Archive for John Hirschauer

MSNBC's Ruhle: Planned Parenthood Funding Not About 'Pro-Choice vs. Pro Life'

The mainstream media doesn’t understand pro-life Americans. They think you’re either stupid, uninformed, or some bizarre religious troglodyte opposing progress to satiate a deep lust for misogyny. Nowhere was this more evident than in Thursday morning’s bizarre tag team effort between the hosts on MSNBC Live with Velshi and Ruhle:

RUHLE: Teenagers in Europe and the United States, data will tell you, have the same sexual habits. Now, the care they're given, what they're provided in Europe is significantly more than we have here. And teen pregnancies are three times the amount here than they are in Europe. So it is about education and prevention, simply isn't, well, Planned Parenthood is where you head over for an abortion.

First, as The Week's socially conservative correspondent Matthew Walther asks, is there some ethereal “golden mean of fornication that is part of the fabric of reality itself?” Are the “sexual habits”  of the American populous that Ruhle cites some immutable phenomenon predestined to a particular incidence? Or do people have agency? No matter- Ruhle points to the godless socialism of Europe as the panacea.

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

Second, Planned Parenthood is in fact where one “head[s] over for an abortion.” It’s the nation’s largest abortion provider, and it provides about one-third of U.S. abortions. Planned Parenthood’s abortion to adoption referral ratio is 113:1. The organization has been a tried and true opponent of banning partial-birth abortions, a procedure described below by NRLC:

“[A] procedure in which  the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trocar. He then inserts a catheter into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.”

Of course pro-life Americans would be livid that their hard-earned tax dollars are going to support such an organization. And when Ali Velshi proceeds to break down for the audience what exactly Planned Parenthood does besides abortion, he misses the point- these services have been reliably provided by community health centers, and it doesn’t matter to pro-lifers what else Planned Parenthood does. To us, this is how that logic sounds. Trump has already challenged Planned Parenthood- give up the abortions, and we’ll significantly increase your funding. The response was, predictably, no.

Read the full June 22nd transcript below:

11:30 AM ET

STEPHANIE RUHLE: Much like in the outline we’ve seen so far, to simply defund Planned Parenthood, there's a lack of understanding with what Planned Parenthood does and who it takes care of. People are quick to mark it off and say that's about abortions. It's a lot more than that. Women's health, that's their primary caregiver. When, Ali Velshi, when you think of your primary caregiver, you’re thinking of your general practitioner.

ALI VELSHI: Correct.

RUHLE: For women out there, it's their gynecologist, so to lose Planned Parenthood funding completely affects millions of Americans, it is not a conversation about pro-choice versus pro-life.

11:57 AM ET

RUHLE: They have no chance of getting a Democrat if they go the way of Rand Paul.

VELSHI: But to your point about Planned Parenthood, if you want them, the Collins’, Murkowski’s, women look at Planned Parenthood differently. We have framed this whole thing as Planned Parenthood being an abortion factory. But in fact, for many women, it is primary health care. You made this point for --

RUHLE: For millions of women, it is their primary health care. We like -- people like to give the quick and dirty, Planned Parenthood stands for abortion, it doesn't. It stands for women's basic health. When women think of basic health, that's the doctor they consider. My husband can tell you everything he knows about his cholesterol, about his heart rate, he knows all those things. When he gets the flu, he has a doctor to call. Women, it is their OBGYN. And to say we're going to defund Planned Parenthood, that's millions of Americans.

VELSHI: But do you know who made that point in the Republican primary?

MICHAEL SPARER: Donald Trump.

VELSHI: Donald Trump made that point. He said, I don't like the abortion part, but Planned Parenthood serves a lot of women and their basic health needs. He actually said that. He seems to --

SPARER: Of course Donald Trump also said I'm going to have a program that provides health insurance to every American.

RUHLE: But think about this --

VELSHI: No one is going to die on my watch.

RUHLE: Teenagers in Europe and the United States, data will tell you, have the same sexual habits. Now, the care they're given, what they're provided in Europe is significantly more than we have here. And teen pregnancies are three times the amount here than they are in Europe. So it is about education and prevention, simply isn't, well, Planned Parenthood is where you head over for an abortion. As soon as we get our head around what it actually is --

VELSHI: While Stephanie is talking, let’s zoom in on this. This is what Planned Parenthood does. It does pregnancy testing, pelvic exams, breast center-- breast cancer screenings, birth control, emergency contraception, I want to skip over the abortion just for a second so that you can concentrate on the other things. Educational programs and men's health services, abortion is one of the things Planned Parenthood does.

RUHLE: You want to wipe out cervical cancer? The best chance you have is if women can consistently get health care. And to simply say we’re going to get rid of it is extraordinary.

Tucker Spars With Liberal Strategist Behind #HuntRepublicanCongressmen

Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ heir to Bill O’Reilly’s slot in their primetime cable lineup, often fills the hour with bewildered glances, engaging dialogue, and outright mockery of his typically-deserving opponents who he brings on to the program. Monday was no different as Carlson invited on Democratic strategist Jim Devine to defend the seemingly indefensible: his decision to tweet the hashtag #HuntRepublicanCongressmen in the wake of the attempted massacre of Republican representatives last week. 

Watch the exchange below:

A number of funny moments came out of this, including Carlson badgering Devine as to whether his tweets would subject him to lose his gun rights, and the obvious insanity implicit in Devine’s attempts at defending this otherwise indefensible tweet.

There were a couple of instances in the interchange between the two men where Carlson either missed or deliberately ignored some of the absurd arguments being made by Devine, but their patent incredulity is worth highlighting.

Consider this portion:

CARLSON: So, what point are you making? That that’s okay?
DEVINE: What I am making the point is that after year after year after year of hearing the same kind of violent rhetoric from the right, the left has every reason to come forward and stand up. What I have learned in life is that --
CARLSON: With violent rhetoric?

Tucker took issue with the undergirding ethic in Devine’s thinking, which was clearly debased- if you perceive one side’s rhetoric to be violent and depraved, the solution is not to yourself reciprocate such behavior. The issue with Devine’s point is larger- the assumption he makes, that the Left has been docile in the face of a barrage of fear mongering on the Right is the second most unhinged statement Devine made all evening.

The Left has used fatalistic rhetoric for years on end now, and the results under this administration have been no different. The Left’s arguments for years have been about the personal depravity of Republicans, that their health care beliefs are a proxy for their dark desire for kids to die in the streets, Goldwater, Reagan, Romney and Trump were all Hitler, and all of the other hyperbole that pervade mainstream leftist circles are undeniable centerpieces of progressive argumentation and they have been for years. Devine’s assumption is irredeemably disconnected from political reality.

Later in the segment, Carlson and Devine engaged in the following bit:

DEVINE: I am saying that Democrats have to be more aggressive in the face of political issues and the face of the opposition. We have members -- one of the persons he was on that field who spoke --
CARLSON: What does that mean?
DEVINE: With Senator Rand Paul -- Senator Rand Paul re-tweeted something from Andrew Napolitano that said, the reason we have a Second Amendment is not so people can hunt deer, so that they can shoot the tyrannical government.
CARLSON: So, What is your point? Did he deserved it?

Actually, this is correct. We don’t have the Second Amendment for hunting. The Second Amendment is a safeguard of American liberty for the citizenry to be armed against governmental usurpation of constitutional guarantees. It continues:

DEVINE: My point, Tucker is very simply, no, absolutely not. But my point is that when you put up obstacles to people voting, when you secretly plot in the Senate to repeal health care that is keeping 50,000 Americans alive, and you are otherwise directing barriers to the democratic process, where we have elections, where the people that get the most votes don’t win --
CARLSON: That you should be shot?
DEVINE: What happens is -- no! But that is tyrannical government. That’s the point.
CARLSON: It’s understandable when you’re shot?
DEVINE: It is the natural culmination --
CARLSON: Stop with the talking points. Just get to what you’re saying. I want to know what you are saying. Are you saying that it’s understandable?
DEVINE: It is a natural culmination of the argument that was made by Judge Napolitano and Senator Rand Paul. If Senator Paul Rand would like to sit down and have a discussion--
CARLSON: But hold on. I am really here. You are not making sense. I will give you one last chance. What is your point?
DEVINE: My point is enough is enough.
CARLSON: So, it’s time to take up arms?
DEVINE: No. It’s not about taking up arms. It’s about coming together and fighting back.

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

As mentioned earlier, Tucker either missed or intentionally ignored Devine’s line of argumentation here. What Devine was arguing, specifically, was that opposing the Affordable Care Act, protecting the integrity of the franchise by preventing voter fraud, and upholding federalism with our constitutional republic’s Electoral College rather than using a pure popular vote are all incidents of the exact government usurpation Paul is talking about. This is so patently ridiculous and absurd a claim that it deserves to be underscored.

Devine, in full control of his faculties, insisted that policy disagreements on health care, preventing voter fraud, and the Electoral College, are precisely the abrogations of constitutional protections that require an armed response by the citizenry, so all told, Rand Paul and his conservative ilk are getting what they asked for. How warped must one’s perception of American politics be to utter such a ridiculous assertion?

Tucker finished the segment with a series of impolite interruptions, but its worth asking how much politeness Devine’s arguments warranted.

Check out the full June 20th transcript below:

8:00 PM ET

TUCKER CARLSON: Most people were horrified of course by last week’s assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress, which wounded five people and nearly killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. But most people apparently does not include some people, including New Jersey democratic strategist Jim Devine. After the shooting, Devine tweeted this, quote, "We are in a war with selfish, foolish and narcissistic rich people. Why is it a shock when things turned violent? #HuntRepublicanCongressmen." After many people objected, Devine did not back down. He followed up by tweeting this: "I’m sorry if my #HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag hurt the feelings of any GOP snowflakes but you have not engaged in civil discourse," end-quote. We invited Jim Devine to come on the show and remarkably, he agreed. He is brave at least. Jim Devine joins us tonight. So, Jim Devine, under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to use violence for political ends?
 
JIM DEVINE: It is never acceptable to use violence for political ends, except perhaps in the most extreme cases, I’d refer you to George Washington and those guys. The fact of the matter is, we do vote with the ballots in this country what they do with bullets elsewhere. And it is not uncommon in politics that we use the language of war. We talk about fierce rhetoric, we talk about -- and so on. You were on a television program, and I don’t know what your body count was, when you were on Crossfire I assume that there were no real casualties there.
 
CARLSON: Stop. You know what? I want to have a reasonable conversation, I don’t want to demagogue this but in the hours after five people were shot, including the House Majority Whip, use or not a tweet that said "Hunt Republicans." I mean, it is clearly a reference to the assassination attempts against Congressman Scalise. It’s hard to imagine how you could justify writing something like that.
 
DEVINE: In the immediate aftermath of the shooting at the Sandy Hook school, we heard people say this is not the time to talk about gun violence. We have heard lots of things follow this. You know, this is a - -
 
CARLSON: But that’s not what you were saying. You were encouraging gun violence.
 
DEVINE: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
 
CARLSON: You wrote Hunt Republicans. What did you mean by that? Put down that paper. I am talking about you, not some other paper. I mean, please.
 
DEVINE: This is what has been out there.
 
CARLSON: Put that down. I’m not interested in what other people have to say. That’s great but we are not -- so, your excuse apparently is other people have done it. That’s not an excuse. I’m here to ask you about something you wrote and why don’t you explain it? Why did you write Hunt Republicans?
 
DEVINE: For too long, Republicans in this country have failed to distinguish the differences between politics and war. And a lot of Democrats have failed to see the similarities. So, you guys either have to tone down the rhetoric or we have to step up. And I don’t think there is anything --
 
CARLSON: So, by saying, Hunt Republicans, there is nothing wrong with that?DEVINE: Sarah Palin put the crosshairs on Congress. I’m just saying Hunt Republicans instead of Democrats.
 
CARLSON: First of all, Sarah Palin didn’t do that, a group affiliated with her did that. And it’s a difference between a metaphor and actually suggesting -- go Hunt Republicans after Republicans have just been shot.
 
DEVINE: She put up a boast about her Republican bull’s-eyes --
 
CARLSON: So, what point are you making? That that’s okay?
 
DEVINE: What I am making the point is that after year after year after year of hearing the same kind of violent rhetoric from the right, the left has every reason to come forward and stand up. What I have learned in life is that --
 
CARLSON: With violent rhetoric?
 
DEVINE: When you are confronted with bullies, you have to fight fire with fire. You have to stand up to them.
 
CARLSON: But a guy just went and tried to assassinate Republican members of Congress.
 
DEVINE: And that was a terrible --
 
CARLSON: That just happened.
 
DEVINE: And one of my tweets, Tucker, said, it is too bad nobody did something before, of course, Congressman Scalise --
 
CARLSON: This is so stupid. It was a ludicrous tweet and of course it was overshadowed by your suggestion --
 
DEVINE: Over 15 other members of the House.
 
CARLSON: Do you own a gun?
 
DEVINE: No.
 
CARLSON: Do you own a gun?
 
DEVINE: No. I said no.
 
CARLSON: Do you think that you should be able to pass a background check for a gun after tweeting something like that?
 
DEVINE: I don’t see that this would disqualify me from passing --
 
CARLSON: So, you think that someone -- hold on, hold on. As a gun control advocate, I am asking your opinion-
 
(CROSSTALK)
 
DEVINE: --subject myself to a background check if I wanted to buy --
 
CARLSON: No, no. But do you think you should be allowed or anyone -- hold on, let me finish my question. Do you think that someone who tweets the day after an attempted murder like this, "Hunt Republicans," basically cheering it on, that person, in this case, you, ought to be allowed to have a firearm in this country?
 
DEVINE: Well, first of all, your interpretation that I’m cheering it on is not accurate. I specifically said that I don’t condone or advocate violence that was within seconds and in another tweet that said, Hunt Republicans. This is a metaphor.
 
CARLSON: Another tweet that said, yes, "I do condone violence."
 
DEVINE: -- No no, I do not condone violence, it is a metaphor role term. I recently heard a prominent Republican say, I don’t have time for political correctness. And I will tell you what, I will make the time for political correctness when we have Republicans that aren’t talking over us --
 
CARLSON: I don’t even understand your point. But if we can just get back, if you can answer my question really quickly and I want to move on to the next one. Do you think that someone who tweets a line such as "Hunt Republicans" or "Hunt Democrats" ought to be allowed to have a gun, as a gun control advocate? That is my question to you. It’s really simple. What’s the answer?
 
DEVINE: Absolutely. I would think that that should in and of itself define them as a person who either broke the law--
 
CARLSON: Someone -- advocating violence in the wake of the shooting. Okay. Not much of a gun-control guy, I guess. Yes. Apparently not. So, your point is that Republicans, I guess this is your point, are advocating violence and you are proving this by holding up a poster from five years ago and because they are, you say, Democrats should, like, what is your point? Is that what you’re saying?
 
DEVINE: I am saying that Democrats have to be more aggressive in the face of political issues and the face of the opposition. We have members -- one of the persons he was on that field who spoke --
 
CARLSON: What does that mean?
 
DEVINE: With Senator Rand Paul -- Senator Rand Paul re-tweeted something from Andrew Napolitano that said, the reason we have a Second Amendment is not so people can hunt deer, so that they can shoot the tyrannical government.
 
CARLSON: So, What is your point? Did he deserved it?
 
DEVINE: My point, Tucker is very simply, no, absolutely not. But my point is that when you put up obstacles to people voting, when you secretly plot in the Senate to repeal health care that is keeping 50,000 Americans alive, and you are otherwise directing barriers to the Democratic process, where we have elections, where the people that get the most votes don’t win --
 
CARLSON: That you should be shot?
 
DEVINE: What happens is -- no! But that is tyrannical government. That’s the point.
 
CARLSON: It’s understandable when you’re shot?
 
DEVINE: It is the natural culmination --
 
CARLSON: Stop with the talking points. Just get to what you’re saying. I want to know what you are saying. Are you saying that it’s understandable?
 
DEVINE: It is a natural culmination of the argument that was made by Judge Napolitano and Senator Rand Paul. If Senator Paul Rand would like to sit down and have a discussion --
 
CARLSON: But hold on. I am really here. You are not making sense. I will give you one last chance. What is your point?
 
DEVINE: My point is enough is enough.
 
CARLSON: So, it’s time to take up arms?
 
DEVINE: No. It’s not about taking up arms. It’s about coming together and fighting back.
 
CARLSON: Fighting back how?
 
DEVINE: Politically. Peacefully.
 
CARLSON: Then, what are we doing about hunting and, you know what, you are an unbalanced person and I have to say, it is distressing that more Democrats haven’t disavowed you.
 
DEVINE: Well, I’m a perfectly balanced person.
 
CARLSON: You don’t seem it.

 

Pathetic: 'The View' Suggests Cuba, U.S. Have Same Human Rights Records

It’s often disheartening to hear some of the despicable things the audience of ABC’s The View will applaud for.

Whoopi Goldberg and her compatriots talked about Cuban relations on Monday and parroted loony moral equivocations between human rights in America and Cuba made by Cuban officials. The audience, eager to shower their undying loyalty, erupted in applause as Whoopi repeated the Communist regime's talking points:

“Well on Friday the White House also announced that they are reversing the Obama administration's steps to normalize relations with Cuba because of their (laughing) human rights violations. Forget about the fact he has shaken the hands of some of the biggest despots out there. We won't point that out because that would be wrong of me. And because of their ties to hostile nations like North Korea. But Cuban officials said ‘really?’ Because the U.S. is in no condition to lecture us about human rights given the racial discrimination happening in America now.” (applause)

Such a moral thoroughfare is flatly absurd. Cuba has been under the thumb of Communist despots for decades, and their ongoing legacy of abusing human rights is rife with mass incarceration of dissidents, execution of political opponents, and internment of homosexuals. Whatever your perception of the domestic controversy over law enforcement abuses, such a statement is an obfuscation of Noam Chomsky degree.

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

There was also a detectable level of contempt for Trump voters by the progressive panelists, most evidently Joy Behar’s bit of nihilism: “Well, the other thing is that he didn't really do that much and he didn't undo what Obama did 100%, but did just enough to say to his base, you see, I undid what Obama did.”

That’s all Trump voters want, after all- to decimate the Obama legacy, just to be mean. They aren’t up to Joy Behar’s intellectual snuff, so they could never have legitimate policy disagreements on Cuban-American relations.

Sunny Hostin was next, prefacing her blatant comparison of Cuba and the United States by saying “'I’m not going to compare the United States to Cuba”:

“We know that Cuba has had a lot of problems but the point they made about the problems that we are having here with racial discrimination, they talked about police brutality, remember, just on Friday the officer that murdered Philando Castile was found not guilty. He shot that man in front of his fiance and her 4-year-old daughter and he had a license to carry and told the officer he was going to reach for his license to carry. That he was armed and he shot him anyway. And so Cuba has somewhat of a point when they talk about a lot of if problems that we have here in the United States.”

No. They have no point. The tragic and inexcusable Castile case, or any perception of systematic racial discrimination in American law enforcement (whose undergirding complaints are contested), gives the Cuban people no leverage to have a moral spar with America.

Whoopi then began interjecting strange comments that, with no nuance, literally accused Trump of the behavior of third world tyrants.

BILA: That’s fine. We have police brutality here. This show, let's try to take this show -- you see the block we just did on Donald Trump. Let's try to take this show over to Cuba and let’s criticize Raul Castro. That wouldn't happen.
BEHAR: You cannot.
HOSTIN: I said, I’m not trying to compare our country to Cuba--
WHOOPI: You can barely do it here.

What in the world is she talking about?

BILA: We do it every day.
WHOOPI: Let's talk about that. [ Applause ]
BILA:We do it every day.
WHOOPI: You know, we're not there yet. But the bottom line is -- go ahead, dear.
BILA: I'm just saying, he makes a lot of mistakes but on this issue he is setting conditions. He's saying release your political prisoners. Have free and fair elections, enable these private citizens.
WHOOPI: You first, Mr. T.

To be clear, Whoopi suggested that, in order for her to get on board with these charges, President Trump first ought to release political prisoners (that he isn’t holding), hold free and fair elections (which is outside of his purview), and enable private citizens to break the chains of oppressive communism (which don't exist). This is lunacy.

The whole segment was an inextricable insult to Cuban families who have made their way to America and know firsthand that any attempt to loop the U.S. in with the thuggish Cuban regime can only come from the mouth of someone who has never seen real tyranny.

Read the full June 19th transcript below:

11:05 AM ET
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well on Friday the White House also announced that they are reversing the Obama administration's steps to normalize relations with Cuba because of their (laughing) human rights violations. Forget about the fact he has shaken the hands of some of the biggest despots out there. We won't point that out because that would be wrong of me. And because of their ties to hostile nations like North Korea. But Cuban officials said really? Because the U.S. is in no condition to lecture us about human rights given the racial discrimination happening in America now. [Applause] So what do you -- you know, if it wasn't just him doing things, you know, he's just doing things. It's not because he has any feeling about Cuba. He is just doing things. Saying I'm going to be in Florida. I know what to say.
JOY BEHAR:Well the other thing is that he didn't really do that much and he didn't undo what Obama did 100% but did just enough to say to his base, you see, I undid what Obama did.
JED BILA: He did a lot.
BEHAR: No, he didn’t do--
BILA: Basically I support him 100% --
BEHAR: I looked at the list, and I was there last year--I was in Cuba last year. Nothing on this list has changed. There's still a United States embassy and you still have to go with a group which I did. Everything--
BILA: A lot of people would skirt that. There was a person to person travelability where people were skirting that fact that you weren’t supposed to go there for tourism and were going. What was happening is American citizens were going over there and funding these establishments thinking they're promoting democracy and promoting ideas that are good for the Cuban people.
BEHAR: Let me tell you something.
BILA:And all of that money -- hold on one second. Was going to the Cuban military, and that's what Trump is saying. He’s saying, these policies, what the Obama administration did and I'm not saying they weren't well intentioned, it did not help the Cuban people. [ Talking over one another ]
WHOOPI: The Cuban people have decisions to make. It's like the Irish and the English. At some point you're either going to have to say we're either going to stay here in this spot or we’re going to have to move on. Now, I think it's always better to try to make the situation work for everybody. So the idea that you're coming in and saying -- not you (points to Bila). That one is coming in and saying this isn't right and this isn't right, you know, you're not saying and here's what we can do to make it right. See, this is my biggest problem.
BILA: He is though.
SARA HAINES: I think it's also selective. We just watched him in Saudi Arabia with a traditional sword dance and they have an awful record on human rights.
[ Applause ]
SUNNY HOSTIN: I also -- I'm not going to compare the United States to Cuba. We know that Cuba has had a lot of problems but the point they made about the problems that we are having here with racial discrimination, they talked about police brutality, remember, just on Friday the officer that murdered Philando Castile was found not guilty. He shot that man in front of his fiance and her 4-year-old daughter and he had a license to carry and told the officer he was going to reach for his license to carry. That he was armed and he shot him anyway. And so Cuba has somewhat of a point when they talk about a lot of if problems that we have here in the United States.
BILA: And what about Cuba is harboring a convicted cop killer. [ Talking over one another ]
BEHAR: Isn't Guantanamo in Cuba?
HOSTIN: We have police brutality here. We do have that problem. The Philando Castile verdict just came out on Friday. That is a valid point, Jed.
BILA: That’s fine. We have police brutality here. This show, let's try to take this show -- you see the block we just did on Donald Trump. Let's try to take this show over to Cuba and let’s criticize Raul Castro. That would happen.
BEHAR: You cannot.
HOSTIN: I said, I’m not trying to compare our country to Cuba--
WHOOPI: You can barely do it here.
BILA: We do it every day.
WHOOPI: Let's talk about that. [ Applause ]
BILA:We do it every day.
WHOOPI: You know, we're not there yet. But the bottom line is -- go ahead, dear.
BILA: I'm just saying, he makes a lot of mistakes but on this issue he is setting conditions. He's saying release your political prisoners. Have free and fair elections, enable these private citizens.
WHOOPI: You first, Mr. T.
HAINES: But why here and not in Egypt and China, and all of these other places?
BILA: Because we have --
HAINES: He said diplomacy would never be stopped with human rights issues.
HOSTIN: How about he's in bed with the Russians and the Russians have one of the largest histories of human rights violations?
[Applause]
BILA: You can take him to task on those but that doesn't make it any less valuable here, what he’s doing right here.
BEHAR: The bottom line about Cuba, you can talk about Cuba -- did you ever go to Cuba Whoopi?
WHOOPI: Yes. A couple times.
BEHAR: Okay, we’re the only ones that have been to Cuba. Cuba-- The people are suffering to a large extent there. The food shortage. They have medical care, but, you know, a lot of doctors are fleeing if they can get out. The people of Cuba suffer more than the government.
BILA: That’s right.
BEHAR: It’s only this old guy Raul Castro he’ll probably be gone soon. There's got to be a big change in Cuba and the United States has to deal with that.
BILA: That’s right-- you’re right!
BEHAR: So even if the military gets a few bucks from us or these people -- what are they a threat to the United States?
BILA: Because the military is a threat to those people in that country. The military takes your money and my money when we go there and they use that to suppress people. To put political dissidents in jail.
HOSTIN: What good was the embargo? What was the benefit of the embargo?
BILA: President Obama went and watched a baseball game.
WHOOPI: Listen, you have not been over there, you don't know what's working over there, babe. We'll be right back.

 

WATCH: The View Lies About the Second Amendment, Wishes We Were 'More Like' Japan

The View, ABC’s morning talk program that elevated Raven-Symone to political punditry, engaged in one of its more oafish rants Thursday on one of the many topics about which it knows very little: the Constitution.

In the wake of an agitated socialist attempting to engage in the mass murder of his political opponents, the panelists at The View changed the subject to berating the Second Amendment and the limits it places on gun control.

Whoopi Goldberg began the segment by pontificating about why Republicans having guns present would have been of no assistance, and made a vague allusion to herself having “been shot at” to justify her gun-policy acumen. This is false (at least about the impotence of hypothetical Republican armaments), because had House Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s security detail from the Capitol Police not been present, there would have been three to five minutes of unabated fire from shooter James Hodgkinson as the defenseless congressmen waited for police assistance.

Next, there is an interchange among the hosts about how it was possible for this man to have purchased a gun given his criminal history. Hodgkinson, despite a number of serious charges, had never been convicted of a felony.

Sunny Hostin, who later in the segment bemoaned that America isn’t more like Japan, expressed angst about the “very, very lax gun laws” in Virginia. This is a relative exaggeration; the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group, rates Virginia in the top half of its rankings of the states based in part on the restrictiveness of the state’s gun legislation.

Next, it was Joy Behar's turn for pontification, as she talked about how the gun laws in New York allowed her to feel safe on the “subway” or the “bus.” If she lived in a concealed-carry state, Behar described how she would live in fear of a gun attack; after all, she says, who knows how angry someone could get over “mansplaining?” Mansplaining, a word that most folks call ‘rude’, is a feminist portmanteau whereby a man speaks paternalistically to a woman, much like Joy Behar does to those who disagree with her on policy. If Behar was so unconcerned with violent outrage over mansplaining in areas with air-tight gun laws, one would assume she would delight in the prospect of roaming the streets of Chicago, one of the nation’s most gun restrictive cities, unarmed.

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

Sunny Hostin wondered with visible contempt why the US can’t be more like Japan. Behar responded dejectedly that they don’t have a radically inconvenient “second amendment” like America, which would, in turn, prevent the United States from implementing a socialist paradise because of those backward Republicans who cling to their silly guns and religion.

The conservative on the panel, Jedediah Bila, had the audacity to talk, but Whoopi talked over her and told her she “doesn’t believe” her claim that she knows people who own guns. Bila was prevented from interrupting the conjugal thought bubble. Crisis averted.

Not so fast. Bila interjected her way back into the conversation and stated that a society where “only police have guns” is a “police state”. Whoopi then deftly rebutted this claim with Shakespearean prose, saying that, no, “that is not a police state”.

For the remainder of the segment, the panel spewed reams of misinformation on the Second Amendment, claiming it was intended only for militias and that there is no individual right to bear arms under the Constitution. This, of course, is patently untrue. The Second Amendment was put into the Constitution in order for citizens to have the capacity to arm themselves against a potentially tyrannical state that threatened their freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and by proxy stand as an additional check on the power of government. There is little historical ambiguity on this claim. In 1788 Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, Samuel Adams made it clear: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

After the break, Whoopi and company returned to their typical itinerary of gossip, culture, and occasional lurches into the political woods.

Read the full June 15th transcript below:


WHOOPI: So we were having this discussion about civility and all this stuff, and you brought up this idea of gun control. So, of course, now people are talking about gun control laws. But some of the Republicans that were there yesterday say -- they are going to be carrying guns now because they think they could have prevented this. So let me -- as a person who owns guns and has been shot at -- 

What?

WHOOPI: Yes. You know -- listen. You hear shots. You're basically, and if you look at someone -- people run.

JEDEDIAH BILA: Yes.

WHOOPI: You run to get out of the way. You don't stop and go, hey! You know? And if you are playing softball, you are not wearing your gun. So what are you going to do? You going to run over to your bag while they are shooting? You going to root in your bag and get your gun and then try to figure out where it's coming from plus all the adrenaline? That's not the answer.

JOY BEHAR: Well the gun that this guy was using -- [ applause ] What's his name? Hodgkinson. He was using an SKS 7.62 rifle, whatever that-- it's a semi-automatic that can fire up to 40 rounds per minute. 

WHOOPI: And when he hit the ground and it kept firing. Why did he have a gun? He has, apparently, from what you read, you know, I don't know the man-- 

BEHAR: Because he didn't commit a felony, he was accused of domestic abuse --

BILA: Go ahead.

WHOOPI: Beating up his daughter wasn't enough to take the gun out of his hand. 

They dropped the charges, that's the problem.

SONNY HOSTIN: An Illinois fire alarm (phone rings) oh--That's me. Sorry about that. Sorry about that.

BEHAR: At least yours doesn't play "Call Me Maybe."

HOSTIN: Sorry about that. He had an Illinois firearm I.D. Card and a conceal carry license in that state, and in Virginia, the gun laws are very, very laxed, they're very, very loose. But law enforcement officers will tell you, when there is more than one person that has a gun, it makes the situation more dangerous for them because they don't know who the bad guys are.

BEHAR: Because I live in New York state -- I want to say this one thing because it's personal really. Because I live in New York state and there are tight gun laws here. I take the subway, I take the bus. I walk around freely. If I was living in one of these states -- open carry or whatever they are. 

Permit. 

Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!

BEHAR: I would never do public transportation. I would be afraid some guy on the subway would have a fit, go mad or be upset about somebody took your seat or someone is mansplaining or what have you, and shoot somebody else because it's easy to do.

HOSTIN: Why can't we follow the lead of other countries? I mean if you look at Japan, there is almost no gun violence, in fact, it's like the chance of being killed by a gun are just the same as chances in the United States of being struck by lightning. It's, like, one in a million. 

BEHAR: They don't have the second amendment in Japan.

HOSTIN: Why don't we learn from them? 

BILA: I feel differently about that. When I go to states like Arizona. When I go to states like Texas, I'm not worried about law-abiding citizens carrying guns. They don't make me nervous. I feel much more comfortable  knowing that if something happens you have law-abiding citizens who have gone through background checks that have been trained--

WHOOPI: Have you been around people with guns? No. 

BILA: No I have! I have been around a lot of people who have been trained-- 

WHOOPI: Really. So have you been around--afraid people with guns? 

BILA: A lot of these people -- 

WHOOPI: I don't believe you, Jed. I don't believe you. 

BILA: I'm a conservative. They are a very pro-guns and pro-second amendment group. I have a lot of -- I'm not a gun girl, but I have a lot of experience. 

WHOOPI: I am saying to you, that when people start shooting, people tend to run. If other people have guns, it makes it very hard for the police to know who is shooting. 

HOSTIN: (indistinguishable) more likely to hurt themselves. 

WHOOPI: Who to shoot, because every civilian has got a gun out. 

HOSTIN: But the problem is if the capitol police weren't there and the capitol police were only there because Scalise is there, because he's the House majority whip and if they had not shown up, there would have been a massacre there.

That's their job, that's their training. 

BILA: You live in a society where only police have guns, that's called a police state. That is not the United States of America.

WHOOPI: That is not a police state. Listen. Jed--the Second Amendment--Let's talk about the Second Amendment then. 

Please.

WHOOPI: Because the second amendment is about a militia. That's what it says.

BILA: But that was at the time that it was written. 

WHOOPI: That's right. 

BILA: The right to bear arms. Protect yourself and your family. 

HOSTIN: Not to protect yourself and your family that's not what the second amendment is about. 

WHOOPI: Put up the militia-- the Second Amendment while we're talking about other stuff. We'll be right back

Fake News: 'The View' Claims Lib Senator Is Victim of Sexist Interruptions

The View is a show that has, for much of its history, profited off of manufactured outrage. Friday’s broadcast took a similar turn, when they discussed the multifarious “sexism” embedded in liberal favorite Senator Kamala Harris getting “interrupted” by her fellow Senators. Other supposed examples: Reminding her not to interrupt Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was attempting to answer her question, and being called “hysterical” by a Trump surrogate.

After playing the initial clip of Session’s testimony, Joy Behar noted, with a remarkable lack of self awareness, that Sessions, who was forced to rush through testimony given under threat of perjury, needed to avoid getting his “panties in a twist.” Sunny Hostin then proceeded to deliver a frothing sermon on the “stately” Senator Harris and impugn the character of Sessions by suggesting he was lying under oath.

Sara Haines and Behar were next, taking us through a lesson on the sexist etymology of the word “hysterical”, which viscerally was the most intelligent portion of their diatribe, but it left one feeling dumber for having heard it.

The voice of conservatism/sensibility on the panel, Jed Bila, pointed out the blatantly obvious fishing involved in suggesting that interrupting Harris is tantamount to sexism, particularly when she herself interrupts anyone whom she questions. Hostin was livid, saying she only did so when people were trying to “evade the question”.

This statement, combined with Hostin’s previous lurid remarks about Harris’ unmatched “stately” demeanor, lead us at Newsbusters to wonder: does Kamala Harris ever interrupt anyone? A brief scan of congressional hearings yielded the following montage:

Perhaps the most soothing takeaway from this segment on The View is as a reflection of how far our nation has come when interrupting a serially-interrupting senator is considered a major development in 21st century sexism.

This segment of bloviation on The View was brought to you by sponsors such as Philadelphia cream cheese, Maybelline NY, and Tide.

Read the full June 16th transctipt below:

11:12 AM ET

JOY BEHAR: Welcome back. So Attorney General Sessions -- they kept calling him General in those things, and I thought, he is not in the army, why are they calling him General? But anyway, he’s Attorney General. He has been getting grilled a lot in the Russian probe and Senator Kamala Harris really went at him. Watch.

HARRIS: Did you have any communication with any Russian businessmen or any Russian nationals?

SESSIONS: I don't believe I had any conversation with Russian businessmen or Russian nationals.

HARRIS: Are you aware of any communications --

SESSIONS:Although, a lot of people were at the convention and it's conceivable anybody could up to me.

HARRIS: Sir, sir I have just a few moments--

SESSIONS:You let me -- if I don't qualify it, you will accuse me of lying. So I need to be correct as best I can.

HARRIS: I do want you to be honest.

SESSIONS: I’m not able to be rushed this fast, it makes me nervous.

BEHAR: Don't get your panties in a twist, my goodness!

SUNNY HOSTIN: He’s nervous.

BEHAR: Yeah, so the former Trump aide Jason Miller said that she was being hysterical, quote/unquote. Would you--do you  think they would ever use the word hysterical against a male senator?

(crowd moans)

HOSTIN: They would never do it, and I know Kamala Harris. I think what’s so offensive us she is the most even keeled stately person that you will meet. She is a former prosecutor and she was using that experience to kind of cross-examine him. Don't we want that?

PAULA FARRIS: Well you want that, but you have to let him qualify, you still have to let them finish he wasn’t done speaking.

HOSTIN: You don’t need to qualify so much when you’re telling the truth. Just sayin’. Just sayin’.

(applause)

FARRIS: But, exactly, I get that too, but in this setting and this climate, the more information the better. The more information the better, so I think you can qualify as much as you need to, and especially considering the source.

HOSTIN: He was trying to use up the time. Because each senator doesn’t get a lot.

SARA HAINES: They don’t get a lot of time so I think they are trying to bang out of it, and the interesting thing about the word hysterical is it’s a word with a female-baiting history from ‘hystericus’ which was once a common medical diagnosis reserved exclusively for women sending them uncontrollably insane sometimes causing-- and they would have to perform a hysterectomy. So it’s actually just unique to a woman and her uterus.

BEHAR: It’s a Greek word, hysterical, hysteria-- guess, which means uterus as in, grab them by the-- like that.

HAINES: (indistinguishable) --- female history.

BEHAR: It's the women. That’s why hysterectomy means uterus. Yes.

JEDEDIAH BILA: There’s a rush though, like, she doesn't -- if you watch her repeatedly, and I have watched her repeatedly, she doesn't oftentimes let people answer the question. That’s a fact.

HOSTIN: She doesn’t let them evade the question.

BILA: No, no. She doesn't let them answer to the point where they’re like, can I answer the question? And I just think you need to be really careful I think in this country or anywhere when you label everything sexist. She is a big girl, she’s smart, she’s confident, she’s capable. I don't need to feel sorry for her in this situation. And I think, when there is real sexism--

HOSTIN: Hysterical is sexist.

HAINES: That example is the worst.

BILA: That's fine, but saying -- do you know how many headline I read? She was interrupted. So what? We all get interrupted at this table.

HOSTIN: They don't do it to men. They don’t do it to men. Not on that committee.

BILA: They interrupt men all the time, and it's hysteria to always label-- there's real racism, there is real sexism there’s all of these ‘isms’. There are real examples of that, but when we rush to say this is sexist immediately all the time or this is racist, I think we demean those incidents in which it happens.

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

WATCH: The View Lies About the Second Amendment, Wishes We Were ‘More Like’ Japan

The View, ABC’s morning talk program that elevated Raven-Symone to political punditry, engaged in one of its more oafish rants Thursday on one of the many topics about which it knows very little: the Constitution. In the wake of an agitated socialist attempting to engage in the mass murder of his political opponents, the panelists at The View changed the subject to berating the Second Amendment and the limits it places on gun control.

MSNBC Guest Rants Against ‘Lunatics’ Limbaugh and Coulter

A Democrat candidate for the governorship in Maryland appeared on MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle Tuesday to further incite mayhem on the day’s already circus-like broadcast. Ruhle did her part in setting up the full-fledged #Resistance member Ross with typical leftist innuendos, decrying constitutionalists like Mark Levin as the “extreme right” capable of playing to the oft-maligned Trump “base”. Ross took the bait and, refused to be one-upped in shrill hysteria.

MSNBC Analyst Compares Trump Travel Ban to Interning Japanese-Americans

Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman appeared on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur to discuss the status of the President’s proposed immigration halt. Akerman, a respected legal mind, seemed to apply to the Supreme Court the bizarre charge of viewing cases as blank slates upon which history’s great injustices might be somehow repatriated, rather than the blind arbiter of constitutionality it was designed to be.

CNN and MSNBC, Renegades Against Trump’s ‘Religious Test’, Ignore Sanders’ Actual Religious Test

CNN, MSNBC and all of the mainstream media lost their minds when President Trump rolled out a halt on travel from seven majority Muslim countries, insisting the President was abridging constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms. The case for this argument has been relatively tenuous. However, when a leftist demigod literally applied a religious test to a cabinet nominee, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC have not as of this writing so much as mentioned the incident.

Scarborough: If You Think Trump’s Behavior Wasn’t Thuggish, You’re ‘Fat’

Joe Scarborough, the GOP representative-turned- MSNBC-host was up to no good, bloviating on Morning Joe program Friday morning about James Comey’s Thurday testimony.

Nixon Biographer: ‘Koch Money’ GOPers Will Never Impeach Trump, Blames Rush Limbaugh

On Monday’s The Last Word, one would think that Nixon biographer and voracious student of presidential history Elizabeth Drew would be able to speak specifically about the political landscape when asked to tie the (tired) Trump-Watergate knot on MSNBC, and avoid trite partisan talking points. Nevertheless, she persisted.

Velshi Lectures America About Terror’s Real Cost: Intolerance

Ali Velshi took a moment at the end of his broadcast Monday to parrot one of the Left’s favorite bumper stickers on the nature of Islamism. He gently turned to the camera, and offered to impart a much needed lesson upon the recalcitrant masses. These jihadists, aside from the mass body counts, broken families, and permanently disfigured survivors left in their wake, caused a scourge almost worse: intolerance.  

Dan Rather’s Grave Diagnosis: President Trump ‘Psychologically Troubled’

Fake news pioneer Dan Rather was on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show The Last Word Thurday night, and he knew exactly why President Trump disagreed with him on climate policy: it’s because of deep rooted psychological difficulties. 

‘They Go Low, We Go High’: MSNBC’s Deutsch Says ‘Dangerous Little Man’ Trump is Backward, Uneducated

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement was highly controversial on Thursday, with Democrats and even some Republicans opposing the move. MSNBC, anxious to bring on a level headed dissenter from Trump’s decision, brought Donny Deutsch onto Nicolle Wallace’s Deadline: White House

%d bloggers like this: