Archive for John Hirschauer

Slate: Trump's MS-13 Rhetoric Similar to Lynch-Mob Sympathizers

To vociferously oppose MS-13 is to, in so many words, descend from the rhetorical lineage of lynch-mob sympathizers in the Jim Crow south. So says Slate’s Jamelle Bouie in his Thursday piece “Make America Afraid Again”:

“Rhetorically, Trump’s Youngstown speech recalls the openly racist language found in the early 20th century among white reporters, pamphleteers, and politicians who expressed the prejudices of the era. In Southern newspapers, for example, writers described the alleged crimes of black offenders with gruesome and sensational detail, usually to justify lynchings and other forms of extrajudicial violence.”

Except it’s totally different. The attempt at thoroughfare between lynch-justifying southern Democrats and those who berate the actions of a gang whose brutal crimes were only possible by a refusal to enforce existing immigration law borders on the moral criminalization of believing in national sovereignty.

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

As The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley pointed out in his book False Black Power?, the perpetuation of racial politics in the United States relies and inherently profits upon a “backwards-looking racial narrative” that dredges through the annals of past racial injustice to link today’s GOP, via rhetoric, policy, or ruminations about the “Southern Strategy” with (Democrat) conservatives of the past who opposed integration and supported slavery.

To be sure, America has not been, and likely will never be, expunged of individual bigots, racists, and society’s true deplorables. But the moral equivocation between the most horrific acts of America’s history and current policy debates seems a cheap tactic to force modern political actors into avatars of either Martin Luther King or Strom Thurmond. And don’t dare bring it up, unless you’d like to end up cast in moral air with the latter.

Trump has certainly said and done things that have evoked (warranted) criticism from many of his peers on the right. It seems, however, that racialism and identity politics has become so politically profitable for the Left that lurid analogies like Mr. Bouie’s undermine other, more salient criticisms

 

The Atlantic Claims That Teaching the American Dream Hurts Kids

One of the core ideological issues that determines a person’s political philosophy is the degree to which one believes that unfavorable external circumstances can be overcome via persistence and hard work. If an individual believes that America is a place so racist, so intractably bigoted that few, if any, minorities will escape from its systemically corrupt clutches, it naturally follows that one would advocate for governmental redistribution of wealth from the benefactors of Rawlsian chance to those with an almost Calvinist predestination for serfdom. Conversely, those who recognize, to varying degrees, the agency of people in adverse socioeconomic conditions to overcome such obstacles will be more likely to advocate for less government involvement in wealth redistribution. In other words, it is a point of gigantic political contention.

The Left has been active in trying to all but criminalize belief in meritocracy and to score the issue settled, profoundly illustrated in universities across the country deeming a belief that jobs ought to go to the most qualified candidate to be a “microaggression,” supposedly gaslighting minorities into believing it’s possible to get a fair shake in America. Melinda Anderson of The Atlantic took it a step further Thursday when they claimed that teaching children the typical formulation of the meritocratic American Dream caused minority children and teenagers to engage in maladaptive behavior.

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

The study itself asserts that “system justifying beliefs” are detrimental to the academic performance and behavioral patterns of minority children. More directly, if a minority child believes that “[i]n general, American society is fair,” they are more likely to have engaged in bad behavior and hold lower self esteem.

Though this is only one study of one sample of minority children, it is certainly possible that this is indeed representative of larger societal trends in America. The question is, what is the remedy?

To hear The Atlantic tell it, the solution is Howard Zinn on steroids (emphasis mine):

“Recognizing the vast economic and racial inequalities his students faced, he chose what some might consider a radical approach for his writing and social-studies classes, weaving in concepts such as racism, classism, oppression, and prejudice. Barrett said it was vital to reject the oft-perpetuated narrative that society is fair and equal to address students’ questions and concerns about their current conditions. And Brighton Elementary’s seventh- and eighth-graders quickly put the lessons to work—confronting the school board over inequitable funding, fighting to install a playground, and creating a classroom library focused on black and Latino authors.

American society, to be sure, isn’t fair, in the pure and abstract sense, and individual injustices occur every day that ought to be fought. But is the solution to this issue to strip students of their agency and embed a sense of helplessness, and teach them that the country that has afforded them opportunities children the world over would die for is irredeemably racist?

There is a reason people the world over desperately try to enter America. As is often repeated by Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, there are concrete ways to escape poverty in the United States, as confirmed by a 2013 Brookings Institute study. For American adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until the age of 21 to get married and have children, the study found that “only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year).” Poverty, obviously, is a problem that goes beyond cut-and-dried personal responsibility and is, in some sense, systemically oriented, but in a free market country like America, there are steps one can take to better oneself and one’s progeny. To pretend otherwise does worse than hurt self esteem- it steals people’s sense of agency and responsibility.

Conscripting a child in grade school to an almost gravitationally certain future of misery shaped more by melanin level than grade point average is to directly indoctrinate students in an inevitably redistributionist school of thought and all but assure their future as progressive voters. Is it the facility of the American public school to settle for America’s youth the fundamental political question of government redistribution, one’s personal beliefs on the matter aside?

MSNBC Guest: Sessions Wants to 'Steal The Right to Vote,' Longs to Make People Suffer

Jason Johnson, politics editor for TheRoot.com, a sectarian site dedicated to “black news, opinion, politics and culture”, appeared on MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle Tuesday morning to discuss President Trump’s verbal spar with Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In keeping with the hyper-racialized rhetoric that litters the site  (including a piece this morning entitled “I Can Understand Why Some Black People Couldn’t Care Less About Justine Damond”), the editor went on a slanderous tirade against Attorney General Sessions.

First, Johnson began with a sloppy yet predictable leftist trope, proclaiming that Jeff Sessions wants to “steal the right to vote from tons of people.” The accusation is sordid on its face, but it bears repeating- those who claim that requiring voters to display some form of identification is a tantamount attempt to disenfranchise minority voters are profiting from the same obfuscatory, backwards-glancing politics that African-American author Jason Reilly claims “treats blacks not as individuals with agency but rather as a group of victims who are both blameless and helpless.”

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

Later, bemoaning the fact that the Trump campaign dared to attempt to undermine the Democrat monopoly on inner city American politics, Johnson made a statement which seemed to defy civility, assigning nefarious motives to his political opponent:

Look, I think because Trump is confusing what real ideology is versus his own personal issues. Jeff Sessions is a real ideologue. Jeff Sessions is going to fight against that horrible America, those devastated cities that Donald Trump says is [sic] a problem and he's not going to get caught up in the fact that Trump is in in his own trouble. And I'll also say this--like you were mentioning, he's waited his whole life to be in a position to make all these people suffer. Jeff Sessions is not going to pass up this opportunity just because his boss has a problem.”

Johnson, without so much as a sentence of resistance from Ruhle, proclaimed that the Attorney General of the United States has a sadistic desire to “make all these people” in the inner city “suffer.” It’s a masochistic tendency so deeply embedded in Sessions’ psyche, Johnson chided, that he “is not going to pass up this opportunity” to inflict this pain “just because his boss has a problem.”

While Sessions’ decision to recuse himself has been controversial, and some on the right have taken issue with his positions on civil asset forfeiture and sentencing prescriptions, it is clear that an insatiable preoccupation with race can lead to uncharitably reading race into every move made by your political opposites. It has become increasingly difficult to express any dissension from mainstream leftist orthodoxy without the cloud of ill-motives being cast over divergent points of view.

Read the full July 25 transcript below:

MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle
7-25-17
9:08 AM ET
RUHLE: Why not just say, you're out?
JASON JOHNSON: Because at his core, I think either Trump or members of his administration, they're afraid. This is one thing about Jeff Sessions that is different than a lot of these other senators. Jeff Sessions is his own man. I have serious disagreements with him and his desire to steal the right to vote from tons of people and take asset forfeiture, but he is his own man, he is a true conservative, and he is not going to leave this position. He's going to make Trump fire him. And if he does, they don't know what the he might be willing to say, because Jeff Sessions feels relatively protected. So Trump thinks he can bully this guy--you can't bully this guy. Jeff Sessions is too tough for him.
9:12:02 AM ET
RUHLE: But isn't that what's so demented about this? Jay, you're saying, 'Listen, I don't agree with the guy, but he shouldn't step down.' Things have gotten so warped that knowing Jeff Sessions' views, knowing what he's doing in terms of criminal justice reform, you're still telling him, 'Sit back, Beauregard, hang tight?'
JASON JOHNSON: (laughs) Look, I think because Trump is confusing what real ideology is versus his own personal issues. Jeff Sessions is a real ideologue. Jeff Sessions is going to fight against that horrible America, those devastated cities that Donald Trump says is [sic] a problem and he's not going to get caught up in the fact that Trump is in in his own trouble. And I'll also say this--like you were mentioning, he's waited his whole life to be in a position to make all these people suffer. Jeff Sessions is not going to pass up this opportunity just because his boss has a problem-- and my sources, I spoke to someone yesterday who said, 'look, Rience has already all but said, dude, we'd really like you to resign, and Jeff said you're gonna have to fire me.' That's what I heard from one of my sources yesterday.

CNN Gives Three Times as Much Coverage to Trump Dinner Than Obama’s Hot Mic

As the White House becomes further entrenched in the throes of media claims of Russian collusion, it seemed only natural that the news media would have a fit of spasmodic rage when President Trump had an undisclosed meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit of world leaders.

But one would hope that if an incumbent U.S. President who was running for reelection were caught on a hot mic promising “more flexibility” to hostile actors in Russia after his assumed electoral victory, the media would be equally if not more curious about such an act than a discussion at a conference of world leaders where, to date, there has been no evidence of nefarious dialogue.

We went and quantitatively compared CNN’s coverage of both events, which yielded a predictable result: in their initial hours of coverage on July 18th, CNN allotted three times more airtime to Trump’s (of yet) innocuous discussion than they did on March 26, 2012 to President Obama’s hot mic posturing.

CNN dashed any semblance of proportion between the two issues in its coverage of the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20 summit Tuesday night. From the time the news broke at about 5:35 PM Eastern through the end of the newsday, CNN spent over 75 minutes seething over the undisclosed meeting. By contrast, during the same span on March 26, 2012 (5 pm to Midnight Eastern) they spent merely a third of the time- slightly over 25 minutes- discussing Obama’s unbecoming exchange with Russian President Medvedev. And the Trump-Putin dinner conversation wasn’t their only coverage of the Russia story- the network spent an additional 33 minutes on Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a group of Russians, for a grand total of one hour, 48 minutes of Russian coverage just last night.

Perhaps more egregious was the disparate manner in which CNN discussed the two events. Obama’s 2012 incident yielded what seemed to be apologies more than legitimate political criticism, complete with lamentations that the GOP must have “jumped all over this, right?” Wolf Blitzer, in perhaps the understatement of the year, solemnly conceded that it was “an awkward moment indeed.”

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

Trump’s meeting, on the other hand, was casted as a borderline threat to American sovereignty, with Don Lemon raising questions about Trump’s “credibility,” and Pamela Brown insisting that it raised “significant questions” about “Trump’s own posture in regard to Russia.” Meanwhile, a sitting U.S. President seems to wryly suggest deference once reelected and the most CNN can come up with is “awkward.”

Lest anyone was concerned, CNN last night also gave minutes of coverage to the impending coincidental clash of tropical storms Don and Hillary.

 

The Atlantic Wishes America Could Be More Like Canada

It’s been clear for a while, but it has recently become exceedingly so: America’s most educated and esteemed elites really don’t think America is all that great. The rhetoric is everywhere- from The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik asking whether the American Revolution was a mistake all the way to the seemingly unanimous conception of the American academy that the nation’s citizenry is irredeemably bigoted. It came, then, as no surprise when The Atlantic’s Jonathan Kay yearned on Monday for the greener pastures up north, affirmatively quoting JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon:

“We are unable to build bridges, we're unable to build airports, our inner city school kids are not graduating,’ is how JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon summarized the state of things during an earnings conference call last week. ‘It’s almost embarrassing being an American citizen.”

In part, Kay blamed America’s ills on voter racism, highlighting that “Barack Obama’s rise to power exacerbated the racist tendencies of embittered reactionaries.” What’s more, he bemoaned the fact that Americans just aren’t taxed enough, ranking just 31st out of 35 wealthy OECD countries in tax burden. But most of all? They ignore the lessons learned in Kansas five years ago:

“By contrast, when Kansas Governor Sam Brownback abruptly slashed the state’s top income tax rate by 26 percent in 2012, state revenues went into a freefall. Yet the notions that government is always a plague upon the economy and that lower tax rates will lead directly to growth and prosperity—which have together accreted into a core plank of U.S. conservative ideology since the Reagan years—still remain popular. And Donald Trump seems intent on steering the country onto the same downward trajectory as Kansas…”

The failures of entire countries predicated on high taxation, high government expenditures and low income inequality- see Venezuela, Cuba, and the USSR, among others- can be written off as aberrations, mere misapplications of the social democracy for which Kay opines. It’s conservative ideology that cherrypicks the success of the Reagan economy to justify their economic philosophy, not the Left’s strange fetish for the anomalous Nordic countries that seems to justify their reclamation of the historically inept philosophy of socialism.

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

Kay acknowledged that he paid 46 percent of his gross income to the state, but it’s a transaction he’s willing to make in exchange for the bland egalitarianism of social democracy. The implication, of course, is that Republicans or conservatives who don’t subscribe to that vision of the societal contract are greedy misers who are so fiendishly attached to their wealth that they are invariably unable to care for the poor. This forgets that conservative households, statistically, significantly out-donate their liberal counterparts to charitable causes by about 30 percent, and Americans writ large donated $373 billion dollars to charity in 2015, which is larger than the entire economies of 166 countries globally.

Could it be possible that Americans just like freedom? It’s perfectly legitimate for Mr. Kay to have earnest policy disagreements with the American Right, but if he is so fond of centralized governmental control, could he not move to Canada himself?

 

MSNBC Runs Segment on Venezuelan Crisis, Refuses to Mention Socialism

On Monday morning, Hallie Jackson ran a segment on MSNBC Live devoted to investigating the ills of Venezuela amid growing tensions in the South American country. For the entirety of the segment, neither the host nor her guest even mentioned the socialism that has bound the once prosperous nation to starvation.

If a foreign country that had decided to explicitly govern itself upon free market capitalism were to be inflamed with ceaseless riots, food shortages, and political unrest, the media would be foaming at the mouth to tar conservatism and its adherents as co-conspirators in fomenting the turmoil. When the avowedly socialist regime that overtook Venezuela implemented a $12.53 minimum wage, upheld a single-payer public health system, and resorted to the type of bread lines that Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has warmly endorsed erupts into unmitigated chaos, the media is unwilling to talk about the ideological buttress of the nation’s economic disaster, namely, socialism. Why is this?

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

Consider Andrew Klavan’s prophetic “First Rule of Mainstream Media Journalism”: “Whenever the prejudices and illusions of left-wingers are confirmed by an individual incident, the incident is treated as representative; when those prejudices and illusions are contradicted, the incident is considered an aberration — and treating it as representative is deemed hateful.”

We’ve seen this, of course, play out in the extrapolations about American racism made after Dylan Roof’s horrendous shooting of nine black churchgoers but the media’s comparative silence about the theological motivations of the Orlando terrorist, whose reference to Allah was censored out of the call log by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. But Klavan’s almost scientific postulate extends remarkably to the world of economics, in some sense- the media love to play fact-checkers when Republicans try to make arguments for the repeal of Obamacare, but they have been very cautious in their coverage of the damning study indicating the economic ill-effects of Seattle’s newly implemented minimum wage hike, even, as Forbes pointed out, to the point of outright dismissal of its results by the entire editorial board of The New York Times.

Venezuela is a case study, if not an outright rebuttal, of the proposition that people are docile in the face of government tyranny so long as that government “gives” them a certain bill of goods. Moreover, it is living proof of the regressive nature of statism- the once booming Venezuela now has a starving citizenry, 75% of which has lost an average of 19 pounds in the last year alone.

Don’t expect the media to let you know why.

 

MSNBC Guest: GOP Wants to Repeal ACA Because Obama Is Black

You can’t disagree with the left anymore without some sort of ulterior motive ascribed to you. After all, if you were a good person, you would think like them.

It’s obvious to Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, who appeared on Thursday's The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, why Senate Republicans want to repeal Affordable Care Act: it’s because President Obama is black. While ObamaCare drove up premiums nationwide, decimated insurance exchanges and brought the United States one step closer to single-payer, Republicans- and by extension, the people who voted for them- just don’t like the fact that we had an “African-American President.”

For Republicans, Belcher claimed that “this isn’t about health care.” After Belcher uttered that, the audience sat on the edge of their seat, waiting for the ill-motive he was going to ascribe to his political opponents. Why isn’t it about health care? Is it just an excuse for Republicans to exercise their masochistic desire to kill old women and the poor? Or because they hate the disabled?

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

Rather than the low-brow approach of saying your opponent wants to kill poor people, Belcher took the high road, instead claiming Republicans so despise the concept of an African-American President that they’d do anything to take any “legacy of him off the face of the planet." Not because he was a radical progressive, but because of the melanin level in his skin.

It’s obviously legitimate to disagree or viciously disapprove of the Senate health bill, but one would hope in the wake of the escalated climate of political violence we could stop claiming our opponents are motivated by hatred.

Read the full transcript below:

11:52 PM ET

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And Cornell, as they say, the whole world is watching. At least the entire cotry, everyone engaged on this subject.

CORNELL BELCHER: Well, I wish the whole world were watching and I wish more of the voters were engaged in this. I wish there were more hearings about this. But look, this is a terrible bill. And when you look at-- you know, don't take my word for it, take what Republican Senator Collins said, this is going to have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable, this is going to have an adverse impact on rural health care, right. But this also is politics. This is about politics, right. This, Brian, this is isn't about better healthcare, this is about the irrational continuum of politics that has happened since we elected the first African-American President. They tried to delegitimize him for eight years, they tried to block everything he tried to do for eight years. Now they're trying to wipe everything they may look like a legacy of him off the face of the planet. This is about politics. This is not about better healthcare.

 

MSNBC Guest: GOP Wants to Repeal ACA Because Obama Is Black

You can’t disagree with the left anymore without some sort of ulterior motive ascribed to you. After all, if you were a good person, you would think like them.

It’s obvious to Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, who appeared on Thursday's The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, why Senate Republicans want to repeal Affordable Care Act: it’s because President Obama is black. While ObamaCare drove up premiums nationwide, decimated insurance exchanges and brought the United States one step closer to single-payer, Republicans- and by extension, the people who voted for them- just don’t like the fact that we had an “African-American President.”

For Republicans, Belcher claimed that “this isn’t about health care.” After Belcher uttered that, the audience sat on the edge of their seat, waiting for the ill-motive he was going to ascribe to his political opponents. Why isn’t it about health care? Is it just an excuse for Republicans to exercise their masochistic desire to kill old women and the poor? Or because they hate the disabled?

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

Rather than the low-brow approach of saying your opponent wants to kill poor people, Belcher took the high road, instead claiming Republicans so despise the concept of an African-American President that they’d do anything to take any “legacy of him off the face of the planet." Not because he was a radical progressive, but because of the melanin level in his skin.

It’s obviously legitimate to disagree or viciously disapprove of the Senate health bill, but one would hope in the wake of the escalated climate of political violence we could stop claiming our opponents are motivated by hatred.

Read the full transcript below:

11:52 PM ET

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And Cornell, as they say, the whole world is watching. At least the entire cotry, everyone engaged on this subject.

CORNELL BELCHER: Well, I wish the whole world were watching and I wish more of the voters were engaged in this. I wish there were more hearings about this. But look, this is a terrible bill. And when you look at-- you know, don't take my word for it, take what Republican Senator Collins said, this is going to have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable, this is going to have an adverse impact on rural health care, right. But this also is politics. This is about politics, right. This, Brian, this is isn't about better healthcare, this is about the irrational continuum of politics that has happened since we elected the first African-American President. They tried to delegitimize him for eight years, they tried to block everything he tried to do for eight years. Now they're trying to wipe everything they may look like a legacy of him off the face of the planet. This is about politics. This is not about better healthcare.

 

Seriously? MSNBC Consults Disgraced Dan Rather on ‘Ethics’

In MSNBC’s search for a spokesman of sacrosanct ethics and patriotism, they turned to an unlikely source: Dan Rather. The fake news forefather joined Chris Hayes on his Tuesday All In program, opining that lying by Trump Jr. and other Trump officials raised “a real ethical question” about their character. Moreover, he argued, it lead to very real questions about their “patriotism”:

Rather, of course, has himself engaged in behaviors of questionable patriotic substance when he literally forged a document impugning a sitting President.

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

What’s perhaps most remarkable was the unmitigated deference given to Rather by Hayes in this exchange, hoisting Rather up as “someone who has reported on and observed American political life for decades.”

While this is true, the optics of this conversation were akin to Bill Clinton discussing the merits of chastity or George Wallace explaining the importance of integration.

A certain amount of charity ought to be given to those attempting to earnestly atone for their own past misdeeds, and it is possible to take seriously those sincerely remorseful for mistakes they’ve made. But, it seems, Rather gives his political opponents no such generosity.

Read the full transcript below:

7-11-17

All in With Chris Hayes

8:13 PM

RATHER: If he has in fact lied about it--I know some people would say since he's lied about it, but if in fact he lied about it, that's a crime. That can be perjury. But at the very least, whether he is legally accountable or not there is a real ethical question involved here. There’s a question of patriotism involved here. And it is an immense political question for Donald Trump’s presidency right now because the hot breath of truth is coming down heavy on their necks just now.

HAYES: As to the ethical problem, I really want to get your perspective on what we have seen happen in just the last 24 hours. We've seen, okay, you know, people who defended the President said there's no interference. Then there was interference but no collusion. And now it’s, basically, well, they tried to collude but really who wouldn't? I mean, as someone who has reported on and observed American political life for decades, what do you say to people who say that any campaign would have taken this meeting, this is totally normal, this isn’t aberrant.

RATHER: I would say that’s not true and it’s demonstrably untrue.

Amazing: Peter Beinart Doubles Down on Allegations of Trump Dog Whistling

Peter Beinart’s Tuesday article in The Atlantic, which deemed Trump’s Warsaw speech a nod to his “white nationalist” base, was an inevitable, almost gravitational spasm from the identity wing of the Democrat party. Criticism of Beinart’s contorted logic poured in, and on Tuesday morning, he responded to his critics by redoubling on claims “racial” undertones in the President’s defense of the West.

In his first article, Beinart opined with telepathic certainty that Trump’s speech, though on its face an impassioned defense of liberty, was really a call for religious chauvinism and racially infused jingoism using Morse code that only the country’s bigots could understand. Trump is mean, after all, so there’s no way he couldn’t have had the nefarious motives ascribed by Beinart and others.

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

Beinart spent much of the piece arguing directly with one critic in particular, Daniel Foster, a National Review contributor whose rebuttal appeared in The Atlantic on Monday. He pushed back specifically on the contextualization Foster gave to the geographic and racial counterexamples that Beinart felt undergirded his initial argument that the West was “a racial and religious term.”

He then went on to reframe his argument entirely: not only was Trump’s usage of the “Western civilization” rhetoric racist, but the entire concept of “Western civilization” was one steeped in discrimination, because “[i]f ‘Western’ is synonymous with ‘democratic’ or ‘free,’ then you don’t need the term at all.”

Beinart’s ultimate claim is that “Western” nomenclature is not really synonymous with “democracy, freedom, tolerance, and equality.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so let’s apply Mr. Beinart’s own logic, that the ideological persuasions of a messenger can soil the message, back onto his assertions.

When leftists, be they Peter Beinart, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, say “democracy”, what do they mean? Often, they mean the abolition of federalism and the Electoral College in favor of centralization and a tyrannical majority. Their references to “freedom” only extend to the bedroom and the ability to kill unborn children, not to the religious convictions of private bakers and florists, trying to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of association. “Tolerance,” as you’d learn on any college campus, is a cheap conduit for postmodernism, where nothing is true and all cultures are equal- things like female genital mutilation quickly get dismissed as cultural differences to which bigoted Westerners ought to give deference. Leftist pleas for “equality” more often resemble Marxist calls for a redistributionist utopia than a legitimate concern for de jure egalitarianism.

Maybe, then, if we apply Beinart’s sloppy logic to his own argument, Trump’s brazen speech in defense of the West wasn’t a denial of “democracy, freedom, tolerance and equality” but rather their affirmation, lacking the same cultural relativism Beinart would likely prefer. The West is open to anyone of any creed willing to take on its yoke of liberty, private property rights, and the great American refrain: e pluribus unum.

Check out our first post on Beinart’s claim of Trump’s racist dog-whistling here.

Montage: Media, Dems Accuse White House-Led Committee of 'Voter Suppression'

One of the inviolable "truths" the Left holds dear is that voter fraud is a myth. But what if such fraud is a documentable threat to the integrity of our electoral process? No matter- as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said after his role in promulgating the sham rape case against the Duke lacrosse team, “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

According to leftist logic, it doesn’t matter whether there is actually voter fraud or not, because the narrative- that white Republicans are racist and want to decimate the black vote- is a reality so evident you’d have to live in middle America to miss it.

So, when it was revealed that the Trump White House is examining the scope of voter fraud in the 2016 election, Democrats went unchallenged on liberal TV shows bemoaning the thought crimes of the Trump administration:

There are, of course, legitimate debates to be had about countervailing concerns of voter privacy involved in the investigation, but it was not merely the committee’s means the Left took umbrage with. It was the demolition of one of their most sacred narratives- that voter fraud never happens and is a theory reserved for crackpots and society’s most deplored.

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

“Voter suppression,” the “intimidation” of the American voter, and “[undermining] Americans’ trust in their election system” are all posited as potential motivators for such a brazen violation of acceptable thought. One would think a journalist with any level of respect for journalism would push back on these uncharitable and offensive premises, but given the nature of the liberal media, it is altogether unsurprising that they provided no such resistance.

The implication underlying the entire premise that requiring voter identification has a disproportionate impact on "black and brown" voters is so caustically insulting to the agency of such voters that one wonders which side of this debate truly harbors animus for racial minorities.

Beinart Says Trump's Warsaw Speech a Nod to 'White Nationalist' Base

When one trudges through existence with a particular proto-Marxist worldview that fetishizes victimhood, the inevitable outgrowth of such perpetual hysteria manifests itself in assertions that seem to grow more and more hyperbolic with time. Such was the case for pundit and pro-Palestinian activist Peter Beinart when he wrote a Thursday piece entitled The Racial and Religious Paranoia of Trump’s Warsaw Speech featured in The Atlantic.

Beinart’s thesis, with all of the histrionics and racialization of a Michael Eric Dyson sermon, was this: “In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to ‘the West’ and five times to ‘our civilization.’ His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too.”

Everything, to the Left, is a dog whistle. You can’t talk about federalism without being tied to Orval Faubus. Enforcement of the law is code for the mass incarceration of racial minorities. Now, apparently, one can’t claim that Western civilization is morally superior to despotic theocracies in the Middle East without the clairvoyant Beinart knowing in the depths of his soul that you’re winking to white nationalists. It’s the criminalization of conservatism.

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

While it’s obvious to most Americans what Trump was saying - that Western values of freedom and democracy, which are accessible to anyone willing to embrace their mantle, face an existential threat in the global Caliphate its enemies desire - universities and academic institutions have so deeply embedded in students a disdain for the West to a degree that any support of it against even the most pernicious of opponents cannot go unquestioned.

Beinart, evidently still adept at telepathically knowing the motives of his political opponents, stated that “when Trump warned Poles about forces ‘from the south or the east, that threaten … to erase the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition,’ he was talking not about Christianity but about Christendom: a particular religious civilization that must protect itself from outsiders.”

This is an inference without substance; what Trump said was exactly right. Those forces “from the south or the east” do threaten “bonds of culture, faith and tradition.” How do we know? Because they’ve told us so, directly and indirectly. As the Islamophobia lobby points out with tiresome frequency, ISIS’ narrative is, by its own account, one that pits itself against the West, from which obviously emanate all of those “bonds of culture, faith and tradition” to which Trump refers.

After making a spurious but altogether predictable link between the “increasingly authoritarian” governments in Poland and the US, Beinart catastrophized with melodramatic refrain (emphasis mine): “The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that ‘The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”

While it shocked Mr. Beinart to hear it uttered after eight years of smarmy double-talk about the West, Trump’s question is the question. Are the freedoms we fought for in the West worth preserving, even when every pillar of institutional life in America tells you otherwise? Beinart’s fundamental assumption, that “when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people,” is completely disconnected from the American creed.

If you buy into the credos of e pluribus unum, individual liberty, separation of powers, and self-sacrifice toward patriotic ends, you’re an American, no matter what you look like. Beinart’s attempt to frame it otherwise is nothing more than a needless racialization of Trump’s best speech.

Beinart Says Trump's Warsaw Speech a Nod to 'White Nationalist' Base

When one trudges through existence with a particular proto-Marxist worldview that fetishizes victimhood, the inevitable outgrowth of such perpetual hysteria manifests itself in assertions that seem to grow more and more hyperbolic with time. Such was the case for pundit and pro-Palestinian activist Peter Beinart when he wrote a Thursday piece entitled The Racial and Religious Paranoia of Trump’s Warsaw Speech featured in The Atlantic.

Beinart’s thesis, with all of the histrionics and racialization of a Michael Eric Dyson sermon, was this: “In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to ‘the West’ and five times to ‘our civilization.’ His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too.”

Everything, to the Left, is a dog whistle. You can’t talk about federalism without being tied to Orval Faubus. Enforcement of the law is code for the mass incarceration of racial minorities. Now, apparently, one can’t claim that Western civilization is morally superior to despotic theocracies in the Middle East without the clairvoyant Beinart knowing in the depths of his soul that you’re winking to white nationalists. It’s the criminalization of conservatism.

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

While it’s obvious to most Americans what Trump was saying - that Western values of freedom and democracy, which are accessible to anyone willing to embrace their mantle, face an existential threat in the global Caliphate its enemies desire - universities and academic institutions have so deeply embedded in students a disdain for the West to a degree that any support of it against even the most pernicious of opponents cannot go unquestioned.

Beinart, evidently still adept at telepathically knowing the motives of his political opponents, stated that “when Trump warned Poles about forces ‘from the south or the east, that threaten … to erase the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition,’ he was talking not about Christianity but about Christendom: a particular religious civilization that must protect itself from outsiders.”

This is an inference without substance; what Trump said was exactly right. Those forces “from the south or the east” do threaten “bonds of culture, faith and tradition.” How do we know? Because they’ve told us so, directly and indirectly. As the Islamophobia lobby points out with tiresome frequency, ISIS’ narrative is, by its own account, one that pits itself against the West, from which obviously emanate all of those “bonds of culture, faith and tradition” to which Trump refers.

After making a spurious but altogether predictable link between the “increasingly authoritarian” governments in Poland and the US, Beinart catastrophized with melodramatic refrain (emphasis mine): “The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that ‘The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”

While it shocked Mr. Beinart to hear it uttered after eight years of smarmy double-talk about the West, Trump’s question is the question. Are the freedoms we fought for in the West worth preserving, even when every pillar of institutional life in America tells you otherwise? Beinart’s fundamental assumption, that “when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people,” is completely disconnected from the American creed.

If you buy into the credos of e pluribus unum, individual liberty, separation of powers, and self-sacrifice toward patriotic ends, you’re an American, no matter what you look like. Beinart’s attempt to frame it otherwise is nothing more than a needless racialization of Trump’s best speech.

Silent in the Face of Obama’s Apologies, Lemon Bemoans Trump Failure in ‘Defending America’

On Thursday, President Trump delivered a rousing defense of Western civilization in Poland and the West's history of confronting existential threats to international liberty. Such a speech gained the admiration of Reaganites and the venom of the perpetually outraged, but CNN Tonight host Don Lemon had one sole focus: Trump’s comments on CNN’s self-beclowning that he gave in response to a question he received on the subject by a reporter.

Late Thursday, Lemon was irate that the President of the United States would air the dirty laundry, as it were, of domestic disputes in the presence of the global community. Further, Lemon decried what he called Trump’s failure to “defend America” on the global stage:

“Back to my original question, wasn’t this — shouldn’t the president be there on foreign soil defending the United States, defending a free press instead of taking something that is local here to the United States and bringing it across the shore to foreign soil and having all of our allies and our enemies being able to see what kind of controversy we’re having here? Shouldn’t he be defending America and the press?”

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

One wonders- does Lemon’s unabashed patriotism extend to berating a President who literally went on an international tour, denying the uniqueness of the American experiment and apologizing to despots and thug-ocracies the world over for incidents of American intolerance? The answer is no, of course, because he works for CNN, who carried water on this subject (among others) for President Obama.

Leaving aside the merit of Lemon’s claims about the remark, the double-standard by CNN is breathtaking.

Salon Thinks Republicans Stole Class Warfare, Left Needs to Take It Back

It’s a tried and true leftist refrain, imbued with all of the condescension and paternalism that begot a reality TV star’s run to the White House: if only those rubes in America’s heartland knew better, they would never vote for small government economic policies. They’re too busy, to use the Obama formula, clinging to their guns and religion to see the paradisiacal possibilities of social democracy.

Man is primarily concerned with the economic, says Marx, and for any man to deny himself the opportunity to democratically vote for the usurpation of more of his neighbor’s property must involve a grand deception of the “ignorant masses”. According to Salon's Conor Lynch, that veiled force inducing the working class to “vote against their own interest” is, of course, the Republican Party:

“Over the past few decades Republicans have not only waged an economic class war against the working class but a cultural class war against the so-called “liberal elite” — which includes college professors, journalists, Democratic politicians, urban professionals, Hollywood entertainers and so on. While Trump’s rhetoric may be unusually belligerent, the practice of railing against cultural elites has been employed by conservatives for generations, as Thomas Frank explored in his 2004 book, ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas?’ The true genius of the right’s ‘culture war’ is that it enables clear economic elites like Trump to portray themselves as populists, even while they enact policies that serve billionaires and multinational corporations. Right-wing populism, Frank observes, ‘both encourages class hostility’ in the cultural sense and ‘simultaneously denies the economic basis of the grievance.”

You’re too stupid, you see, to notice this phenomenon without the shrewd help of Salon’s watchful eye. If only you had known, perhaps you would have changed your vote! Working class people are just too dumb, Lynch seemed to suggest, to detect the right-wing Ponzi scheme that has been keeping them in the shackles of proto-Marxist oppression.

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

In a country where you can go into a grocery store and get a loaf of bread for $1.25, one would think America lives under third world despotic rule given the rhetoric Lynch employs.

Further, Lynch declared, it isn’t the Left engaging in merciless class warfare in it’s Alinskyite attempt to divide the nation, but rather the Republicans who pit the nation’s socioeconomic strata against one another:

“Thomas Frank — who knows a thing or two about right-wing populism — agrees with this sentiment. In his most recent book, ‘Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?,’ Frank looks at how the Democratic Party abandoned class politics toward the latter part of the 20th century and embraced corporate-friendly centrism, which gave right-wingers a perfect opportunity to advance their own warped form of class politics. Today we are living in the aftermath of this Democratic shift towards neoliberalism.
‘If class warfare is being waged, it is not Democrats who are the aggressors,’ said Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institute in an analysis of the House version of Trumpcare published in March. This is doubtless the case, and it is why the Republicans have been so successful in crushing the working class while maintaining their populist veneer. If Democrats want to expose Republicans as the party of the 1 percent and start winning elections again, then perhaps it is time for them to become the aggressors and start waging a class war of their own.”

Embedded in this line of argument is the presumption that Reagan and free markets have squelched the middle class, but many argue that just the opposite occurred under the Gipper’s oversight. He reigned in runaway inflation that helped bolster the financial solvency of the retirement prospects of Americans of all income levels, and reinspired faith in American exceptionalism.

But the more precarious injunction by Lynch is that Democrats don’t engage enough in the politics of class warfare. If one were to read Lynch’s piece with no knowledge of history, it is conceivable you would come away with the notion that Democrats have been undying stalwarts of marketization and capitalism, refusing to tap into class struggle narratives and passions. Consider the following montage as a brief foray into the lunacy of that claim:

Americans don’t need more of the seeds of leftist class division, but a unity around founding principles. Scant does one see a modern Democrat do anything but pit Americans against each other in its ceaseless quest for government control.

 

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: