Posted on

WHAT? Bloomberg Opinion Editor Says Absence of American Jobs a ‘Good Thing’

An asinine Bloomberg op-ed suggested that maybe it’s best if people who lost energy jobs under President Joe Biden’s eco-extremist agenda don’t get the new green jobs he falsely promised at all. 

Bloomberg Opinion Editor Mark Gongloff’s op-ed was headlined, “Our Single-Minded Drive to Create Jobs Has Its Drawbacks.” Gongloff’s sub-headline was just as ludicrous: “On some issues, including green energy and immigration, an absence of American jobs can be a good thing.” The story led off with two assumptions that were just awful: “Maybe we don’t actually want green jobs [to rectify for the fossil fuel jobs Biden is killing]. Maybe we should send jobs to Central America.” In a section with a headline that read, “Unpopular Opinions About Jobs,” Gongloff even criticized America for its “universal religion” about creating jobs. 

While conceding that it would be “sacrilegious” to suggest policies that don’t create jobs, Gongloff said that “[s]ometimes this is the better way.”

Perhaps Gongloff was attempting to cover for one of Biden’s Big Lies that he would create “10 million clean energy jobs” to replace fossil fuel jobs. How do we know? Gongloff stated: “Take green jobs. President Joe Biden and others are pushing green-infrastructure spending with the promise it will create jobs, as one does when pushing any plan in America. But this is self-defeating if you think about it.” Gongloff was not concerned about the jobs Biden was killing with his agenda. Instead, Gongloff suggested human capital in green energy would just “jack up energy costs.”

Gongloff continued: “Far better, [Bloomberg Opinion Columnist Tyler Cowen] suggests, to let the wind and sun work their magic with minimal human guidance, keeping power bills low and making voters happy that way.” So fossil fuel jobs get eliminated in exchange for a green utopia that won’t provide jobs. 

Gongloff appeared to contradict his previous comments. He published an op-ed on “runaway climate change” in 2019 headlined, “Take Note, Capitalists: Green Energy Is Where the Growth Is.” Does “growth” not apply to the U.S. jobs sector, Gongloff?

But Gongloff wasn’t finished with his nutty argument. He also suggested that U.S. corporations shift jobs overseas. He argued unconvincingly that Biden “is doing some things right to address the latest surge of immigrants at the southern border — mostly, giving their home countries some money from out of his wallet.” Did Gongloff forget that what he calls Biden’s “wallet” is actually taxpayer dollars? [Emphasis added.] 

On shifting jobs overseas, Gongloff wrote, “A better bet would be encouraging U.S. companies to build factories in Central America, raising living conditions there and giving people less incentive to leave.” Gongloff concluded: “Because this will involve foreigners taking American jobs from the comfort of their own homes, this may be a political non-starter, too. But it could create jobs in the long run. Amen.”

Make it stop.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Bloomberg News at letters@bloomberg.net and demand it report the truth on the disastrous economic effects of Biden’s eco-extremist agenda.

 

 

Posted on

Netflix Family Show Lampoons Racist White Cops as ‘Bullies with Badges and Guns’

If it weren’t for cliches and stereotypes, there would be little to note about Netflix’s Dad Stop Embarrassing Me, which began streaming on April 14, a series of eight half-hour episodes. Comedian/actor Jamie Foxx tries to make a comeback on the small screen but mostly fails to be amusing or entertaining.

The story centers around Brian Dixon (Foxx) and his multi-generational black family who live under his roof (sound familiar?). His father, Pops (David Alan Grier), and sister, Chelsea (Porscha Coleman), are joined by Dixon’s daughter, Sasha (Kyla Drew), after the death of her mother. Brian and Sasha try to build a relationship as there was none before her mother’s death.

The characters are over the top. Brian takes Sasha to a therapist for counseling so that they can work on their relationship and she turns out to be a sex therapist. In another episode, the family’s church pastor is a money-grubbing showboat who continually asks for money from the members to support his extravagant lifestyle. There is a bartender character in one episode who wears a blonde wig and is a Trump supporter. He speaks to a Trump bobblehead and says, “I don’t care what the count is, you’re still my president. I love your hair. Now that you’re not president, you can come to Rusty’s and we can grab all the …” and then he laughs.

Most of the episodes center around father-daughter issues as Brian learns to be a single father, but the last two episodes take an unnecessary dark twist. In episode 7, titled “#RichDadWokeDad, Brian’s best friend Johnny, a police officer, is off-duty and in a convenience store with Brian and Pops. An armed robbery takes place and at first Johnny tries to hide but is finally convinced to act after Brian shames him into doing so. The robber isn’t afraid, though, as he notes Johnny is out of uniform, therefore off duty. He mentions that off-duty cops don’t carry armed weapons. Johnny agrees with him and the robber gets away. Then, as Johnny is explaining to Brian and the store manager that his revolver wasn’t loaded, it discharges into the ceiling. It was a ridiculous scene meant to make a law enforcement officer look like a bumbling idiot. Johnny earns the nickname of the “Cowardly Cop” after that and a video of the incident go viral and he is suspended from the police force.

In the final episode, titled “#MaybeltsBAYBelline”, the issue of police profiling and abuse rears its ugly head. Sasha, her friend Zia (Johnny’s daughter), and Sasha’s boyfriend Rahim are in Rahim’s father’s Mercedes. Rahim’s father is a judge. The kids are followed by a police car on the way home from picking up food. They turn on flashing lights in the driveway and the kids question what is going on.

While none of the kids are cooperative, Rahim is particularly obnoxious. He tells the two white cops they are on private property and to get out. When Sasha and Zia start to go inside the cops tell them to freeze and no one will get hurt. Rahim says no one will get hurt because no one did anything wrong. Sasha pulls out her phone and tells the cops she is videotaping them.

When Rahim asks them to leave everyone alone, one cops responds, “Shut your mouth, boy. We got a call about a luxury car that fits this description casing the neighborhood. You steal this car?” Rahim tells him it’s his father’s car. Then he adds, “Who you calling boy, boy?” So, Rahim is thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Rahim says, “You done messed up now, man. My pops is a judge.”

The girls freak out and they are treated the same when Sasha refuses to stop filming and put her phone away. She put the video live on Instagram. That is when Brian and Chelsea see the video of what is happening at their house. They rush home to straighten it all out.

One particularly stupid part of this storyline is when the cops recognize Johnny as he gets on the scene. One calls him the Cowardly Cop and asks him for his autograph. By the end of this ridiculous scene, the other cop says he guesses he’ll see Johnny at the policeman’s ball. Johnny tells him he is quitting the police force: “I took an oath to serve and defend. All I see here is a bunch of bullies with badges and guns and I’m not about that.”

It turns out Brian’s new white neighbors were the ones who called the cops. They saw Brian and Rahim in the Mercedes earlier as Brian tested Rahim’s driving skills, including his reflexes with sudden stops, and called the cops, thinking they were casing the neighborhood. At the end of the episode, Sasha tells Brian she wants to be a civil rights attorney.

The series misses the boat on comedic entertainment. The writers use Pops for the raunchier material and Brian just looks clueless most of the time. The series is embarrassing for everyone.

Posted on

HYPOCRITE: Fredo Cuomo Denounces Vaccinated Ted Cruz for Not Wearing a Mask

CNN’s Prime Time host Chris “Fredo” Cuomo reminded viewers Thursday of the Cuomo family’s lack of principles and penchant for double standards as he lectured Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (OH) and Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Rand Paul and right-of-center Americans for purposefully refusing to “listen to science” while “playing politics” as people die from the coronavirus.

With Cruz and Paul in particular, Cuomo denounced them for refusing to wear masks while walking the halls of Congress (and even though Cruz has been vaccinated) despite the fact that Fredo has been a repeat offender of going maskless in public and ventured out while battling the coronavirus.

 

 

We’d also be remiss if we didn’t reup the fact that he staged his emergence from quarantine and reportedly received priority COVID testing from Q-tip-jokingscandalridden brother and Governor Andrew Cuomo (D).

Cuomo launched his attack against Paul and his archnemesis from Texas by blasting the right as the reason why the pandemic will continue as “[s]cience tells us cases are rising” with stronger variants while “you have too many people on the right who don’t want to get the vaccine.”

Citing a herd immunity goal of between 50-70 percent of Americans being vaccinated, Cuomo lamented that the pandemic will be prolonged if there’s a lack of respect for “mitigation” measures such as mask-wearing among vaccinated people.

It was here that he dragged the two senators into the equation (click “expand”):

So, that’s why it is baffling when you have people like Senator Ted Cruz joining Rand Paul in ditching his mask as they walk the halls of Congress. Cruz explains: “At this point, I’ve been vaccinated. Everybody working in the senate has been vaccinated.” No, not your staff. Not a lot of people in the media. They haven’t gotten it and the current CDC guidelines states very clearly that if you’re vaccinated, you got to still keep taking precautions like wearing a mask.

You can still get sick, you won’t be as sick but you could give it to somebody else. So, he’s not just wrong but he’s doing it for the wrong reason and he knows experts are still learning how vaccines affect COVID spread. We know this. We know it’s not 100 percent. The latest CDC data makes it all very clear, all right? 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID have gotten infected anyway.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo’s meltdown wasn’t exactly accurate. Back in January, members of Congress became eligible for the vaccine as well as members of the staff. And a month ago, it was reported that thousands of additional doses had been secured for staff. As for the claims about journalists, Washington D.C. opened up vaccine access to journalists who had to work in-person.

Fredo went to break with a closing that was a masterful, race-winning ride atop his high horse about the virtues of being above “politics” and following “science” while “people are dying”:

Look, it’s nothing, it’s a little fraction of tens of millions who were already vaccinated but the only way to keep the number down is to listen to science. They all know it. They’re just playing politics, and people are dying. We now have a President, though, who believes in science.

Though adversarial guests who refuse to “take the bait” aren’t exactly popular on CNN, someone should ask Fredo if his brother “listen[ed] to the science” when he sent thousands of New York seniors to their deaths.

Earlier in the show, Cuomo teased the segment by warning of Jordan’s “complete COVID-iocy” that served as “a beautiful demonstration of when ignorance turns into arrogance when it goes against the facts and science.” Unsurprisingly, Cuomo had previously ascribed the label to Cruz.

Cuomo began said screed with a declaration of “[s]olidarity behind science” because “that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and…end this pandemic,” but quickly pivoted to mocking Jordan as almost a heckler daring to ask Dr. Anthony Fauci during a House hearing about when Americans will able to “get their liberties and freedoms back” (click “expand”):

Solidarity behind science. We know that that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and we know that is what is needed to end this pandemic. All of us know it. So what was all this “when do we get our liberty back” on Capitol Hill today by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, it’s people who believe what he believes who don’t want to get the vaccine. Why isn’t he talking to them about giving the rest of us our liberty back? Instead, he decided to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert over, “when, tell me when. When do we get it back?

(….)

“I get it, I get it. It’s a big deal.” No, it’s not, not to you. You want to make it about division. And that’s why he took several minutes of time that he could have been saying to people, “hey, listen to Fauci, get the vaccine, let’s get through this.”

If we all listened to Fauci, we’d get vaccinated (which is the right thing to do), but then return to our homes and dare not to do things like venturing out to eat indoors at a restaurant. 

Support for Cuomo’s hour of hypocrisy and liberal pompousness was made possible thanks to advertisers such as Advil, Fidelity, and Liberty Mutual. Follow the links to see their contact information at the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.

To see the relevant CNN transcript from April 15, click “expand.”

CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
April 15, 2021
9:41 p.m. Eastern [TEASE]

CHRIS CUOMO: All right. Now, I want to talk to another big problem that we’re all facing. Okay. We have a moment of complete COVID-iocy ahead, being an idiot about COVID, and it happened on the Hill and it was a beautiful demonstration of when ignorance turns into arrogance when it goes against the facts and science. Next. 

(….)

9:45 p.m. Eastern

CUOMO: Solidarity behind science. We know that that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and we know that is what is needed to end this pandemic. All of us know it. So what was all this “when do we get our liberty back” on Capitol Hill today by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, it’s people who believe what he believes who don’t want to get the vaccine. Why isn’t he talking to them about giving the rest of us our liberty back? Instead, he decided to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert over, “when, tell me when. When do we get it back? Listen. 

CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN (R-OH): What measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before — before Americans get their liberty and freedoms back? 

DR. TONY FAUCI: You know, you’re indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying. [SCREEN WIPE] You’re making this a personal thing and it isn’t. 

JORDAN: It’s not a personal thing. 

FAUCI: No, you are. That is exactly what you’re doing. [SCREEN WIPE] We’re not talking about liberties. We’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. 

JORDAN: And I get that. 

FAUCI: That’s what we’re talking about.

CUOMO: “I get it, I get it. It’s a big deal.” No, it’s not, not to you. You want to make it about division. And that’s why he took several minutes of time that he could have been saying to people, hey, listen to Fauci, get the vaccine, let’s get through this. But it was Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters who had the last word. Listen to what she said.

CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): You need to respect the chair and shut your mouth. 

CUOMO: There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know when this could all end. But it’s hard to see how attacking Fauci helps. You know when it ends. It ends when we get our crap together — right — and you get the vaccines and you get to a certain point, and you have too many people on the right who don’t want to get the vaccine. Science tells us cases are rising because the variant is bad and you have 23 percent of Americans fully vaccinated. Now, a lot of that 23 percent are the older and vulnerable, and that’s going to help us but if we don’t get 50, 60, 70 percent, and we’re not doing the mitigation, it’s going to take more time. Everybody knows that, okay? SO, that’s why it is baffling when you have people like Senator Ted Cruz joining Rand Paul in ditching his mask as they walk the halls of Congress. Cruz explains: “At this point, I’ve been vaccinated. Everybody working in the senate has been vaccinated.” No, not your staff. Not a lot of people in the media. They haven’t gotten it and the current CDC guidelines states very clearly that if you’re vaccinated, you got to still keep taking precautions like wearing a mask. You can still get sick, you won’t be as sick but you could give it to somebody else. So, he’s not just wrong but he’s doing it for the wrong reason and he knows experts are still learning how vaccines affect COVID spread. We know this. We know it’s not 100 percent. The latest CDC data makes it all very clear, all right? 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID have gotten infected anyway. Look, it’s nothing, it’s a little fraction of tens of millions who were already vaccinated but the only way to keep the number down is to listen to science. They all know it. They’re just playing politics, and people are dying. We now have a President, though, who believes in science.

Posted on

HYPOCRITE: Fredo Cuomo Denounces Vaccinated Ted Cruz for Not Wearing a Mask

CNN’s Prime Time host Chris “Fredo” Cuomo reminded viewers Thursday of the Cuomo family’s lack of principles and penchant for double standards as he lectured Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (OH) and Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Rand Paul and right-of-center Americans for purposefully refusing to “listen to science” while “playing politics” as people die from the coronavirus.

With Cruz and Paul in particular, Cuomo denounced them for refusing to wear masks while walking the halls of Congress (and even though Cruz has been vaccinated) despite the fact that Fredo has been a repeat offender of going maskless in public and ventured out while battling the coronavirus.

 

 

We’d also be remiss if we didn’t reup the fact that he staged his emergence from quarantine and reportedly received priority COVID testing from Q-tip-jokingscandalridden brother and Governor Andrew Cuomo (D).

Cuomo launched his attack against Paul and his archnemesis from Texas by blasting the right as the reason why the pandemic will continue as “[s]cience tells us cases are rising” with stronger variants while “you have too many people on the right who don’t want to get the vaccine.”

Citing a herd immunity goal of between 50-70 percent of Americans being vaccinated, Cuomo lamented that the pandemic will be prolonged if there’s a lack of respect for “mitigation” measures such as mask-wearing among vaccinated people.

It was here that he dragged the two senators into the equation (click “expand”):

So, that’s why it is baffling when you have people like Senator Ted Cruz joining Rand Paul in ditching his mask as they walk the halls of Congress. Cruz explains: “At this point, I’ve been vaccinated. Everybody working in the senate has been vaccinated.” No, not your staff. Not a lot of people in the media. They haven’t gotten it and the current CDC guidelines states very clearly that if you’re vaccinated, you got to still keep taking precautions like wearing a mask.

You can still get sick, you won’t be as sick but you could give it to somebody else. So, he’s not just wrong but he’s doing it for the wrong reason and he knows experts are still learning how vaccines affect COVID spread. We know this. We know it’s not 100 percent. The latest CDC data makes it all very clear, all right? 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID have gotten infected anyway.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo’s meltdown wasn’t exactly accurate. Back in January, members of Congress became eligible for the vaccine as well as members of the staff. And a month ago, it was reported that thousands of additional doses had been secured for staff. As for the claims about journalists, Washington D.C. opened up vaccine access to journalists who had to work in-person.

Fredo went to break with a closing that was a masterful, race-winning ride atop his high horse about the virtues of being above “politics” and following “science” while “people are dying”:

Look, it’s nothing, it’s a little fraction of tens of millions who were already vaccinated but the only way to keep the number down is to listen to science. They all know it. They’re just playing politics, and people are dying. We now have a President, though, who believes in science.

Though adversarial guests who refuse to “take the bait” aren’t exactly popular on CNN, someone should ask Fredo if his brother “listen[ed] to the science” when he sent thousands of New York seniors to their deaths.

Earlier in the show, Cuomo teased the segment by warning of Jordan’s “complete COVID-iocy” that served as “a beautiful demonstration of when ignorance turns into arrogance when it goes against the facts and science.” Unsurprisingly, Cuomo had previously ascribed the label to Cruz.

Cuomo began said screed with a declaration of “[s]olidarity behind science” because “that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and…end this pandemic,” but quickly pivoted to mocking Jordan as almost a heckler daring to ask Dr. Anthony Fauci during a House hearing about when Americans will able to “get their liberties and freedoms back” (click “expand”):

Solidarity behind science. We know that that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and we know that is what is needed to end this pandemic. All of us know it. So what was all this “when do we get our liberty back” on Capitol Hill today by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, it’s people who believe what he believes who don’t want to get the vaccine. Why isn’t he talking to them about giving the rest of us our liberty back? Instead, he decided to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert over, “when, tell me when. When do we get it back?

(….)

“I get it, I get it. It’s a big deal.” No, it’s not, not to you. You want to make it about division. And that’s why he took several minutes of time that he could have been saying to people, “hey, listen to Fauci, get the vaccine, let’s get through this.”

If we all listened to Fauci, we’d get vaccinated (which is the right thing to do), but then return to our homes and dare not to do things like venturing out to eat indoors at a restaurant. 

Support for Cuomo’s hour of hypocrisy and liberal pompousness was made possible thanks to advertisers such as Advil, Fidelity, and Liberty Mutual. Follow the links to see their contact information at the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.

To see the relevant CNN transcript from April 15, click “expand.”

CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
April 15, 2021
9:41 p.m. Eastern [TEASE]

CHRIS CUOMO: All right. Now, I want to talk to another big problem that we’re all facing. Okay. We have a moment of complete COVID-iocy ahead, being an idiot about COVID, and it happened on the Hill and it was a beautiful demonstration of when ignorance turns into arrogance when it goes against the facts and science. Next. 

(….)

9:45 p.m. Eastern

CUOMO: Solidarity behind science. We know that that’s what it takes to bring COVID numbers down and we know that is what is needed to end this pandemic. All of us know it. So what was all this “when do we get our liberty back” on Capitol Hill today by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, it’s people who believe what he believes who don’t want to get the vaccine. Why isn’t he talking to them about giving the rest of us our liberty back? Instead, he decided to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert over, “when, tell me when. When do we get it back? Listen. 

CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN (R-OH): What measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before — before Americans get their liberty and freedoms back? 

DR. TONY FAUCI: You know, you’re indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying. [SCREEN WIPE] You’re making this a personal thing and it isn’t. 

JORDAN: It’s not a personal thing. 

FAUCI: No, you are. That is exactly what you’re doing. [SCREEN WIPE] We’re not talking about liberties. We’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. 

JORDAN: And I get that. 

FAUCI: That’s what we’re talking about.

CUOMO: “I get it, I get it. It’s a big deal.” No, it’s not, not to you. You want to make it about division. And that’s why he took several minutes of time that he could have been saying to people, hey, listen to Fauci, get the vaccine, let’s get through this. But it was Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters who had the last word. Listen to what she said.

CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): You need to respect the chair and shut your mouth. 

CUOMO: There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know when this could all end. But it’s hard to see how attacking Fauci helps. You know when it ends. It ends when we get our crap together — right — and you get the vaccines and you get to a certain point, and you have too many people on the right who don’t want to get the vaccine. Science tells us cases are rising because the variant is bad and you have 23 percent of Americans fully vaccinated. Now, a lot of that 23 percent are the older and vulnerable, and that’s going to help us but if we don’t get 50, 60, 70 percent, and we’re not doing the mitigation, it’s going to take more time. Everybody knows that, okay? SO, that’s why it is baffling when you have people like Senator Ted Cruz joining Rand Paul in ditching his mask as they walk the halls of Congress. Cruz explains: “At this point, I’ve been vaccinated. Everybody working in the senate has been vaccinated.” No, not your staff. Not a lot of people in the media. They haven’t gotten it and the current CDC guidelines states very clearly that if you’re vaccinated, you got to still keep taking precautions like wearing a mask. You can still get sick, you won’t be as sick but you could give it to somebody else. So, he’s not just wrong but he’s doing it for the wrong reason and he knows experts are still learning how vaccines affect COVID spread. We know this. We know it’s not 100 percent. The latest CDC data makes it all very clear, all right? 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID have gotten infected anyway. Look, it’s nothing, it’s a little fraction of tens of millions who were already vaccinated but the only way to keep the number down is to listen to science. They all know it. They’re just playing politics, and people are dying. We now have a President, though, who believes in science.

Posted on

Column: The Russian Bounty Story Erodes

Last June, the Trump-hating reporters who always wanted to underline that Donald Trump was almost traitorously soft on Russia banged a can about a New York Times story claiming Russia secretly offered Afghan militants bounties to kill U.S. troops.

Now the liberal Daily Beast website is offering a jaw-dropping assessment: “It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a ‘hoax.’”

This story began with anonymous government sources, and is now rebutted by anonymous government sources. “The Biden administration” announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate”  confidence in the story after all. “Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.”

According to “officials” on a phone call, the reporting about the alleged bounties came from “detainee reporting” – meaning a detainee may have provided “intel” to gain release. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.

The Daily Beast compared this to Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi  (or “Curveball”), a source claiming to know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist made that same connection last summer.

A USA Today “fact check” explained “Interrogations of militants and criminals in Afghanistan were the basis for the U.S. intelligence assessment.” If President Hillary Clinton had been in office, the liberal papers and networks would say “you can’t allow militants and criminals to accuse the president of treason!”

Every patriotic American wants our government to be vigilant against any malignant actors who put bounties on the heads of our troops. But this was a political narrative in an election year. The group Vote Vets put out a nasty ad suggesting “Benedict Donald is America’s number one traitor!”

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted as the Times story broke: “Today, we learn that Russia is paying Islamic radicals bounties to kill US troops. Trump has known about this but refuses to do anything. It is all beyond the pale.”

Hemingway and her colleague Sean Davis also reported last July that Rep. Adam Schiff learned of the bounty allegations on a congressional trip to Afghanistan in February 2020 and didn’t share them. When the Times asked him if he had knowledge of this before they published months later, he claimed “I can’t comment on specifics.” But the “Trump inexcusably did nothing” talking point was routine in liberal media.  

The rhetorical bombing went on for weeks. On July 29, 2020, MSNBC host Joy Reid blasted Trump as “grotesquely solicitous of Putin” and claimed he and the GOP were guilty of “a complete abdication of leadership.” Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project added: “We have a faithless commander-in-chief. The commander is so amoral that he does not have the backs of the men and women that he sends into harm’s way. This is a despicable and cowardly betrayal of the ethos of the United States military.”

This whole controversy should be a reason for media consumers to be super-skeptical of any “bombshell” story based on anonymous sources in government or politics. News stories that drive partisans to charge a president with treason – Republican or Democrat — ought to be based on more than just shadowy “administration officials.” We don’t need this much darkness in our democracy.

Posted on

Column: The Russian Bounty Story Erodes

Last June, the Trump-hating reporters who always wanted to underline that Donald Trump was almost traitorously soft on Russia banged a can about a New York Times story claiming Russia secretly offered Afghan militants bounties to kill U.S. troops.

Now the liberal Daily Beast website is offering a jaw-dropping assessment: “It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a ‘hoax.’”

This story began with anonymous government sources, and is now rebutted by anonymous government sources. “The Biden administration” announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate”  confidence in the story after all. “Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.”

According to “officials” on a phone call, the reporting about the alleged bounties came from “detainee reporting” – meaning a detainee may have provided “intel” to gain release. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.

The Daily Beast compared this to Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi  (or “Curveball”), a source claiming to know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist made that same connection last summer.

A USA Today “fact check” explained “Interrogations of militants and criminals in Afghanistan were the basis for the U.S. intelligence assessment.” If President Hillary Clinton had been in office, the liberal papers and networks would say “you can’t allow militants and criminals to accuse the president of treason!”

Every patriotic American wants our government to be vigilant against any malignant actors who put bounties on the heads of our troops. But this was a political narrative in an election year. The group Vote Vets put out a nasty ad suggesting “Benedict Donald is America’s number one traitor!”

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted as the Times story broke: “Today, we learn that Russia is paying Islamic radicals bounties to kill US troops. Trump has known about this but refuses to do anything. It is all beyond the pale.”

Hemingway and her colleague Sean Davis also reported last July that Rep. Adam Schiff learned of the bounty allegations on a congressional trip to Afghanistan in February 2020 and didn’t share them. When the Times asked him if he had knowledge of this before they published months later, he claimed “I can’t comment on specifics.” But the “Trump inexcusably did nothing” talking point was routine in liberal media.  

The rhetorical bombing went on for weeks. On July 29, 2020, MSNBC host Joy Reid blasted Trump as “grotesquely solicitous of Putin” and claimed he and the GOP were guilty of “a complete abdication of leadership.” Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project added: “We have a faithless commander-in-chief. The commander is so amoral that he does not have the backs of the men and women that he sends into harm’s way. This is a despicable and cowardly betrayal of the ethos of the United States military.”

This whole controversy should be a reason for media consumers to be super-skeptical of any “bombshell” story based on anonymous sources in government or politics. News stories that drive partisans to charge a president with treason – Republican or Democrat — ought to be based on more than just shadowy “administration officials.” We don’t need this much darkness in our democracy.

Posted on

Suffering Psaki: Press Secretary Ducks Questions on Court-Packing, Russian Bounties

Thursday’s White House press briefing quickly devolved into a predictable pattern of near emptiness in terms of answers from Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who ducked questions on issues such as the debunked Russian bounties story, the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine, and her party’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Having to fill the role of what often seems like the only person speaking for the Biden administration, Psaki’s Q&A started with the AP’s Aamer Madhani and CNN’s Phil Mattingly trying get answers on the first matter regarding claims dating back to July that Russian intelligence had put out bounties on the heads of U.S. troops.

 

 

After Madhani gave Psaki an open-ended question that allowed her to insist that the claims “were enough of a cause of concern that we wanted our intelligence community to look into” them (and it sounded like something Russia would do), Mattingly cut to the chase and how it was a story the Biden team used as a cudgel against President Trump.

“Jen, given that assessment, does the President have any regrets for how many times he attacked President Trump on the campaign about this issue or not taking action related to the Russian bounties,” he asked.

Psaki demurred, saying she wouldn’t “speak to the previous administration, but I will say that we had enough concern about these reports and about the targeting of our men and women serving…that we wanted our intelligence community to look into it” before concluding the claims were of “low to moderate confidence.”

NBC correspondent Peter Alexander came up next and one of his questions focused on the administration’s disastrous pause of the J&J vaccine for its infinitesimally small chance of blood clots, and the fallout due to it being “attractive to those populations that are harder to reach right now.”

Wondering “what specifically is the White House doing now” to bridge the gap, Psaki offered 229 words of nothing, insisting the administration has “had a robust strategy in place long before the announcement by the FDA a couple of days ago” and launched a “program to get fact-based messages into the hands of local messengers” and partner with local organizations to fight vaccine hesitancy.

Fox News’s Kristin Fisher shifted gears to court-packing and had a back-and-forth with Psaki about whether Biden “support[s] the bill just introduced by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to add four seats to the Supreme Court.”

Psaki refused to weigh in, citing Biden’s Supreme Court commission that she claims will be “examining a range of questions about” the Court’s future (which, unless you’re politically ignorant, is only serving as a prolonging of their inevitable support for court-packing).

Fisher kept pressing, trying more times to get an answer (click “expand”):

FISHER: So, I mean, this isn’t just coming from some obscure member of Congress. This is coming from the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. So is the President, is the White House frustrated that Chairman Nadler perhaps didn’t wait for this report from the commission that President Biden just called for last week?

PSAKI: No. The President believes that it’s important to take a look at a range of points of view, whether they are progressive or conservative, a different — different sets of legal opinions, and he looks forward to assessing that himself and I expect he will not have more to convey about any recommendations or views he’ll have until he reads that report. But he certainly understands that members of Congress have a range of views and they’re going to propose legislation. He may or may not support it.

FISHER: So, I just want to be clear here. The President does or does not think that this bill is premature?

PSAKI: He believes that members of Congress have the right to put forward legislation on issues they support. His — his view is that he wants to hear from this commission that has a range of viewpoints.

FISHER: Okay. One more question. Senator Ed Markey, he just said this: “We must expand the court and we must abolish the filibuster to do it.” Is the White House comfortable with a Democratic Senator explicitly linking those two ideas from the steps of the Supreme Court?

PSAKI: The President believes that — in freedom of speech and that members can come forward and share their points of views on a range issues, including the future of the courts. He has his own view and he looks forward to seeing the recommendations that comes out of his court commission.

Three more reporters would see if they would have better luck (which they didn’t).

The Dallas Morning News’s Todd Gillman twice honed in on whether “the President is not ruling out the possibility of expanding the court,” but Psaki insisted that would be “getting a little bit ahead of the process.”

Instead, Psaki tried to have it both ways by saying Biden “look[s] forward to reviewing that report” even though “[h]is position has not changed” from the past about expanding the Court.

Before another reporter ended the briefing by asking about lower courts, Alexander brought up court-packing during a second go-around and even resurrected Biden’s 1983 comments about this that Fox’s Peter Doocy brought up at April 9’s briefing (click “expand”):

ALEXANDER: A couple last thoughts as it relates to the expanding the court discussion.         Nancy Pelosi, we’ve heard her say she wouldn’t bring that proposal to the floor. Did the President speak to Speaker Pelosi in advance of her making those comments?

PSAKI: I have any calls to read out. I think the President’s been pretty — he’s spoken about his views and obviously we announced the commission publicly last week.

ALEXANDER: And as it relates to his views as a Senator, his view was he was speaking of President Roosevelt then, that he wanted to expand the court by six seats. He said it was, “a boneheaded idea.” Does he still believe it’s “a boneheaded idea?”

PSAKI: Well, the President feels that it’s important to take a look at a range of issues related to the courts and I think that’s an indication that he’s seen the impact in recent years and it’s time to take a — take a fresh and clear look at a range of issues. The size is one of them, but so is the length of service, the selection, the case selection, rules, and practices.

Posted on

Suffering Psaki: Press Secretary Ducks Questions on Court-Packing, Russian Bounties

Thursday’s White House press briefing quickly devolved into a predictable pattern of near emptiness in terms of answers from Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who ducked questions on issues such as the debunked Russian bounties story, the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine, and her party’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Having to fill the role of what often seems like the only person speaking for the Biden administration, Psaki’s Q&A started with the AP’s Aamer Madhani and CNN’s Phil Mattingly trying get answers on the first matter regarding claims dating back to July that Russian intelligence had put out bounties on the heads of U.S. troops.

 

 

After Madhani gave Psaki an open-ended question that allowed her to insist that the claims “were enough of a cause of concern that we wanted our intelligence community to look into” them (and it sounded like something Russia would do), Mattingly cut to the chase and how it was a story the Biden team used as a cudgel against President Trump.

“Jen, given that assessment, does the President have any regrets for how many times he attacked President Trump on the campaign about this issue or not taking action related to the Russian bounties,” he asked.

Psaki demurred, saying she wouldn’t “speak to the previous administration, but I will say that we had enough concern about these reports and about the targeting of our men and women serving…that we wanted our intelligence community to look into it” before concluding the claims were of “low to moderate confidence.”

NBC correspondent Peter Alexander came up next and one of his questions focused on the administration’s disastrous pause of the J&J vaccine for its infinitesimally small chance of blood clots, and the fallout due to it being “attractive to those populations that are harder to reach right now.”

Wondering “what specifically is the White House doing now” to bridge the gap, Psaki offered 229 words of nothing, insisting the administration has “had a robust strategy in place long before the announcement by the FDA a couple of days ago” and launched a “program to get fact-based messages into the hands of local messengers” and partner with local organizations to fight vaccine hesitancy.

Fox News’s Kristin Fisher shifted gears to court-packing and had a back-and-forth with Psaki about whether Biden “support[s] the bill just introduced by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to add four seats to the Supreme Court.”

Psaki refused to weigh in, citing Biden’s Supreme Court commission that she claims will be “examining a range of questions about” the Court’s future (which, unless you’re politically ignorant, is only serving as a prolonging of their inevitable support for court-packing).

Fisher kept pressing, trying more times to get an answer (click “expand”):

FISHER: So, I mean, this isn’t just coming from some obscure member of Congress. This is coming from the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. So is the President, is the White House frustrated that Chairman Nadler perhaps didn’t wait for this report from the commission that President Biden just called for last week?

PSAKI: No. The President believes that it’s important to take a look at a range of points of view, whether they are progressive or conservative, a different — different sets of legal opinions, and he looks forward to assessing that himself and I expect he will not have more to convey about any recommendations or views he’ll have until he reads that report. But he certainly understands that members of Congress have a range of views and they’re going to propose legislation. He may or may not support it.

FISHER: So, I just want to be clear here. The President does or does not think that this bill is premature?

PSAKI: He believes that members of Congress have the right to put forward legislation on issues they support. His — his view is that he wants to hear from this commission that has a range of viewpoints.

FISHER: Okay. One more question. Senator Ed Markey, he just said this: “We must expand the court and we must abolish the filibuster to do it.” Is the White House comfortable with a Democratic Senator explicitly linking those two ideas from the steps of the Supreme Court?

PSAKI: The President believes that — in freedom of speech and that members can come forward and share their points of views on a range issues, including the future of the courts. He has his own view and he looks forward to seeing the recommendations that comes out of his court commission.

Three more reporters would see if they would have better luck (which they didn’t).

The Dallas Morning News’s Todd Gillman twice honed in on whether “the President is not ruling out the possibility of expanding the court,” but Psaki insisted that would be “getting a little bit ahead of the process.”

Instead, Psaki tried to have it both ways by saying Biden “look[s] forward to reviewing that report” even though “[h]is position has not changed” from the past about expanding the Court.

Before another reporter ended the briefing by asking about lower courts, Alexander brought up court-packing during a second go-around and even resurrected Biden’s 1983 comments about this that Fox’s Peter Doocy brought up at April 9’s briefing (click “expand”):

ALEXANDER: A couple last thoughts as it relates to the expanding the court discussion.         Nancy Pelosi, we’ve heard her say she wouldn’t bring that proposal to the floor. Did the President speak to Speaker Pelosi in advance of her making those comments?

PSAKI: I have any calls to read out. I think the President’s been pretty — he’s spoken about his views and obviously we announced the commission publicly last week.

ALEXANDER: And as it relates to his views as a Senator, his view was he was speaking of President Roosevelt then, that he wanted to expand the court by six seats. He said it was, “a boneheaded idea.” Does he still believe it’s “a boneheaded idea?”

PSAKI: Well, the President feels that it’s important to take a look at a range of issues related to the courts and I think that’s an indication that he’s seen the impact in recent years and it’s time to take a — take a fresh and clear look at a range of issues. The size is one of them, but so is the length of service, the selection, the case selection, rules, and practices.

Posted on

Tucker Calls Out Don Lemon for ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Against Female CNNer

CNN hosts Brooke Baldwin and Don Lemon have a longstanding friendship, at least on camera, as the two tend to get wasted during the network’s New Year’s Eve celebrations. But things may be on the rocks since Baldwin was lashing out at CNN as she was on her way out, claiming the network was unwelcoming to women. But during Thursday night’s show, Fox News host Tucker Carlson found a soundbite of Lemon throwing his friend under the bus and discounting what she said.

“We try and keep up with what’s going on at CNN. And a few nights ago we told you about CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, she’s on her way out. And on her way out she accused CNN of being sexist,” Carlson reminded his viewers.

There was a noticeable air of sarcasm as Carlson showed off some audio of Lemon speaking on The New York Times’ Sway podcast, hosted by Kara Swisher, in which he cast doubt on Baldwin’s claims about CNN:

LEMON: Well, a couple of things. I know everybody else’s salary so I can’t say that it’s a, you know, that it’s a “boy’s club.” I – Look, I just got there.

SWISHER: You don’t think it is a boy’s club, as Brooke said.

LEMON: I don’t – I don’t think it’s a —

SWISHER: You’re having lunch with Zucker. I’m guessing she is not.

LEMON: Well, I don’t know who’s – I mean, I actually called him up and said “would you like to have lunch?” I mean, she can do the same thing. [Laughter]

SWISHER: Fair.

 

 

After a quick quip about Lemon giving off a Mr. Rourke from The Love Boat vibe, Carlson dispatched Lemon’s weak defense that he was new to the network and didn’t have an understanding of the internal politics.

“Anyway, he was asked about Brooke Baldwin’s claims and he said, ‘I just got here.’ Of course, he’s only been there 15 years. Time moves quickly when you work at a cable patriarchy,” he mocked.

Carlson turned up the sarcasm as he explained that Lemon was being sexist against his longtime friend. “Once you get past Mr. Lemon’s denial, we noticed something else: he was mansplaining if you can imagine,” he explained. “Like sitting knees open on the subway, lecturing Brooke Baldwin on how to get into the bro lunch with Jeff Zucker.”

“Now, we know Don Lemon might not strike you as the poster child for toxic masculinity, but that’s exactly what that was. Casual sexism,” he added. “He doesn’t even realize it. Don Lemon needs to check himself and his male privilege. Stop the man-explaining, Mr. Rourke.”

At one point in this jab at CNN, Carlson reminded viewers again of how he had told CNN boss Jeff Zucker “just transition and increase the number of women at CNN.” And he had an update: “[Zucker] ignored our advice.”

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight
April 15, 2021
8:58:15 p.m. Easter

TUCKER CARLSON: We try and keep up with what’s going on at CNN. And a few nights ago we told you about CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, she’s on her way out. And on her way out she accused CNN of being sexist.

And you may recall, we gave the advice to Jeff Zucker, just transition and increase the number of women at CNN. But he ignored our advice.

Instead, the channel is doubling down on women hating, watch this.

DON LEMON: Well, a couple of things. I know everybody else’s salary so I can’t say that it’s a, you know, that it’s a “boy’s club.” I – Look, I just got there.

KARA SWISHER (host of The New York Times’ Sway podcast):  You don’t think it is a boy’s club, as Brooke said.

LEMON: I don’t – I don’t think it’s a —

SWISHER: You’re having lunch with Zucker. I’m guessing she is not.

LEMON: Well, I don’t know who’s – I mean, I actually called him up and said “would you like to have lunch?” I mean, she can do the same thing. [Laughter]

SWISHER: Fair.

CARLSON: Remember Mr. Rourke from Love Boat? Why is it Don Lemon every time you just sort of get this Mr. Rourke vibe from him?

Anyway, he was asked about Brooke Baldwin’s claims and he said, “I just got here.” Of course, he’s only been there 15 years. Time moves quickly when you work at a cable patriarchy!

Once you get past Mr. Lemon’s denial, we noticed something else: he was mansplaining, if you can imagine. Like sitting knees open on the subway, lecturing Brooke Baldwin on how to get into the bro lunch with Jeff Zucker.

Now, we know Don Lemon might not strike you as the poster child for toxic masculinity, but that’s exactly what that was. Casual sexism. He doesn’t even realize it. Don Lemon needs to check himself and his male privilege. Stop the man-explaining, Mr. Rourke.

Posted on

Uh Oh! Mean Sitcom King Chuck Lorre Plays ‘Meanness’ Victim, Waves ‘White Flag’

It’s been a while since we’ve been treated with a mean-spirited, hateful vanity card from CBS’s “King of Sitcoms” Chuck Lorre, and after Thursday night’s card, #667 aired, we now know why. Because, as Lorre claims, he’s been such a victim of “anger,” “meanness,” “censorship,” and clickbait by “ass&*&#s” (Psst…I think he means us) that he’s had to censor himself. *cue tiny violins*

After years of Lorre’s bigotry, anger, and meanness towards Christians and Christianity, as well as conservatives, all of which we have called out, is it really accurate for him to claim to be a victim?

But, victimhood is exactly what Lorre implies in vanity card #667, which aired after his shows Young Sheldon, Mom and B Positive, when he claims to be “watering down these cards, and often these shows, because I didn’t want to be a target for all the anger out there. I didn’t want to be clickbait for meanness”:

Come to think of it, it’s been a while since we’ve had to write up a Lorre sitcom, as well. It’s actually been pleasant to watch Young Sheldon, for example, without any of the religious bigotry and political jabs. Lorre has enough talent to be able to make his sitcoms funny and enjoyable without the anti-Christian and anti-conservative hate.

Let’s hope he keeps up this sign of goodwill towards all, even if the reason for it is because he thinks we’re “ass&*&#s.” (Who’s the mean one, again?)  We’re happy to take the hit to help make his sitcoms enjoyable for everyone, no matter their religion or political affiliation.