liberals get all up in arms about LGBTQ issues, and it takes away from them focusing on some of the other things that are happening. Which, at that point in time, we are, what, in the middle of a health care debate.

CABRERA: And, yet, Jennifer, we did see Republican lawmakers pushing back about this issue as well, about this ban that the President threw out there.

JENNIFER RUBIN, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: They really did, and this was a complete miscalculation on the President's part. They did, and some people with some military credentials -- like John McCain and Joni Ernst -- who also has served honorably for our nation's security -- really spoke out very harshly. And Mr. Gorka is a show boater, and he really has no credentials to be in the White House whatsoever. 

In fact, the military people are in the process of studying this. They will make a decision. And no one, including the Joint Chiefs, are talking about kicking people who are already in the military, already serving honorably, out. And so what he's suggesting would be more disruptive, more offensive, more damaging to military morale than anything that LGBTQ members of the military are doing as they honorably serve in places of danger all around the world.

CABRERA: Jennifer Rubin, Kurt Bardella, thank you both for your thoughts tonight.

Sharpton Glosses Over His Use of 'Ethnic Slurs,' Claims He 'Corrected Them'

On Sunday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, host Al Sharpton slammed President Donald Trump for recently using the word "paddy wagon," calling it an "anti-Irish ethnic slur." He then went on to absolve himself of his own long history of using ethnic slurs by vaguely admitting to doing so in the past, but by lumping himself in with everyone else as "we," as he claimed he already "corrected" his offensive comments. Sharpton: "It's against decency to use ethnic slurs. We've all used them, and we've all corrected them."

But, as recently as three years ago, Sharpton was caught on tape actually defending his infamous use of the word "white interloper" to refer to a Jewish business owner in the 1990s.

On Sunday's show, Sharpton devoted a short segment to President Trump's recent speech before a group of police officers in which the President made jokes about being rough to criminals. A clip of the President was shown:

When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in. Rough. I said, "Please don't be too nice." Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over them, like, don't hit their head -- and they've just killed somebody -- don't hit their head. I said, "You can take the hand away, okay?"

The MSNBC host then responded:

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

So when we go from Rodney King being beat by police to all the way to Freddie Gray, who was killed by police in a rough ride in Baltimore, some of the studies show, "Don't be too nice"? "Be rough"?  And, oh, by the way, President Trump, "paddy wagon"? An ethnic slur. "Paddy wagon"? An anti-Irish ethnic slur. So let me get this right -- you're not sitting up in Trump Tower arguing with me in the office anymore. You're in the White House making ethnic slurs in jest to police to be more rough, violate more of people's human civil rights? Violating the law -- it's against the law, Mr. President.

Sharpton then added:

It's against the law for police to mishandle people that they're arresting. It's against the law to go beyond the presumption of innocence, and it's against decency to use ethnic slurs. We've all used them, and we've all corrected them. I thought as President you would at least know better than to repeat them.

As recalled by The Daily Daily Surge, it is far from clear that Sharpton has done anything to "correct" his past use of racial slurs since he actually defended his use of a racial slur in an encounter from three years ago.

MSNBC's Johnson: 'Black Guy' Obama Was Elected Because 'Bush Was So Bad'

Appearing as a panel member on Saturday's AM Joy, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson -- known for his many race-obsessed comments and his column at The Root -- fretted that, allegedly unlike white men, California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris would face questions about her "competency" if she runs for President in 2020.

After remarking that "When you're a white guy, competency is not usually the issue," Johnson minutes later contradicted himself by declaring that, in 2008, President George W. Bush was "so bad" that "People were like, 'We'll give it to a black guy now.' I mean, literally, that's how bad things got."

Near the end of the show, after host Joy Reid asked if being a woman would make it more difficult for Harris, Johnson went right to suggesting that she would face racism as an obstacle:

She is a woman, she is a woman of color, she is a woman in an interracial relationship, she's a woman from California. All of these things are going to work against her is she were to become a national candidate. And in addition to the fact that there will be comparisons -- non-positive comparisons to Obama -- which is, "Here we go with someone else who has only been in the Senate for 15 minutes."

After Reid injected that "Donald Trump is President of the United States," Johnson then claimed that "competency" is not a issue if "you're a white guy" as he continued:

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

 

When you're a white guy, competency is not usually the issue -- let's just be candid -- with certain kinds of voters. But this is the problem because, if we were in a fair, open America, of course she would be considered a great candidate. If she were a white male, of course people would be saying she's the next Kennedy. But, unfortunately, we have seen with the turn of the worm over our last election system that this kind of person, it may be a while before Kamala Harris or anyone else like that can really challenge the national stage.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle and 2000 presidential candidate George W. Bush -- pummeled with the "gravitas" issue against Vice President Al Gore -- might disagree with Mr. Johnson on that analysis.

But, moments later, Johnson himself brought up George W. Bush as he claimed that "black guy" Obama was only elected because Bush "was so bad." After Reid wondered how long it would be before a woman would be elected President, Johnson predicted:

A lot of it has to do with how bad this administration goes because I think in large part, you know, Obama got elected because Bush was so bad. People were like, "We'll give it to a black guy now." I mean, literally, that's how bad things got.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Saturday, July 28, AM Joy on MSNBC:

11:52 a.m. ET

JOY REID: Does Erika (Alexander) have a point that just being a woman sort of puts you almost in this country maybe out of (inaudible)?

JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: She is a woman, she is a woman of color, she is a woman in an interracial relationship, she's a woman from California. All of these things are going to work against her is she were to become a national candidate. And in addition to the fact that there will be comparisons -- non-positive comparisons to Obama -- which is, "Here we go with someone else who has only been in the Senate for 15 minutes."

REID: Donald Trump is President of the United States.

JOHNSON: Exactly. ... (inaudible) ... When you're a white guy, competency is not usually the issue -- let's just be candid -- with certain kinds of voters. But this is the problem because, if we were in a fair, open America, of course she would be considered a great candidate.

If she were a white male, of course people would be saying she's the next Kennedy. But, unfortunately, we have seen with the turn of the worm over our last election system that this kind of person, it may be a while before Kamala Harris or anyone else like that can really challenge the national stage.

(...)

REID: It does seem to me that it was easier to elect a black man, in a sense, than it was to elect any woman.

JOHNSON: Right.

REID: So what are we talking about? Are we going to be the last Western country on Earth to get -- what are we talking about? Ten years, twenty years? When is this country going to be ready?

JOHNSON: A lot of it has to do with how bad this administration goes because I think in large part, you know, Obama got elected because Bush was so bad. People were like, "We'll give it to a black guy now." I mean, literally, that's how bad things got.

Camerota Tries to Debate GOPer on Transgender Ban Even As He Agrees w Her

On Friday's New Day, CNN host Alisyn Camerota oddly tried to argue from the left with Republican Rep. Scott Taylor over President Donald Trump's newly announced transgender ban in the military, even though the Virginia Republican clearly stated that he does not agree with the move.

At one point, he even had to admonish the CNN host by responding, "Don't put words in my mouth like that, please. As I said before, I don't support the ban on transgender."

Camerota, similar to her other CNN colleagues, has a history of coming down on the liberal side of gay and transgender issues on the news network's morning show. Just last February, she pressed from the left in a segment that already had two liberal guests who were bullying one conservative guest over the transgender bathroom issue.

On Friday's show, the CNN host had Rep. Taylor on as a guest for almost six minutes, and, after beginning with one question about the health care debate and two about internal feuding within the Trump White House, she spent more than two-thirds of her time with Taylor trying to debate him over the transgender issue when he already mostly agreed with a liberal view anyway.

After Taylor, in his first answer about the ban, declared that he believes transgenders should generally be allowed to serve in the military, although he was opposed to having transgenders take time off from service to have surgeries, Camerota followed up: "Of course, but why are you assuming that a transgender soldier has a medical ailment, I mean, is not ready to serve?"

The Republican congressman corrected her and repeated his views against the ban as he responded:

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

All right, don't -- don't put words in my mouth like that, please. As I said before, I don't support the ban on transgender. If they are ready to go, if you sign up for enlistment, if you sign up for enlistment for three to four years or whatever it is, but you come in -- no matter who you are and whatever it is -- and you decide that you want to be able to have surgery that puts you out of commission for up to a year and potentially preclude you from serving in some places where you're supposed to do, that's not fair. 

Taylor added:

That is not fair to the soldiers that are on your left or right. That is unacceptable to me. Now, that has nothing to do with the ban. Now, that's a different thing, and I wouldn't use the words, you know, it's medical costs. But it's disruption, yes. You have to have equality in standard, and you have to have discipline to have a fighting force. So that's something that I don't support, but I don't support the ban either. If folks are ready to go, come serve.

Camerota followed up: "So what does that have to do with the 4,000 transgender soldiers that are in the military?"

Taylor then reiterated:

Well, from what I understand, as I said, I didn't agree with how that was rolled out of course in a tweet, and I did hear that, you know, that General Dunford said that they won't be affected. And, good, they shouldn't be affected in that way because obviously there's heroic, honorable service happening right now by folks who are transgender in the service right now. So I hope that that continues, that they won't have to have disruption.

After the Republican congressman had stated for the third time that he disagrees with the transgender ban as stated in Trump's tweet, Camerota then shifted to trying to get him to further criticize the President over the policy as the two went back and forth:

CAMEROTA: Why do you think, on a very busy week, with health care in the fore, that the President would send out these tweets and focus on transgender soldiers?

TAYLOR: Again, I can't answer that question. You're going to have to ask the White House. I have no idea, you know. But I've told you my position on it.

CAMEROTA: And have you told the President or have you told the White House your thoughts as a veteran?

TAYLOR: Well, I'm saying that here publicly on national live interview with you, and we certainly put out a statement right away.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, July 28, New Day on CNN:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: That was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moments after a very dramatic vote on Capitol Hill. It happened early this morning, and there was a stunning "no" vote from Senator John McCain, sinking the GOP's effort to repeal Obamacare. What's next? Joining us now is Republican Congressman Scott Taylor of Virginia to talk about this and much more. ... I don't know what time you went to sleep, but what was your reaction when you saw John McCain get up and give that very dramatic thumbs down?

[REP. SCOTT TAYLOR (R-VA)]

CAMEROTA: Do you think that the turmoil in the White House that has been so colorfully outlined in places like The New Yorker, yesterday here, the new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, kind of laying it out. Do you think that that has been getting in the way of successful legislation and the President's agenda?

[TAYLOR]

Look, I mean, if the chief of staff, Reince Priebus, is locked in a battle royale with the communications director, how can he be doing his job effectively?

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about something that did come out of the White House this week. You -- we should remind our viewers -- you were a Navy SEAL. You are an Iraq War veteran. What did you think when the President tweeted out that he wants to ban transgender soldiers from the military?

REP. SCOTT TAYLOR (R-VA): Honestly, we were very taken aback because obviously you should't be pushing policy out obviously via tweets. And from what I understand, of course, we went right in to try to find out information from DOD, and they didn't really have the information either, so -- personally, I don't support the ban. I think that if someone is medically, physically, psychologically ready to serve and they meet all the standards, they should be able to serve. Now, obviously, there's one question in there in terms of, you know, paying for surgeries. Well, if you need to have that elective surgery, then you're not physically, psychologically ready to serve, and there's a standard there in the military. And that's something that should be -- there should be equality of standard for sure, but, at the same time, if folks meet all the, you know, the, all the standards, then they should have the ability to serve the nation that we all love. So I was troubled by it, there's no question.

CAMEROTA: You know, the President, one of his rationales that he said in the tweet was that the military -- I'll just paraphrase it very quickly -- "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." Um, that is not supported by the facts. Any sorts of medical treatment are negligible compared --

TAYLOR: I do have to push back a little bit on that because, yes, that is true in terms of overall budget spending and stuff like that, but, again, the military is supposed to be a lethal, disciplined, fighting force. And if you're not ready to serve, you know, to come in and be ready to meet all those standards to serve, then you shouldn't come in. And that means, you know, if you have a medical ailment or anything, you know --

CAMEROTA: Of course, but why are you assuming that a transgender soldier has a medical ailment, I mean, is not ready to serve?

TAYLOR: All right, don't -- don't put words in my mouth like that, please. As I said before, I don't support the ban on transgender. If they are ready to go, if you sign up for enlistment, if you sign up for enlistment for three to four years or whatever it is, but you come in -- no matter who you are and whatever it is -- and you decide that you want to be able to have surgery that puts you out of commission for up to a year and potentially preclude you from serving in some places where you're supposed to do, that's not fair. That is not fair to the soldiers that are on your left or right. That is unacceptable to me. Now, that has nothing to do with the ban. Now, that's a different thing, and I wouldn't use the words, you know, it's medical costs. But it's disruption, yes. You have to have equality in standard, and you have to have discipline to have a fighting force.

CAMEROTA: Yeah, of course.

TAYLOR: So that's something that I don't support, but I don't support the ban either. If folks are ready to go, come serve.

CAMEROTA: So what does that have to do with the 4,000 transgender soldiers that are in the military?

TAYLOR: Well, from what I understand, as I said, I didn't agree with how that was rolled out of course in a tweet, and I did hear that, you know, that General Dunford said that they won't be affected. And, good, they shouldn't be affected in that way because obviously there's heroic, honorable service happening right now by folks who are transgender in the service right now. So I hope that that continues, that they won't have to have disruption.

CAMEROTA: So why is the President doing this?

TAYLOR: I can't answer that question, you know. You'll have to ask him.

CAMEROTA: Why do you think, on a very busy week, with health care in the fore, that the President would send out these tweets and focus on transgender soldiers?

TAYLOR: Again, I can't answer that question. You're going to have to ask the White House. I have no idea, you know. But I've told you my position on it.

CAMEROTA: And have you told the President or have you told the White House your thoughts as a veteran?

TAYLOR: Well, I'm saying that here publicly on national live interview with you, and we certainly put out a statement right away.

Lemon Frets 'Return to Dark Ages' for Transgenders, Stacks Panels w Liberals

On Wednesday's CNN Tonight, host Don Lemon declared that President Donald Trump's announced policy of barring transgenders from serving in the military would be a "return to the dark ages." He then proceeded to command over two panels on the subject in which each panel featured just one right-leaning guest to defend the policy up against two liberal guests plus host Lemon to advocate the liberal view.

In the first segment, the CNN host even made a point of linking his right-leaning guest to the Trump campaign without noting that his two liberal guests had links to President Barack Obama's tenure.

As Lemon introduced the first segment, he read from Trump's tweet on the subject which alluded to high medical costs for transgenders as a factor in barring them from military service. Lemon defiantly responded:

That's what the President says, so this is the truth. This is from a 2016 RAND Corporation study commissioned by the Defense Department, and it says, out of a 1.3 million-member force, the number of transgender people in the military is between 1,320 and 6,630. The study estimated that treatments for transgender treatment for gender transition could cost the military up to $8.4 million annually. Meanwhile, the military reportedly spends $41.6 million a year on Viagra and $22.8 million on Cialis.

As the money spent on Viagra and Cialis was likely spread out over a much greater number of individuals, Lemon did not make any mention of whether the money spent for transgenders per person was perhaps substantially greater. The CNN host then bemoaned:

So this is not about the cost of treatment -- it's about politics, appealing to the conservative base. The Twitter directive won't change who people are or who they were born to be. It's nothing but a return to the dark ages of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But hasn't America moved beyond that?

Lemon then introduced his three guests for the segment:

Here to discuss now, Lieutenant Commander Steven Rogers, who was a senior military intelligence officer with the Navy. He was a member of Trump's campaign committee. Also with me, CNN military and diplomatic analyst Rear Admiral John Kirby, and military analyst Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. ... General Hertling, the President treated this major policy change, apparently with little warning to the military, and you and Admiral Kirby wrote an op-ed tonight, and let me just read a bit of it, okay? 

Not mentioned was that Kirby served in the Obama administration State Department, and that Hertling also had links to President Obama. And, while Lemon gave his two more liberal guests an uninterrupted forum to make their case attacking the Trump plan, he debated the right-leaning Rogers when it was his turn to defend the decision.

After Lemon challenged Rogers on the issue of whether transgenders are a significant financial cost of the military, the two went further went back and forth:

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

ROGERS: We come from different parts of the country, and unfortunately -- and you know this -- there are people who still discriminate, who still call names, who still persecute...

LEMON: But that doesn't make it right. We shouldn't allow that to fester. Why are you allowing discrimination to fester just because someone else is uncomfortable with it? Someone else may be uncomfortable with my blackness in America, but that doesn't make me less of an American or less fit to serve in the military if I choose to do so.

ROGERS: He's talking about combat readiness. It's not discrimination. It's costing money, it's taking time ... (inaudible)

LEMON: But if a transgendered person is not up to the task, then they should not serve in the military. If they go through basic training and they cannot pass basic training, then they should not be allowed to serve in the military like everyone else. But the qualifications should not be on one's gender.

After a commercial break, Lemon set up another 2-1 segment that included Democratic strategist Keith Boykin, socially liberal Republican Margaret Hoover, and George W. Bush administration official Scott Jennings. The segment was soon interrupted by breaking news to focus on a tweet by incoming White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Wednesday, July 26, CNN Tonight.

DON LEMON: President Trump shocking his own military commanders today with a series of tweets barring transgender people from serving their country in the military. Quote:

"After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

That's what the President says, so this is the truth. This is from a 2016 RAND Corporation study commissioned by the Defense Department, and it says, out of a 1.3 million-member force, the number of transgender people in the military is between 1,320 and 6,630. The study estimated that treatments for transgender treatment for gender transition could cost the military up to $8.4 million annually. Meanwhile, the military reportedly spends $41.6 million a year on Viagra and $22.8 million on Cialis.

So this is not about the cost of treatment -- it's about politics, appealing to the conservative base. The Twitter directive won't change who people are or who they were born to be. It's nothing but a return to the dark ages of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But hasn't America moved beyond that?

Here to discuss now, Lieutenant Commander Steven Rogers, who was a senior military intelligence officer with the Navy. He was a member of Trump's campaign committee. Also with me, CNN military and diplomatic analyst Rear Admiral John Kirby, and military analyst Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. ... General Hertling, the President treated this major policy change, apparently with little warning to the military, and you and Admiral Kirby wrote an op-ed tonight, and let me just read a bit of it, okay? 

(...)

So, General Hertling why do you think the President decided to make such a change right out of the blue?

(...)

When I hear "social experiment" and I hear "cultural change," with all due respect, Commander, we heard that about diversity in the military, about desegregation, about the military being segregated. We heard that about gays and lesbians, we heard that about women in combat roles that it's a social experiment. It's not a social experiment -- this is America. And it has nothing to do with combat readiness. If a transgender person is not up to the task, they won't be accepted like anyone else.

(...)

Transgender people have been in the military since the military has existed, since the existence of this country. There are countries who have transgender people in their military, and they're not seeing any harmful effects of it. 

(...)

LEMON: As I said, when I introduced you, though, he said that it was because of the expenses of --

RETIRED LIEUTENANT COMMANDER STEVEN ROGERS, TRUMP CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: As well, yes.

LEMON: But that's not true.

ROGERS: Well, it is true, Don. Think about this. I talked to a transgender person just this morning, knowing that I was coming on here, and they talked about the costs, right? Well, there's going to be an impact on a lot of things. For example, there'll be some therapy. There'll be some after, you know, healing of the physical and the emotional wounds. Transgender people, they go through pretty much of a tough time, I think.

LEMON: But so do our men and women who are heterosexual who come back from war.

ROGERS: We come from different parts of the country, and unfortunately -- and you know this -- there are people who still discriminate, who still call names, who still persecute...

LEMON: But that doesn't make it right. We shouldn't allow that to fester. Why are you allowing discrimination to fester just because someone else is uncomfortable with it? Someone else may be uncomfortable with my blackness in America, but that doesn't make me less of an American or less fit to serve in the military if I choose to do so.

ROGERS: He's talking about combat readiness. It's not discrimination. It's costing money, it's taking time ... (inaudible)

LEMON: But if a transgendered person is not up to the task, then they should not serve in the military. If they go through basic training and they cannot pass basic training, then they should not be allowed to serve in the military like everyone else. But the qualifications should not be on one's gender.

MSNBC's Barro Ignores Poll Showing Support for Bathroom Laws

On Wednesday's MSNBC Live with Craig Melvin, it was a case of cherry picking polls as MSNBC contributor and Business Insider senior editor Josh Barro claimed that a "bare majority" of Americans oppose laws that restrict bathroom use for transgenders to their birth sex.

In fact, just a couple of months ago in May, Gallup found that those who believe transgenders should be required to use the bathroom corresponding to their birth sex outnumber those on the other side by a 48-45 margin.

The claim occurred during a discussion of President Donald Trump's announcement that transgenders would be barred from serving in the military. The MSNBC contributor began by asserting that the move was "red meat" aimed at pleasing "social conservatives." Barro:

This had been on a wish list for some social conservatives, and I think, you know, the attacks that Donald Trump has made on Attorney General Jeff Sessions have alienated certain parts of his social conservative, anti-immigration, et cetera base -- the ideological part of the coalition that elected him. And this is some red meat that he can throw out there to please them. And I think -- to the extent that it's that kind of base politics -- this may work. 

He then suggested that Trump's action may not be popular with the general population as he continued:

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

And I think the broader politics of it ... I haven't seen a lot of polling on transgenders serving in the military. I'm sure we'll see it in a week or so now that this has come to the forefront, but the polling on these local laws on bathroom rules and saying that people have to use bathrooms that match their sex at birth, those laws are -- there's a bare majority that opposes those sorts of laws. It seems that the public is broadly open to the idea that we should be inclusive and that we should be able to live the lives that they want.

He then added:

And I think the message the Democrats will be able to put out about this, that people who want to serve their country ought to be able to do so, is a popular message, which is the reason why we're seeing it even from some Republicans like John McCain. So I think that the, you know, this solves a constituency problem or helps with a constituency problem for the President, but I don't think that it's a winner with the broad public.

On MSNBC, Gruber Frets GOPers 'Explicitly Lying,' Not Just 'Bending Truth'

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's MSNBC Live, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber -- infamous for advising President Barack Obama to deceive the public to get Obamacare passed -- claimed that now, unlike in the past when politicians were just "bending the truth," now they are "explicitly lying" as Republicans prepare to move ahead on repealing Obamacare.

As host Chris Jansing spoke with two liberal guests and one squishy moderate Republican about the upcoming vote, she sympathetically asked Gruber "how nervous" he was about what was about to happen: "They truly believed that so many Americans had benefited from it and it was becoming so entrenched in the way that these kinds of programs do that they felt that America wouldn't let this happen. And I wonder, as you're watching this vote and assuming again that this motion to proceed goes through, how nervous are you right now?"

Earlier in segment, as the group discussed Senator John McCain returning to Washington to vote on the Senate floor in spite of being diagnosed with brain cancer, Gruber suggested that the Arizona Senator and former POW wasn't really so "heroic" unless he decides to vote in favor of Obamacare:

I think it is ironic that John McCain is returning from a surgery that virtually no American could afford without health insurance to vote to deny 15 million Americans health insurance at least. So, you know, we have to step back and ask: What is heroic here? I mean, it's heroic he's making the trip -- he has a heroic history -- but the heroic thing to do would be to stand up and say, "Look, I just realized that I was the beneficiary of insurance and that Americans cannot afford this without insurance," and, "Why should we support a bill that's going to take insurance away from millions of Americans?"

A bit later, Jansing recalled that Obama administration members whom she had spoken with had felt confident that Obamacare could not be dismantled by Republicans, and then posed:

They truly believed that so many Americans had benefited from it and it was becoming so entrenched in the way that these kinds of programs do that they felt that America wouldn't let this happen. And I wonder, as you're watching this vote and assuming again that this motion to proceed goes through, how nervous are you right now?

Gruber -- known for his contribution to President Obama uttering the "lie of the year" -- began by complaining about dishonesty by politicians:

Well, I'm nervous. I mean, look, you know, I was one of those people, you know, before November 8, I said, "Look, the 2012 election was the last one that mattered for health care, and health care was safe." But American politics broke on November 8, and we are used to a history of politicians bending the truth, but now we get politicians breaking the truth. That's a new thing. We hadn't had politicians explicitly lying in the way they do now. That's really new. 

After arguing that Obamacare will still be difficult to repeal, he added:

You've got to deal with the bill that the Senate parliamentarian has said can't pass with 50 votes, and you've got to deal with the fact that the subsequent vote is not just a theoretical vote, but actually a vote that's going to cost millions of Americans their insurance.

So I think we're still better than even odds the Affordable Care Act survives, but it's just sort of sad that we're in a world where politicians can't even answer the question: Why are you voting for this bill? They literally can't answer the question: What good does this do other than, "Gee, we have to give up Obamacare." That's just a very disappointing world to be in.

Host Jansing made no mention of the irony that Gruber was complaining about someone else being dishonest as she moved on.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, July 25, MSNBC Live:

2:46 p.m. ET

JONATHAN GRUBER, CO-ARCHITECT OF OBAMACARE: All the different proposals have one thing in common -- they're all bad. They all create a huge number of new uninsured individuals -- they all raise premium costs -- they all deny coverage to the sickest Americans. So wherever we end up, whatever they're voting on, they know it's something that's going to cost Americans insurance coverage.

The other thing is, look, I have much respect for John McCain as the next person. I actually worked with John McCain when I was in the Clinton administration-- but I think it is ironic that John McCain is returning from a surgery that virtually no American could afford without health insurance to vote to deny 15 million Americans health insurance at least. So, you know, we have to step back and ask: What is heroic here? I mean, it's heroic he's making the trip -- he has a heroic history -- but the heroic thing to do would be to stand up and say, "Look, I just realized that I was the beneficiary of insurance and that Americans cannot afford this without insurance," and, "Why should we support a bill that's going to take insurance away from millions of Americans?"

(...)

CHRIS JANSING: Jonathan, let me tell you a story -- and I've said this on the air before, but, at the end of the Obama administration, I did exit interviews with a number of senior staff -- quite a few actually. And what surprised me maybe more than anything was the fact that they seem least concerned about -- and this was after Donald Trump had been elected -- they seemed least concerned about health care and the repeal of Obamacare. They truly believed that so many Americans had benefited from it and it was becoming so entrenched in the way that these kinds of programs do that they felt that America wouldn't let this happen. And I wonder, as you're watching this vote and assuming again that this motion to proceed goes through, how nervous are you right now?

GRUBER: Well, I'm nervous. I mean, look, you know, I was one of those people, you know, before November 8, I said, "Look, the 2012 election was the last one that mattered for health care, and health care was safe." But American politics broke on November 8, and we are used to a history of politicians bending the truth, but now we get politicians breaking the truth. That's a new thing. We hadn't had politicians explicitly lying in the way they do now. That's really new. And I think, in that world, we don't really know what can happen. So I still am hopeful the Affordable Care Act will survive -- I think this vote is far from a death knell because, as Ron Klain was saying, you've already lost two Republican Senators in principle.

 Now, you've got to actually deal with the messy details. You've got to deal with the bill that the Senate parliamentarian has said can't pass with 50 votes, and you've got to deal with the fact that the subsequent vote is not just a theoretical vote, but actually a vote that's going to cost millions of Americans their insurance. So I think we're still better than even odds the Affordable Care Act survives, but it's just sort of sad that we're in a world where politicians can't even answer the question: Why are you voting for this bill? They literally can't answer the question: What good does this do other than, "Gee, we have to give up Obamacare." That's just a very disappointing world to be in.

Roland Martin Slams NewsBusters for Reporting He Ignored White Shooting Victim

On Monday's News One Now, far-left host Roland Martin began his show by complaining because last week NewsBusters accurately reported that he ignored the high-profile shooting death of a white woman by police officers in Minneapolis, even while updating his viewers on cases involving blacks who were also killed by police officers. As he finally got to the case of Justine Damond, the News One Now host gloated about a prediction he previously made that "the only way this thing was going to change is when somebody white got shot and killed." He then boasted: "Oh, how a brother was right."

At the beginning of the show's opening tease, Martin announced:

Next on News One Now, all of a sudden, white folks care about police shootings. An Australian woman shot and killed in Minneapolis. The police chief has now resigned. You have protests there as well. Again, I told y'all the only way this thing was going to change is when somebody white got shot and killed. Oh, how a brother was right.

The show began with a clip of Martin appearing on MSNBC and making a prediction: "And I know this sounds really, really bad for some folks, but, frankly, Ari (Melber), it's going to have to take a series of white Americans shot and killed in a similar fashion for America to deal with this issue."

As previously documented by NewsBusters, Martin seemed unaware during his MSNBC appearance that twice as many whites as blacks are killed by police officers each year, in spite of the dominant news media focusing the overwhelming majority of their attention on black victims.

The News One Now host then took aim at NewsBusters as he continued:

It was quite hilarious. NewsBusters -- the so-called media site run by right-winger Brent Bozell -- so they decided to write a piece last week: "Roland Martin hasn't said anything about the woman being shot in [sic] Australia." 

Without explaining why it took so long to mention Damond on his show -- even though it would seem to fit in with the Left's narrative that police departments are using too much violence -- Martin added:

But I tried to tell y'all this was going to happen. But this is what happens when a site like NewsBusters -- who doesn't care about black people being shot -- all of a sudden, though, one white woman gets shot and killed, and it should be investigated, and it is heinous. Then, all of a sudden, they realize there's a problem. This is what we call America in 2017. So, NewsBusters, write about that.

The purpose of the NewsBusters item that called attention to the show's omission of the Damond case was to point out that left-wing news outlets are in the habit of focusing much more attention on black police shooting victims, even though white victims outnumber blacks 2-1. Therefore, many liberals like singer Harry Belafonte; CNN's April Ryan and MSNBC's Chuck Todd; MSNBC's Al Sharpton and Paul Butler; and no doubt much of the general population of news viewers are fooled into believing police shootings almost exclusively hit the black population.

A bit later, Martin complained that blacks are treated differently than whites with regard to police shootings:

I made that point for a reason on MSNBC, and that is the whole point of Black Lives Matter is that, when somebody black is shot and killed, America doesn't care. America blames black people for protesting. America says, "Oh, they were smoking weed," or "They have a record," or "They shouldn't have reached for a gun." And I said that because the history of America shows, when something happens to somebody white in America, it's a whole different reaction, and that's exactly what we're seeing in Minneapolis.

But it's true that, in most of the high-profile cases of blacks who have been shot and killed by police which have been touted in the liberal media, there was either a criminal record or provocative actions that created a reasonable doubt that the police officers might not have broken criminal law, thus making it difficult to make a conviction.

After claiming that conservatives have shown a double standard by not vocally defending the police officer in the Minneapolis case, Martin took aim at NewsBusters again:

Anytime I get crazy right-wingers on my website -- excuse me, on my social media feed -- that means some conservative site has written something, and all the trolls come out. And, again, that's what these little trolls when NewsBusters did. Like, well, "Roland Martin just went a whole week and hasn't mentioned her getting shot and killed." Newsbusters, would you like for me to list all the black people who get shot and y'all say nothing and don't write about it? And that, Eugene, is the problem that I have

Eugene Craig III of the Eugene Craig Organization chimed in:

That's the problem I have, you know, we're still waiting for an actual hard, concrete statement from the NRA, from, you know, the Media Research Center, anybody on the hard right on Philando Castile. But, you know, one thing that this particular situation showed is that, you know, Black Lives Matter is more "All Lives Matter" than "All Lives Matter" is.

As Martin recalled that he could make a long list of blacks who have been killed by police officers, he still seemed just as unaware as ever that, if a list of whites killed by police officers were compiled, it would be twice as long as the number of blacks killed. According to statistics compiled by the Washington Post for 2015, out of the 991 people who were killed by on-duty police officers, 495 were identified as white while 258 were found to be black and 178 Hispanic, with 38 of another race and 28 still unidentified by race.

The fact that only a tiny number of the approximately 500 whites killed by police officers get any dominant media attention illustrates the racial double standard that feeds the myth on the Left that nearly all shooting victims are black. 

And the fact that Justine Damond was an unarmed 40-year-old woman with no criminal record, was herself the person who called the police for help, and has so far not even been accused by the officers on the scene of doing anything to provoke the attack, her case seems about as sympathetic for her as it gets -- and, therefore, if one is going to devote any significant attention to the issue of police killings, hers would be the type that would merit attention if any case does.

A bit later, Martin further complained:

Now, I'm telling you right now, if this were a black victim, this is what we would hear: "I feared for my life -- I feared when the cops in New York got ambushed." That's what I was thinking as well. But, again, though, it's amazing to look at the reaction. The people who are trashing him, and also, let's don't confuse the fact that because he's a Muslim police officer that the action is totally different. Don't act like that had nothing to do with it.

The NewsBusters item in question made no mention of the race or religion of the police officer in question, only the significance that a high-profile white victim was ignored while black victims were discussed.

A bit later, Martin even seemed to mock her family's attorney for arguing that "there's been no other victim who has even been more innocent than her" as he added:

It's very telling when you see the reaction, and, all of a sudden, I think her lawyer said there's been no other victim who has ever been more innocent than her. (panel members laugh) And, no, it is shameful that she has lost her life, but, again, what I would say to those people that have been criticizing Black Lives Matter, where were you -- where were you when you were sitting here saying that -- where were you when John Crawford III was gunned down in a Beaver Creek, Ohio, Wal-Mart talking on a cell phone in an open carry state. And, again, though, I'm comparing it because of the reaction. And we know in America, when something happens to an African-American, it's a different reaction than it is when it's somebody white.

The News One Now host notably did not clarify that, regarding the tragic shooting death of John Crawford III at a Wal-Mart in Ohio, the victim was carrying a toy gun that he was planning to purchase, and not just a cell phone, when he was killed by police. He also did not mention that the case has been included on some prominent right-wing websites like Breitbart News and the Daily Caller as a lawsuit on the matter is still pending.

MSNBC Wrongly Claims 'Majority' of Police Killings Hit 'People of Color'

On Sunday's PoliticsNation, after MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler incorrectly claimed that a "majority" of those killed by police officers are "people of color," with host Al Sharpton later reiterating that it "usually" happens to "people of color." In fact, according to statistics compiled on police killings for 2015 and 2016, for those cases in which the victim's race have been identified, more than half those killed were white.

During a discussion of the recent shooting death of Justine Damond by a Minneapolis police officer, Butler recalled:

Ms. Damand was the 554th person to be shot and killed by U.S. police this year. They're on track to kill 1,000 people in 2017, and the majority of those folks will be people of color -- African-American men, Latino men, black women -- want to lift up African-American women who are frequently the victims of police violence and sexual abuse, and their cases don't get this kind of attention.

After Butler recounted that the officer in question had several complaints made against him in just two years, arguing that he should not have been a police officer, Sharpton repeated the claim about most police killing victims being "people of color" as the MSNBC host responded:

And I think that's the point that he's had a record that he's already been sued. Seriously, there's a question of whether he should have been on the force, and she called reporting some crime she felt, and she was killed. And it happens so often -- usually and disproportionately -- to people of color.

MSNBC has a history of giving air to such incorrect claims in appearances by April Ryan and singer Harry Belafonte

MSNBC Wrongly Claims 'Majority' of Police Killings Hit 'People of Color'

On Sunday's PoliticsNation, after MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler incorrectly claimed that a "majority" of those killed by police officers are "people of color," with host Al Sharpton later reiterating that it "usually" happens to "people of color." In fact, according to statistics compiled on police killings for 2015 and 2016, for those cases in which the victim's race have been identified, more than half those killed were white.

During a discussion of the recent shooting death of Justine Damond by a Minneapolis police officer, Butler recalled:

Ms. Damand was the 554th person to be shot and killed by U.S. police this year. They're on track to kill 1,000 people in 2017, and the majority of those folks will be people of color -- African-American men, Latino men, black women -- want to lift up African-American women who are frequently the victims of police violence and sexual abuse, and their cases don't get this kind of attention.

After Butler recounted that the officer in question had several complaints made against him in just two years, arguing that he should not have been a police officer, Sharpton repeated the claim about most police killing victims being "people of color" as the MSNBC host responded:

And I think that's the point that he's had a record that he's already been sued. Seriously, there's a question of whether he should have been on the force, and she called reporting some crime she felt, and she was killed. And it happens so often -- usually and disproportionately -- to people of color.

MSNBC has a history of giving air to such incorrect claims in appearances by April Ryan and singer Harry Belafonte

MSNBC's Alter: Trump 'Voter Suppression Commission' Is 'Threat to Democracy'

On Wednesday's MTP Daily, during a discussion of the Trump administration's Voter Integrity Commission, MSNBC analyst and Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter griped that it is actually a "voter suppression commission" which poses a "threat to democracy." He then warned of America becoming a "banana republic" and asserted that the commission is "trying to rig" the election "for the next time."

At 5:46 p.m. ET, on the July 19 show, after right-leaning MSNBC analyst Michael Steele recalled the complaints about the commission that have come from some state attorneys general, substitute host Katy Tur commented: "People worry about two things. One that, for voter suppression, that this is ultimately what this is about." 

After Alter injected, "It is," she continued: "And then, secondly, you know, if he's saying that we don't know if we can trust the results of the 2016 election, what does that mean for the 2020 election?" Alter then complained:

This is such a threat to democracy, this commission, this voter suppression commission, which is what it should be called -- properly called -- because every step they are taking in the queries that they're making to state governments and local governments is all intended to hold down votes -- Democratic votes that they are trying to keep -- people that they're trying to keep from coming to the polls.

He further worried:

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

The people he's collected in this commission, they all have long histories of voter suppression that go back 20 years. So that's anti-democratic, and raising doubts about the legitimacy of an election is anti-democratic. Both of them undermine the faith that we have in our system that's very, very important for us moving forward. And if we get into a situation like a banana republic situation where every election, nobody believes the returns, we're in a heap of trouble.

As Steele was not making much effort to contribute a conservative point of view into the conversation, in spite of being an analyst from a right-leaning background, host Tur injected some of the conservative point of view: "Again, they just say what they're doing is trying to make sure that everything is fair and done honestly. That's what they say."

After Steele laughed and responded, "The President won, so I don't know what was unfair about the win," the MSNBC host continued:

But the President wanted to find out what was going on with the voter fraud that he claimed existed. He tweeted it out right afterwards -- three to five million people voted illegally, and, "If they didn't do that, I would have won the popular vote," and then he issued an executive order for this voter commission.

Before host Tur closed the discussion to move on to the next topic, Alter got in one final jab at the commission: "No, he's trying to -- he's trying to rig it for the next time."

Roland Martin Frets 'Despicable' Judge Gave Long Sentence to O.J. Simpson

On Friday morning's News One Now, host Roland Martin repeatedly ranted over the 33-year sentence that O.J. Simpson received almost a decade ago, even as the far-left commentator admitted he believes Simpson was indeed guilty of the prior offense of murder that he was acquitted of in 1995.

After complaining that the judge in the 2008 armed robbery case had been "shameful" and "despicable," he charged that "white folks can't get over O.J.," leading one guest to provocatively mock whites because they lost a "precious white woman and a precious white man" who were killed by the former NFL star.

Shortly after 7:00 a.m. ET, Martin griped about the sentence as he teased the show:

After spending nine of a 33-year sentence in prison for armed robbery -- one of the dumbest sentences ever for armed robbery -- O.J. Simpson was granted parole yesterday even though he could not shut his mouth up.

After he got to the segment on Simpson being paroled, he began by sounding annoyed that Simpon was treated more harshly than most others would have been:

The reason O.J. Simpson got 33 years in prison was because -- and the judge in that particular case, she also sentenced him, she waited for the anniversary of the day he was acquitted in the 1994 death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. ... but anybody else who's not named O.J. Simpson, for that particular armed robbery, max get two years.

The News One Now host then jabbed Simpson as a "black man who many say is a white man" as he followed up:

This nation is still riveted by O.J. Simpson because this had every element of reality TV. You had race -- you had sex -- you had a white man -- excuse me, you had a black man who many say is a white man -- and a white woman ... you had the Kardashians involved -- you had all these folks involved. I mean, it was -- and this nation is still riveted by it... That's why he got 33 years.

After bringing on more guests, he started attacking the judge for being too tough as he began:

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

This judge was shameful and despicable. I am not no O.J. apologist -- hell, yeah, I think he killed'em. No doubt in my mind. But nobody else would have gotten 33 years. And then when she say, "Oh, by the way, I'm giving you this sentence, and it has nothing to do with you being found not guilty." You a lie!

A bit later, he added: "But, Cleo, it's real simple. White folks can't get over O.J."

Cleo Manago -- identified as a "behavioral health and cultural analyst" -- became more incendiary as he seemed to mock whites over the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman:

Exactly. White folks can't get over that, from everybody's perspective so far, he killed a precious white woman and a precious white man and got away with it.

As fellow guest Rina Shah Bharara -- identified as a "Republican strategist" -- injected, "That's right," Manago added:

Typically, you need -- even with just the accusation, a brother was hanging. But he got away with it if indeed he did it. I'm going to keep some if's out there because he was found not guilty in a court of law, and it was unprincipled for the judge to take advantage of racism and sentence him again.

Roland Martin Frets 'Despicable' Judge Gave Long Sentence to O.J. Simpson

On Friday morning's News One Now, host Roland Martin repeatedly ranted over the 33-year sentence that O.J. Simpson received almost a decade ago, even as the far-left commentator admitted he believes Simpson was indeed guilty of the prior offense of murder that he was acquitted of in 1995.

After complaining that the judge in the 2008 armed robbery case had been "shameful" and "despicable," he charged that "white folks can't get over O.J.," leading one guest to provocatively mock whites because they lost a "precious white woman and a precious white man" who were killed by the former NFL star.

Shortly after 7:00 a.m. ET, Martin griped about the sentence as he teased the show:

After spending nine of a 33-year sentence in prison for armed robbery -- one of the dumbest sentences ever for armed robbery -- O.J. Simpson was granted parole yesterday even though he could not shut his mouth up.

After he got to the segment on Simpson being paroled, he began by sounding annoyed that Simpon was treated more harshly than most others would have been:

The reason O.J. Simpson got 33 years in prison was because -- and the judge in that particular case, she also sentenced him, she waited for the anniversary of the day he was acquitted in the 1994 death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. ... but anybody else who's not named O.J. Simpson, for that particular armed robbery, max get two years.

The News One Now host then jabbed Simpson as a "black man who many say is a white man" as he followed up:

This nation is still riveted by O.J. Simpson because this had every element of reality TV. You had race -- you had sex -- you had a white man -- excuse me, you had a black man who many say is a white man -- and a white woman ... you had the Kardashians involved -- you had all these folks involved. I mean, it was -- and this nation is still riveted by it... That's why he got 33 years.

After bringing on more guests, he started attacking the judge for being too tough as he began:

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

This judge was shameful and despicable. I am not no O.J. apologist -- hell, yeah, I think he killed'em. No doubt in my mind. But nobody else would have gotten 33 years. And then when she say, "Oh, by the way, I'm giving you this sentence, and it has nothing to do with you being found not guilty." You a lie!

A bit later, he added: "But, Cleo, it's real simple. White folks can't get over O.J."

Cleo Manago -- identified as a "behavioral health and cultural analyst" -- became more incendiary as he seemed to mock whites over the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman:

Exactly. White folks can't get over that, from everybody's perspective so far, he killed a precious white woman and a precious white man and got away with it.

As fellow guest Rina Shah Bharara -- identified as a "Republican strategist" -- injected, "That's right," Manago added:

Typically, you need -- even with just the accusation, a brother was hanging. But he got away with it if indeed he did it. I'm going to keep some if's out there because he was found not guilty in a court of law, and it was unprincipled for the judge to take advantage of racism and sentence him again.

Roland Martin Ignores White Shooting Victim, But Highlights Claims NRA Is Racist

As all the major news networks this week have highlighted the tragic case of Minnesota bride-to-be Justine Damond being shot to death by a police officer, far-left News One Now host Roland Martin -- who sometimes appears on MSNBC -- has conspicuously given no attention to the story even while continuing to update viewers on high-profile cases of blacks being killed by the police.

But on the morning after the story broke, Martin did take the time to air a pre-recorded piece that included liberal activists accusing the National Rifle Association of racism against blacks for not speaking out more forcefully in the Philando Castile case. The liberal host even slammed "white evangelical Christians" as having "warped ideas" over Obamacare repeal, and repeated a discredited fake story that the Reverend Pat Robertson praised nude photographs of First Lady Melania Trump.

Ironically, just a few weeks ago, Martin seemed unaware that twice as many whites are shot by the police as blacks as he commented that more whites would have to be shot by police before the white population would take the issue seriously. Even so, he still paid no attention to this high-profile case of a white woman being shot under questionable circumstances.

As the news of the Justine Damond shooting broke on cable news late Monday morning, it took until Tuesday for most morning shows to catch up. And, although Martin devoted a considerable portion of his Tuesday show to discussions of blacks being shot -- both by police officers and in Chicago gang violence -- no mention was made of the Damond story that was getting so much attention elsewhere. 

At 7:20 a.m. ET, Martin introduced a piece which had been delayed a day because of technical difficulties that showed scenes from a march of liberal women against the NRA from the weekend. He referred to a recent ad by the NRA as "shameful" as he announced:

Women's march organizers -- they last week had a rally, a march against the National Rifle Association responding to their shameful video targeting protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. The women's march in D.C. demanded an apology.

At one point, a clip of Castile's mother, Nekima Levy-Pounds, was shown as a speaker attacking the pro-gun group as racist:

The NRA should be ashamed of themselves for waiting a whole damn year to issue a statement about my son. Now that everything is said and done, they want to issue a statement. I know they waited this long because Philando was black. But my son followed all the rules -- he took the class to become licensed -- he passed a background check and did everything that he was asked to do. But did the NRA stand behind my son? Hell no!

In fact, the NRA did release a statement a year ago the day after the Castile shooting in which the pro-gun group expressed concerns about the killing of the concealed carrier holder, but also pledging to give the investigation time to play out before commenting further.

Then came a clip of human rights activist Jamira Burley adding to the charge of racism:

I think the NRA likes to pick and choose when it stands up and who it stands up for, and we know black or brown people are rarely stood up for by the NRA. And so I think it's just a part of their overall agenda, which is to recognize that everyone has access to the Second Amendment unless you're black or brown.

Later in the program, Martin updated viewers on the case of Richard Collins who was murdered at College Park, Maryland, by a man with a racist history, followed by the case of Jordan Edwards, who was killed by a police officer in Balch Springs, Texas.

After spending the first segment on Obamacare repeal, the second segment on the anti-NRA protest, and the last segment on the film Girls Trip, the rest of the show -- more than 17 and a half minutes -- was devoted to crime-related issues including a spree of shootings in Chicago, a police shooting in Texas, and efforts by a Black Lives Matter leader to participate in a commission on police reform. No mention was made of the Damond shooting even though it was very much relevant to the show's ongoing interest in the police violence issue.

Earlier in the show, the first segment was devoted to the debate over Obamacare repeal, and Martin notably spread misinformation in the form of a fake news report targeting the Reverend Roberston. Martin:

And then of course you have folks like Pat Robertson who was highly critical of course of Michelle Obama baring her arms -- I mean, he called the nude pictures of Melania Trump, you know, "God's beauty." So you see the warped ideas when it comes to white evangelical Christians.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, July 18, News One Now:

7:01 a.m. ET

ROLAND MARTIN, IN OPENING TEASE: A 10-year-old boy and a community activist among 11 fatally shot and at least 56 wounded in another weekend of violence in Chicago. Police say more than half of the shootings happened between Saturday night through Sunday morning. We will talk to an activist in Chicago about what is going on there as well. Dallas County grand jury indicts the former police officer who shot and killed 15-year-old Jordan Edwards on a murder charge. We'll talk with the family's attorney. Also, Larenz Tate part of the party in the hot new movie, Girls Trip, opening this weekend. It is a fabulous, fabulous film.

(...)

7:04 a.m. ET

MARTIN: And, of course, white evangelicals have been absolutely silent.

REVEREND RAPHAEL WARNOCK, EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH: Oh, absolutely. Well, they've been silent, and then there have been others who have been in support of this. I've seen preachers on television saying this man is God's anointed, and I'm wondering what Bible are they reading and, "Do they know that Jesus whom I encountered in the Gospel of Luke who says he came to preach good news to the poor?" Well, this is bad news for the poor, and I don't see how you can say that you're standing on the side of justice and on the side of Christian faith -- (inaudible)

MARTIN: And then of course you have folks like Pat Robertson who was highly critical of course of Michelle Obama baring her arms -- I mean, he called the nude pictures of Melania Trump, you know, "God's beauty." So you see the warped ideas when it comes to white evangelical Christians.

(...)

7:21 a.m. ET

MARTIN: Women's march organizers -- they last week had a rally, a march against the National Rifle Association responding to their shameful video targeting protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. The women's march in D.C. demanded an apology. Now, of course, over the weekend, the rally took place. They walked 17 miles from the headquarters of the NRA to the Department of Justice -- also had a rally, a vigil on Saturday. We had some technical issues yesterday, so we wanted to bring that to you today.

(...)

7:22 a.m. ET

NEKIMA LEVY-POUNDS, MOTHER OF PHILANDO CASTILE: The NRA should be ashamed of themselves for waiting a whole damn year to issue a statement about my son. Now that everything is said and done, they want to issue a statement. I know they waited this long because Philando was black. But my son followed all the rules -- he took the class to become licensed -- he passed a background check and did everything that he was asked to do. But did the NRA stand behind my son? Hell no!

JAMIRA BURLEY, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: I think the NRA likes to pick and choose when it stands up and who it stands up for, and we know black or brown people are rarely stood up for by the NRA. And so I think it's just a part of their overall agenda, which is to recognize that everyone has access to the Second Amendment unless you're black or brown.

(...)

7:39 a.m. ET

MARTIN: The man accused in the stabbing death of Boise University student Richard Collins III will not face hate crimes charges. Collins -- who served in the ROTC -- had been commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army, died after being attacked with a knife at a University of Maryland bus stop just a few days before his college graduation in May. Sean Urbanski is charged with one count of murder in Collins's death. Although authorities discovered that Urbanski belonged to a racist Facebook group called "Alt Reich Nation," Prince Georges County states attorney said there is not yet enough information to add hate crimes to the murder charge. Authorities say it is possible that Urbanski could face hate crime charges in the future if new information warrants.

Let's now go to Balch Springs, Texas, where a police officer there has been indicted for murder in the shooting death of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards. In April, the 37-year-old Balch Springs police officer Roy Oliver responded to a call about a house party. He shot into a car, killing high school freshman Jordan Edwards in the front passenger's seat. Investigators originally said the car was headed toward Oliver in an aggressive manner. That was a flat-out lie. After reviewing body camera video, police said the car was moving away from Oliver. Following the video review, Oliver was fired for violating the department policies. The grand jury also indicted Oliver on four counts of aggravated assault for each of the other four teens in the car. Dallas County prosecutor Faith Johnson says the indictments are a step forward.

Joining us now from Dallas is attorney Lee Merritt. He's representing the Edwards family.  Lee, first and foremost, again, your thoughts on the grand jury actually indicting this officer? Still a rarity across this country.

PBS Guest: Those Who Deny Discrimination Think Blacks Are 'Inferior'

On the Monday edition of his eponymously named PBS show, host Tavis Smiley provided a forum with little pushback for author and American University Professor Ibram Kendi to claim that the social problems that disproportionately exist within America's black population are the result of continuing racial discrimination, and that those who do not agree with his conclusions therefore must believe blacks are "inferior" or "subhuman."

Not acknowledged was the argument common on the conservative side that federal government programs have disproportionately hit poor blacks since the 1960s -- breaking up families and exacerbating social problems -- but not making the black population "inferior" or "subhuman."

Early in the show, Professor Kendi recalled misleading claims that "young black males" in recent years have been "21 times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts," and that "the median wealth of white households is a staggering 13 times the median wealth of black households. And black people are five times more likely to be incarcerated than whites."

He then argued that one must have "racist" views to deny that racial discrimination is the cause of these problems:

Most Americans know these statistics. They know these disparities, and there's only ways to explain that. Either there's something inferior and wrong about black people, or there's racial discrimination. And because so many Americans refuse to acknowledge the persisting sort of legacy and enduring prominence of racial discrimination, instead they say there's something wrong or inferior about black people -- which are racist ideas.

A bit later, as he argued that there has been a resurgence of racism in response to Barack Obama being elected President, he argued that, after the Thirteenth Amendment banned most slavery, the practice was still perpetuated in the criminal justice system:

So we of course know the Thirteenth Amendment abolished chattel slavery, but then it did not abolish slavery in the prisons. And we know about the convict lease system that emerged in which basically the law and the jail cell replaced the master and the whip.

The American University professor then pointed to the high rates of incarceration for blacks and suggested that, in reality, the crime perpetration rate of the black population is about equal to that of the white population as he cited studies that allege equal rates of whites breaking drug laws in spite of lower rates of white incarceration.

Not mentioned by either Professor Kendi or host Smiley was the argument that, even though there have been studies suggesting equal drug activity by whites, white drug dealers are less likely to be arrested because they tend to be more careful about selling drugs mostly to people they know, making them less likely to be caught. Additionally blacks are more likely to have a previous criminal record.

Additionally, he did not mention statistics for other types of crimes -- for example, findings that blacks are much more likely to commit homicides than whites, which is consistent with higher incarceration rates for blacks as well as a higher general rate of blacks being killed by police officers. 

Kendi recalled: "And so people say, for instance, that arrest rates and incarceration rates are reflective of actual crime rates. And so, for instance, we know that our jails right now are flooded with people who committed drug offenses."

After Smiley injected, "Low-level," Kendi added:

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

Yeah -- possession-related drug offenses. But then we also have studies that show that the racial groups consume and sell drugs at similar rates. And so you have this huge disparity of incarcerated black and brown people in prison for drug crimes even though the actual crime rates when it comes to drug crimes are very similar between the races. And that says to me that that's racial discrimination within the criminal justice system.

Later in the interview, Kendi argued that many of those who do not believe blacks are genetically inferior to whites still hold "racist" views. alleging that they believe blacks are "inferior" because of their environment or other factors. Referring to such whites as "assimilationists," he asserted:

But assimilationists are somewhat different. They argue that "Yes, we are all created equal -- we're biologically equal," but then they say that black people have became [sic] inferior as a result of environment. So while segregationists say black people are inferior by nature, assimilationists say black people are inferior by nurture. 

And that nurture includes "We became inferior by -- as a result of slavery. Slavery wasn't just dehumanizing, it literally made black people subhuman -- segregation, poverty, or culture. So if we, you know, we just take them out of the barbarous wilds of Africa, or the cultural pathology of African-Americans, then we'll be able to civilize them and develop them and make them equal one day."

And these ideas still suggest that black people are inferior. Now, it argues against segregationists who state that black people are permanently inferior, but they say black people are inferior nonetheless.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Monday, July 17, Tavis Smiley Show on PBS:

IBRAM X KENDI, HISTORIAN: Young black males were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts between 2010 and 2012, according to federal statistics. The under-recorded, under-analyzed racial disparities between female victims of lethal police force may be even greater. Federal data shows that the median wealth of white households is a staggering 13 times the median wealth of black households. And black people are five times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. But these statistics should come as no surprise.

TAVIS SMILEY: These stats should come as no surprise. Do you think they do? How is it that -- even if one doesn't understand or doesn't research the stats the way you do -- we still seem sort of collectively oblivious to the history -- the sad history that we are writing in this present moment?

KENDI: Racist ideas. Racist ideas have become our common sense. And so we -- most Americans know these statistics. They know these disparities, and there's only ways to explain that. Either there's something inferior and wrong about black people, or there's racial discrimination. And because so many Americans refuse to acknowledge the persisting sort of legacy and enduring prominence of racial discrimination, instead they say there's something wrong or inferior about black people -- which are racist ideas.

(...)

KENDI: I chronicle not just this history of racial progress that Obama and many others have spoken about in recent years, but the simultaneous progression of racism. And so American history has had both happening simultaneously because when black people break through barriers, typically new barriers are created to hold them back. And so that's how you can have racial progress and the progression of racism happening simultaneously.

SMILEY: Take that a step further for me. So give me an example of what you mean by having racial progress and the progress of racism at the same time.

KENDI: So we of course know the Thirteenth Amendment abolished chattel slavery, but then it did not abolish slavery in the prisons. And we know about the convict lease system that emerged in which basically the law and the jail cell replaced the master and the whip.

SMILEY: And to those that say that's a horrible example because those black persons wouldn't be behind bars but for the bad choices they have made. that's not racism, that's bad behavior.     

Well, yeah, and so people say, for instance, that arrest rates and incarceration rates are reflective of actual crime rates. And so, for instance, we know that our jails right now are flooded with people who committed drug offenses.

SMILEY: Low-level.

KENDI: Usually -- yeah -- possession-related drug offenses. But then we also have studies that show that the racial groups consume and sell drugs at similar rates. And so you have this huge disparity of incarcerated black and brown people in prison for drug crimes even though the actual crime rates when it comes to drug crimes are very similar between the races. And that says to me that that's racial discrimination within the criminal justice system.

SMILEY: So 500 years later who are the culprits? Who is -- put another way, complicit in the continuing advancement -- the continued march or progress of racist ideas in this country?

(...)

KENDI: Many people, including well-meaning people, have articulated racist ideas, have defended racist policies, and if we truly want to create an anti-racist America, it's important for us to come to grips with the ideas that we've consumed over the course of our lifetimes.

SMILEY: How do you get those -- to use your phrase, Professor -- well-meaning individuals who may just be ignorant but well-meaning -- how do you get them to reexamine their own assumptions? How do you help them in this text expand their inventory of ideas about what racist ideas are? Does that make sense?

KENDI: It makes perfect sense. And I think one of the ways we do it is we define their ideas as racist.  So that I think is one of the major contributions of the book --

SMILEY: Doesn't that shut down the conversation sometimes, though, at the very beginning? "That's a racist idea." "Whooaa!"

KENDI: Well, yeah, it does, but on another level I say as a black male who has three degrees in African-American Studies -- born and raised in a black home -- that I even had consumed racist ideas about black people --

SMILEY: Oh, yeah.

KENDI: -- over the course of my lifetime, so that's how powerful these ideas are . And so if I can do it, if I can admit and acknowledge that ideas that I had consumed, then anybody should be willing to do it.

(...)

KENDI: And so, this group, I classify them as assimilationists in Stamped from the Beginning --

SMILEY: There are three groups in the book. Assimilationists.

KENDI: Yes. Segregationists and anti-racists. And so, typically, segregationists are the people who have stated that black people are biologically and genetically and permanently inferior. They are the people who in American history are typically in these types of books on history of racism. But assimilationists are somewhat different. They argue that "Yes, we are all created equal -- we're biologically equal," but then they say that black people have became [sic] inferior as a result of environment. So while segregationists say black people are inferior by nature, assimilationists say black people are inferior by nurture. 

And that nurture includes "We became inferior by -- as a result of slavery. Slavery wasn't just dehumanizing, it literally made black people subhuman -- segregation, poverty, or culture. So if we, you know, we just take them out of the barbarous wilds of Africa, or the cultural pathology of African-Americans, then we'll be able to civilize them and develop them and make them equal one day." And these ideas still suggest that black people are inferior. Now, it argues against segregationists who state that black people are permanently inferior, but they say black people are inferior nonetheless.

SMILEY: Yeah. So you hit on something deep a moment ago. I mean, this is -- I can do this for two or three nights on this subject ... What is the message in this text to those persons like you once were and like -- because I'm human -- like I once was and like others who may still be --  who have bought into those notions of white supremacy. That's how insidious it is that we end up -- black people themselves end up taking on some of that white supremacy in our own DNA. What do you say to us? What's the message for us in Stamped from the Beginning?

MSNBC Hosts Liberals to Complain About the Right Attacking the Media

On Sunday's MSNBC special, Trump at 6 Months, a panel stacked with liberals was assembled to discuss the conflict between President Donald Trump and the media. Given the makeup of the panel, it was no surprise that the group concluded that distrust of the media was the fault of right-wingers attacking them for decades, and that the media should continue what they already are doing, rather than make reforms to regain credibility. 

After left-wing historian Allan Lichtman predicted that Trump's defenders will end up on the "scrap heap of history," MSNBC contributor Joan Walsh griped about the Right attacking the media for liberal bias, even as she admitted "some of it" was true: "The Right in this country has claimed for a long time that the media is liberal, you know, making up a lot of it, some of it true, and it's -- Trump, you know, weaponized it, took it to a whole new level."

As host Yasmin Vossoughian began the segment at 6:50 p.m ET by introducing her four guests, she did not identify any of them as coming from a left-wing point of view, in spite of the presence of Salon's Joan Walsh -- who used to be with the far-left The Nation magazine -- and liberal historian Allan Lichtman, who once ran for public office as a Democrat.

The MSNBC host began the segment by recalling a recent Pew survey showing Republicans have a more negative view of the media than Democrats. Without acknowledging any culpability by the media in damaging their own credibility, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple blamed right-wingers for eroding support for the media as he began:

Let's be honest about what's happened here. Many people on the right -- Sarah Palin going all the way back to Spiro Agnew -- have been hammering the media for decades. Donald Trump did what he does, which is to take those things to the extreme. And they've had an impact. People don't trust the media, especially followers of Donald Trump.

Wemple then defended the credibility of the Washington Post and MSNBC as allegedly accurate sources of information:

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

And even though we believe -- the Washington Post and MSNBC, I'm sure, we believe that we get it right, and when we don't get it right, we do correct -- those sort of claims and that sort of integrity is not appreciated or valued or people just don't agree with it. 

He then bemoaned:

So I don't know exactly how the endgame here -- exactly how this is going to end up hurting the country, but it's already starting, and I believe we're just -- we're losing a factual -- common factual ground. And it's frightening to watch.

Vossoughian then turned to Lichtman, who began with a George Orwell reference: "That's correct. We've kind of moved into the George Orwell era where hate is love, war is peace."

The liberal historian soon added:

As an historian, I can say with some confidence, that when we reach the denouement of all this, just as in Watergate, it's not going to be the press, but it's going to be the apologists for this administration that are going to end up on the scrap heap of history.

Toward the end of the segment, after Yamiche Alcindor of the left-wing New York Times had her turn, Lichtman likened the Trump administration to President Richard Nixon and Watergate. The MSNBC host then turned to the left-wing Walsh and posed: "Well, and, Joan, quickly, that's what I want to say. What can the media do?"

After Walsh began, "Exactly what it's doing," Vossoughian added: "Anything differently?"

Walsh did not recommend that journalists do anything at all to improve the current state of their profession as she responded:

No, nothing. Nothing. This is a game -- it does go back to Spiro Agnew. It may go back further than that, but the Right in this country has claimed for a long time that the media is liberal, you know, making up a lot of it, some of it true, and it's -- Trump, you know, weaponized it, took it to a whole new level.

But we're also seeing that his supporters believe him and they go along with whatever he thinks -- you know, they don't think Putin is a bad guy anymore. They don't think Russia -- this Russia story is a story. So you can't think about it. You just do your job, as Allan said.

Wemple could twice be heard injecting, "Joan is right," before being cut off as the show was ending.

The earlier part of the hour-long special had also been heavily stacked against conservatives as the first two segments included Salon's Walsh, Alcindor, and former DNC chairman Howard Dean, pitted against one right-leaning guest in the form of former George H.W. Bush spokesman Gian-Carlo Peressutti.

And in the middle of the show, Vossoughian spoke with three voters in a segment where one conservative was outnumbered 2-1 by one Hillary Clinton voterr and one Bernie Sanders supporter.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Sunday, July 16, Trump at 6 Months on MSNBC:

6:50 p.m. ET

YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN: The President has spent much of his first six months at war with the press, and -- while tension is normal, even necessary -- the President has been on a crusade to undermine journalism facts and the free press.

[clips of President Donald Trump attacking the press]

VOSSOUGHIAN: Okay, joining me now, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple; and distinguished professor of history at American University and presidential historian Allan Lichtman; and back with us, Yamiche Alcindor and Joan Walsh. Welcome to you both -- welcome to you all. Erik, I'm going to start with you.

Let's look at those numbers from Pew. This is the number of Americans who support the news media's watchdog role. Democrats -- they're 47 percent more likely than Republicans to support the watchdog role -- 89 percent to 42 (percent). But look at the chart -- it wasn't always that way. It was actually in the high seventies until 2016, then a huge dropoff for Republicans. What do you think happened there, Erik?

ERIK WEMPLE, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I mean, let's be honest about what's happened here. Many people on the right -- Sarah Palin going all the way back to Spiro Agnew -- have been hammering the media for decades. Donald Trump did what he does, which is to take those things to the extreme. And they've had an impact. People don't trust the media, especially followers of Donald Trump. So we are more and more -- more than ever, we have a media that's speaking to half the country or a third of the country or, however you divide it up, there is an increasing number of people that the media is just not going to reach. 

And even though we believe -- the Washington Post and MSNBC, I'm sure, we believe that we get it right, and when we don't get it right, we do correct -- those sort of claims and that sort of integrity is not appreciated or valued or people just don't agree with it. So I don't know exactly how the endgame here -- exactly how this is going to end up hurting the country, but it's already starting, and I believe we're just -- we're losing a factual -- common factual ground. And it's frightening to watch.

VOSSOUGHIAN: Alan, you know, you hear the President saying that this dropoff -- if he were to be asked -- from Republicans is a reflection of the media really doing kind of a bad job. Or is it that you now have a Republican as President who spoke so loosely with the truth that we have been forced to fact-check him constantly? And, in that realm, he doesn't like it.

PROFESSOR ALLAN LICHTMAN, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: That's correct. We've kind of moved into the George Orwell era where hate is love, war is peace.

(...)

LICHTMAN: As an historian, I can say with some confidence, that when we reach the denouement of all this, just as in Watergate, it's not going to be the press, but it's going to be the apologists for this administration that are going to end up on the scrap heap of history.

(...)

LICHTMAN: As an historian, I can assure you, eventually the truth will out. You can only maintain the coverup for so long, and everything this administration is doing has all the hallmarks of a Nixon-type coverup.

VOSSOUGHIAN: Well, and, Joan, quickly, that's what I want to say. What can the media do?

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Exactly what it's doing.

VOSSOUGHIAN: Anything differently?

WALSH: No, nothing. Nothing. This is a game -- it does go back to Spiro Agnew. It may go back further than that, but the Right in this country has claimed for a long time that the media is liberal, you know, making up a lot of it, some of it true, and it's -- Trump, you know, weaponized it, took it to a whole new level. But we're also seeing that his supporters believe him and they go along with whatever he thinks -- you know, they don't think Putin is a bad guy anymore. They don't think Russia -- this Russia story is a story. So you can't think about it. You just do your job, as Allan said.

VOSSOUGHIAN: Doing our jobs, yeah, and telling the truth.

WEMPLE: Joan is right, I --

VOSSOUGHIAN: Okay, you guys, thank you so much for joining me. I very much appreciate it. I'm getting in my ear that I got to wrap. I'm basically getting yelled at, so thank you to my panel.

MSNBC's Sharpton Slams Steve King's 'Racially Tinged Cruelty,' Suggests 'Evil'

On Sunday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, during the show's regular "Gotcha" segment, host Al Sharpton was imagining racist dog whistles as he complained about "unmitigated, racially-tinged cruelty" from Congressman Steve King, and suggested that those who think like the Iowa Republican are "evil."

After playing a clip of Rep. King on CNN's New Day arguing in favor of cutting food stamps and Planned Parenthood to fund the border wall, Sharpton griped: "Just in case you're not evil and this sounds like unmitigated racially tinged cruelty to you, the Congressman elaborated on why he's for this along with job growth: It would save America's waist lines."

Sharpton notably has a history of making blatantly racist comments about Jewish business owners, calling them "diamond merchants" and "white interlopers," and once incited a deadly riot against a Jewish-owned business.

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

On Sunday's show, after playing a clip of Rep. King arguing that, because there is a problem of obesity among the poor, cutting food stamps would not leave them undernourished, the MSNBC host worked in a "dog whistle" reference: "Congressman, if I were a dog, I'd be going crazy from all the whistles. But I guess with Iowa having the 12th highest obesity rate in the nation, you have good reason to be concerned."

Sharpton also defended Planned Parenthood -- which aborts a disproportionately large number of unborn babies who are black -- as he concluded the segment:

You might want to pump your breaks, though, because, according to federal data, seven of the 10 states most reliant on food assistance went to President Trump in 2016. And nearly two-thirds of individual recipients are children, the elderly, or disabled citizens. They can't eat your precious wall. And, as Planned Parenthood pointed out in response, the organization is funded through Medicaid reimbursement. 

Playing with that to fund your wall would literally endanger lives. Oh, and while First Lady Obama still cares about the health of our nation's youth, I think she's too busy living a best life to worry about what grownup children think. So, Mr. King, why don't you try putting this on the scale? The scale of justice. Because I'm confident it'll read: "I gotcha."

CNN's Acosta &amp; Toobin See 'Settled Science' in Global Warming

On Thursday's The Situation Room on CNN, during a discussion of President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord, CNN's Jim Acosta and Jeffrey Toobin both pushed the notion that the liberal view of global theory is "settled science."

At 5:46 p.m. ET, CNN political analyst Mark Preston theorized that Trump might revisit the issue now that he has kept his promise to the Republican base to pull out of the agreement. Referring to CNN reporter Kaitlin Collins, Preston declared:

You know, let's just go back to climate change, though, because I think Kaitlin's right about this, is that Trump needed to do it because he told his base that. However, I do think you could come back, and someone who's very close to him said that to me today. He said, "You know what, now he's free to do what he wants because he held his promise."

Toobin then jumped in to fret about the way global warming is discussed:

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

You know, do we always talk about climate in terms of the politics of it? The climate is actually a science issue. And the science -- the climate is going to continue warming regardless of what his base wants or, you know, it's actually science and not politics.

Referring to theories that President Trump might not really have a friend named JIm whom he sometimes refers to, Acosta commented about global warming: "It is settled science unlike, you know, the identity of Jim, at this point."

After Toobin went along with the joke about Jim by injecting, "Which is not settled," Acosta added: "We're still on the case with that one."

%d bloggers like this: