Remember, You’re PAYING for This Stuff on PBS

Audiences know what to expect when they see names like Michael Moore or Dinesh D’Souza flash across the screen. That shouldn’t be the case with documentaries from reportedly neutral outlets like CNN and PBS, at least in theory. Those platforms have new documentaries that challenge that assumption, coming on the heels of a Michelle Obama Netflix documentary, Becoming, produced by her own company, Higher Ground Productions.     CNN’s Aug. 6 release of On the Trail: Inside the 2020 Primaries, features female reporters Dana Bash, Kaitlan Collins, Jessica Dean, Daniella Diaz, Annie Grayer, Kyung Lah, MJ Lee, Abby Phillip, Arlette Saenz, and Jasmine Wright. “The cinema verité feature reveals the lives and personal grit of veteran journalists and intrepid first-timers, against the backdrop of the volatile 2020 race,” says the film’s press release. All of the political reporters mentioned have one thing in common besides their gender. They all contribute to CNN. PBS’s And She Could Be Next, available now, is a two-part documentary telling the story “of a defiant movement of women of color who are transforming American politics from the ground up,” according to its own press statement.     “In a polarized America, where the dual forces of white supremacy and patriarchy threaten to further erode our democracy, a game-changing transformation is happening at the grassroots,” the release continues. This time, the focus is on progressive political figures like Stacey Abrams, Bushra Amiwala (a member of the Skokie School District 73.5 Board of Education), California State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, Georgia Rep. Lucy McBath, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Nse Ufot, Executive Director of the New Georgia Project. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, a woman of color and a possible 2024 presidential candidate, apparently didn’t make the cut. Nor did any Republicans, for that matter. Justin Malone, director of the documentary Uncle Tom, says attempting a truly neutral film of this kind isn’t possible. “All documentaries have a bias … even the old cinema verité films,” Malone says. “They have a director, a director has an opinion and chooses what to put it in. It’s impossible to make an unbiased film.”
Malone’s film, a sympathetic take on the black conservative experience, didn’t balance the story to include liberal voices.     “This is gonna be a 100 percent one-sided film,” he says, adding he appreciates transparency in documentary fare. CNN’s film, and more importantly its news coverage, suggests a less than transparent approach. “[CNN anchor] Don Lemon goes on TV and says, ‘I’m an independent,’” Malone says, a position that doesn’t reflect his reportage. Give Moore credit, Malone says. Audiences know what to expect from films like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. “I’d rather have that then being under the guise that this is non-biased film. Let’s just say what it is,” he says.
PBS’s And She Could Be Next comes from its POV line of documentary features, the very title suggesting a preferred narrative. A glance at the long-running series’ titles from the last three years, though, reveals an absences of right-leaning projects. And She Could Be Next has some solid, left-of-center, company at PBS’s POV series. Recent films cast illegal immigration in a positive light (The Infiltrators), honor tween Social Justice Warriors (We Are the Radical Monarchs) and praise left-leaning TV personality Bill Nye. Malone says CNN can make any film it wishes, but he hopes viewers do their homework on the potential biases CNN or any film company, bring to their work. “You need to observe where they’re coming from, and not just blindly believe them,” he says. [Cross-posted from Hollywood in Toto.]

Read more

VILE: Washington Post Uses New Ike Memorial to Slime ‘Pathetic’ USA

After more than 20 years of stumbles and conflict, the Dwight D. Eisenhower memorial is finally finished and ready to open in Washington D.C. While you may think this is a time to celebrate the great World War II general and our 34th President, The Washington Post on Friday used a front-page review of the memorial to bash the “pathetic” United States. He also hammered the Republican Party and deride Ike for not being sufficiently woke.  Philip Kennicott, the art and architecture critic for the paper managed to review and (mostly) praise the design and grandeur of the memorial, but he then shifted into bashing the current version of the Republican Party:  The opening of the memorial will now happen as the current political season enters its final chapter before the Nov. 3 election, which means it could prompt some anguish and soul-searching about the Republican Party. Eisenhower may have been a Republican, but he was a very different politician than his party now supports. It is difficult to imagine him tolerating a Republican president who avoided military service, mocked the war record of the late senator John McCain, and successfully embroiled the military in crushing a peaceful political demonstration outside the White House. Then Kennicott criticized Ike for not supporting gay rights… in 1953.  Eisenhower’s career, especially as president, was far from unblemished. He cozied up to the brutal dictator of Spain — Francisco Franco — toppled the elected leader of Iran and signed Executive Order 10450, which barred gay and lesbian people from government service and led to the purge of thousands of LGBT federal employees, a milestone in the annals of bigotry. Finally, the Post journalist seethed about the “passing age” and how modern America is “pathetic.”  This won’t be the last memorial erected in Washington, but it feels a bit like the last memorial of a passing age. The idea of great men is necessarily more complicated and fraught than it was when this memorial was conceived. The country that Eisenhower led to victory three-quarters of a century ago is now a pathetic object, mocked and pitied around the world, unable to keep its people safe from a virus that other countries have contained. Kennicott has a real problem with America, having previously mocked the “abject failure of America.” (Because our libraries are not aesthetically pleasing?) He also dismissed Mount Rushmore as “colossal kitsch,” nothing more than a “populist spectacle.” In May, the Post writer sneered that America is “desperately sick.”  The Washington Post’s Twitter page is @WashingtonPost. Go there to let them know what you think. 

Read more

WOW, MSNBC Actually Grills Pelosi: ‘Did You Overplay Your Hand?’

Finally, someone on MSNBC figured out how to ask a Democrat a hard question. During a Friday morning interview with Nancy Pelosi, fill-in host Kristen Welker took the long-awaited opportunity to grill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over coronavirus relief legislation that has been stalled in Congress. Trying to justify her refusal to compromise with Republicans on the urgently-needed relief bill, Pelosi arrogantly proclaimed: “This isn’t just about dollars. It’s about values, and our bill was very precise in terms of the needs were, meeting those needs.” Welker pushed back: “I understand, but you have had hours of negotiation, Madam Speaker….And still no deal….Did you overplay your hand?” What Pelosi argued was just ridiculous partisan politicking, whining about Republicans not wanting to spend boatloads of money and further increase the deficit without any accountability. Welker rightfully hit on the fact that Democrats refuse to accept an agreement other than the full amount of what they are asking for, further delaying any action.      Welker kept up the pressure:  WELKER:  Given the stalemate on the big issues, though, would you be open to a short-term extension of those unemployment benefits to start getting that critical aid to millions of Americans who need it right now? PELOSI: No. WELKER: Not open to a short term deal. PELOSI: No, that’s an excuse. That’s someplace the Republicans want to go and say we’ve done what we’re going to do. We wash our hands. We’ve been there. We know what that’s about, and why would we have to do that? WELKER: The big picture, though, Madam Speaker, when there is so much at stake, don’t you all have a responsibility to compromise and to come off of your two sides, so that you can get something done for the American people, which just has not happened yet? It’s truly amazing to see Pelosi fold under real, tough questions, something she’s not accustomed to dealing with from the leftist media. Other MSNBC hosts routinely give Pelosi the softball treatment, like Andrea Mitchell did for the Democratic leader just the other day. We have to give credit where credit is due, and this was certainly a good interview by Welker. Pelosi has no answers for her forced stalemate on the stimulus bill, and this segment uncovered the blatant politicization.   This was a rare example of good journalism, but to fight back against MSNBC’s usual Democratic Party propaganda, go here.  Read the full transcript below to learn more.  MSNBC’s Live 8-7-20 11:04 AM ET KRISTEN WELKER: With that I bring in house speaker Nancy Pelosi. Madam speaker, thank you so much for joining me on a very busy day for you.  NANCY PELOSI: Good morning.  WELKER: And all across the country.  PELOSI: Yes, it is.  WELKER: Good morning to you. Before we get to the critical negotiations I do want to start with the latest figures when it comes to covid-19. We’ve passed that grim milestone, more than 160,000 deaths, the estimates it could reach as high as 300,000. So Speaker Pelosi, what responsibility does Congress have to try to turn this around and make sure we don’t go even higher?  PELOSI: Well, one of the responsibilities we all have is to convince the White House that they should base their decisions on science. Let me just, let’s just talk numbers, because it’s very sad and I appreciate how you have framed this, 160,000 people have died. We passed the heroes act 12 weeks ago today. Since that time,  3.5 million people have been added to the list of those infected by the virus, 3.5 million since we passed our bill. 70,000 people have died since we passed our bill. The Republicans pushed the pause button. The president still ignores all the guidance from science, so we have to make a scientific decision to govern in a way that has the allocation of resources. We have to defeat the virus if we’re going to open the economy and safely return our children to school. So what we should do is to commit to testing, tracing, treatment, mask wearing, isolation, sanitation, and the rest, that’s what the scientists have been telling us all along, which has been mocked at certain times. Now hopefully will be embraced. That’s what we have to do. Everything else flows from that.  WELKER: Speaker Pelosi, let’s get to those negotiations. We just got that new jobs picture, the unemployment rate still in the double digits. I can imagine it’s only adding urgency to the talks. Will you be meeting with White House negotiators today, Speaker Pelosi?  PELOSI: Oh, we are calling upon them to meet today. We haven’t gotten a response back from them, but I always put things in terms of the children. For the children, we must come to an agreement. Children and families are preparing for school and we have major disagreement between us on the schooling, in terms of the dollar amount, but also how the money would be spent. The president is insisting that most of the money that they are allocating will go to schools that are opening actually, when the evidence is that across the country, school districts are saying largely overwhelmingly that they will be opening virtually or in a hybrid fashion, some actually. That can’t happen unless you reduce, actually can’t happen unless you reduce the infection rate in those communities. So that’s one big stumbling block. The other is honor our heroes is the purpose of our bill. Our health care providers, our first responders, our teachers, our teachers, our teachers, our sanitation, transportation, food workers, they’re on the verge of being fired, 1.5 million already because we have not adequately compensated them for their outlay of for the coronavirus and the rest, so that’s another place, and a fourth part, it’s not 915, they’re the 150. Those are two places that we have to come to terms.  WELKER: Speaker Pelosi, I understand that, and big picture, you did pass the heroes act 12 weeks ago.  PELOSI: 12 weeks ago.  WELKER: That is a package that is north of $3 trillion.  PELOSI: It is. That’s where the needs are.  WELKER: Republicans are saying they want something that’s more pared back but where is the middle ground, and do you have a responsibility to find it?  PELOSI:  Well the middle ground is not Sophie’s choice, how many children will be fed, how we’re going to deal with evictions and how many people will remain, will be relegated to eviction and homelessness, so when we’re talk — this is a different kind of a negotiation. This isn’t just about dollars. It’s about values, and our bill was very precise in terms of the needs were, meeting those needs. We can come down in terms of the length of time for our food, for example, in the food we have $67 billion for food and utilities and water. They have $250,000. $67 billion, $250,000.  WELKER: I understand, but you have had hours of negotiation, Madam Speaker.  PELOSI: That’s right.  WELKER: And still no deal.  PELOSI: Well we don’t have shared values.  WELKER: Did you overplay your hand?  PELOSI: No, we haven’t overplayed our hand. We’re not overplaying our hand when we factually are presenting what the needs are for our families, for our teachers, for our schools, for ending the virus. Now, if they want to say we want to do it with less money, let’s find out where we can do that without undermining the purpose. This is life and death. This is lives of the American people, livelihood, in terms of their economic success, and life of our democracy, we have very seriously differences. This isn’t about bickering. This is very major differences as to science, the role of governance in all of this, and what you think — now there was I think that some of the policies of Republicans had put forth have been disdainful. The stock market’s doing fine. They don’t mind if the Fed is shoring up the stock market and the credit market and that, and we said let’s shore up America’s working families. It’s a values debate that we’re proud to have but understanding we must come to agreement to how do we make the reductions? My view is one way we have food going on for a longer time, we could go for a shorter time and revisit the issue after the first of the year.  WELKER: To follow up on your point, you say this is life and death, and while you are —  PELOSI: It is.  WELKER: In these critical negotiations and no one is disputing there are serious values at play here, but the American people do not have the relief that they need, those $600 unemployment checks have expired in July.   PELOSI: That’s right.  WELKER: So they’re left without that critical aid.  PELOSI: That’s right.  WELKER: What is the message to Americans who need that money, that they’re just not going to get it in the fall, while these negotiations continue?  PELOSI: Well, the fact is that there are many things the American people need and that’s disdainful to say and all of the evidence, the economists at Yale, universities around the country, are saying this $600 is not a deterrent to our economy. In fact, it has kept at least 1 million people out of poverty and it has been injecting demand into the economy. When the injection of demand slows down, you see the numbers losing steam. So I really thank you and appreciate your honing in on these questions, because it is — all of these people need housing. It’s food. It’s really child care, very essential to families going back to work. It’s about osha. It’s about worker protections. They’re saying to people, you’re essential, go to work. And if somebody says I can’t because it’s a health situation, I don’t want to take that home to my family, they say well you have to go. If you don’t go, you lose your unemployment insurance and by the way, if you go and you get sick, you have no recourse because we want to protect the employer, who may not have taken the necessary precautions. So people have a lot more at stake than the $600, although we have insisted that we get the biggest number possible for that enhancement and reject the notion that the Republicans are putting forth is that people are staying home because of that. They’re staying home because of concern about health, they’re staying home to take care of their children, who may not be able to go to actual school. This is a comprehensive, an opportunity for to us work together to do something really good for the children.  WELKER:  Given the stalemate on the big issues, though, would you be open to a short-term extension of those unemployment benefits to start getting that critical aid to millions of Americans who need it right now?  PELOSI: No.  WELKER: Not open to a short term deal.  PELOSI: No, that’s an excuse. That’s someplace the Republicans want to go and say we’ve done what we’re going to do. We wash our hands. We’ve been there. We know what that’s about, and why would we have to do that?  WELKER: The big picture, though, Madam Speaker, when there is so much at stake, don’t you all have a responsibility to compromise and to come off of your two sides, so that you can get something done for the American people, which just has not happened yet?  PELOSI:  I’d like you to take a good look at the Republican proposal. We have $67 billion for food, energy, utilities, et cetera, water. They have $250,000. Now we’ll have to find some common ground there, won’t we? They have zero for helping renters who are on the verge of eviction. They may do a moratorium, which would be a good thing, the president may do that by executive order, but it’s not good without moratorium without money as a hardship for the renters and the landlords. So again, understand, look at their bill, because it is so lacking in so many ways, and the money just thinking of schools, just think of schools, the president is saying unless you go actual, you’re not getting these federal dollars. Really? Really? Shouldn’t the school districts make a decision based on the incidence of the rate of infection in their communities, and what they can really do? And by the way, I think it’s important to note that if you go actual, if you go virtual or if you go hybrid, it’s almost the same cost, because there are different costs that weigh in, all of it involving much more in terms of health care precautions and the rest that relate to the virus, but all of the necessary —  WELKER: You’ve been asked about this, madam speaker, but president trump, we’re running out of time so I have a couple more points to tick through. President Trump said he’s going to take executive action, including on those unemployment benefits. You have said you don’t think that’s entirely feasible. Are you saying you’re going to try to take legal action to block any executive action that the president takes?  PELOSI: We are trying to use our energy to find common ground. The reason the president is going that route is because they really are not, have they done what they should do, testing, tracing, treatment? They said testing is overrated. Tracing is not necessary. Understand this, you’re mistaking them for somebody who gives a damn about a lot of these things. They don’t. That’s why they have — in terms of what the president said, he said he was going to do a payroll. The president can’t eliminate your payroll tax. He can defer it, but the businesses are not crazy about that, neither are many of the Republicans in Congress, about doing a payroll tax, which has an impact on social security. He said he’s going to do a moratorium, great. That will be nice, but if you don’t have money and we need about a minimum of $90 billion to help the renters , and there’s a way to do this, it’s a model after what we did during the time of T.A.R.P. In 2008-2009. So I don’t know what else he says but whatever it is, there’s some subject as to whether is he going to get the money for this four, four, $400 where is he going to get the money and how long will that last? We want to have it in law with respect for the workers and what they do to spend the money, inject demand into the economy, and if we don’t, as you referenced, Chairman Powell, they’ve all said to us think big. This is a big economic hit. You’re going to pay now or you’re going to pay more later.

Read more

Undoing MLK’s Work: CNN’s Harlow Wants People to Be Judged by the Color of Their Skin

On Thursday morning’s CNN Newsroom, co-host Poppy Harlow engaged in cultural Marxism with President and Chair of the National Council of Negro Women Dr. Johnetta B. Cole and Google’s Chief Diversity Officer Melanie Parker to forward the far-left’s radical agenda. Harlow celebrated a letter from Cole which claimed that “the daily racism your black employees live with is killing them literally and figuratively.” She also virtue signaled by wondering “How is it that we are in America in 2020 and there is not today a single black woman leading anyone of the fortune 500 companies?”     The ever woke Harlow, who has endorsed slavery reparations and pressured the Commissioner of the WNBA to force out a Senator Kelly Loeffler as an owner for opposing Black Lives Matter, began the segment by celebrating Cole’s radical letter: This morning an open letter calling out America’s most powerful leaders for a lack of swift action to address racial disparity signed by more than 50 chief diversity officers from big companies like Twitter, Nike, Intel, Zoom, Coca Cola, and Google. They write quote “You expressed your commitment to ensuring racism-free work environments, frequently calling for a renewed focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Collectively, however, we must share our consternation that it took thousands of protests sparked by unconscionable incidents of racial animus to garner the attention of many leaders. Denying, minimizing, or ignoring racism is no longer an option and we are hearing a resounding message from the many voices that are speaking out globally from your c-suite to the entry levels of your organizations. The message? The daily racism in your black employees lives — live with is killing them literally and figuratively.  Harlow then showed off her progressive credentials to Cole, who responded with typical woke talking points: HARLOW: Dr. Cole, let me begin with you. How is it that we are in America in 2020 and there is not today a single black woman leading anyone of the fortune 500 companies? That’s just an example of what’s going on here. And how are you actually going to affect change?  COLE: That is a perfect example of what I would call systemic racism as it is expressed in corporate America. Those of us who came together, and I must say called together by Candi Castleberry of Twitter, those of us who came together — years of experience working in corporate America, These professionals understand the struggle to not only bring more black women into corporate American but to sustain them there and to give them the — the support to rise. Ah yes, systemic racism. A country founded upon the ideals and principles of everyone being equal and equal opportunity does promote systemic inequality. The notion of systemic racism starts to crumble when one considers that only 21 percent of millionaires inherited a substantial sum of money. Only three percent of that group inherited over a million dollars. This has helped explain why Asians are the richest group in the U.S and why if African Americans were their own nation, it would be the fifteenth wealthiest nation in the world. But sure, systemic racism isn’t a political talking point. For the anti-racism cult, they want to replace equal opportunity with equal outcomes. Harlow then suggested that whites should step down and give their jobs to blacks: Well, Dr. Cole to you, Darren walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, who has called you a, quote, singular force for transformation, he told me on — on this show that there’s — there’s a real problem with corporate America, that corporate — the culture of corporate America is white, and you know he wrote in the New York Times, it’s not just about what you’re going to give, it’s what will you give up. Do you believe that more white leaders need be stepping aside like Alexis Ohanian did on the board of Reddit and saying I want a black person to take my spot?  Surely Harlow will live up to her principles and leave her job to allow a black anchor to take over. Harlow also expressed her excitement over Google hiring people based on their skin color and not their talent: Yeah, there’s no question about that. Melanie, one of the things that really struck me about this letter that you signed on to is that you guys talk about the need to specifically address the racism and inequity that black people in your companies have faced. Not to — that it’s been a mistake to group into sort of overall diversity and inclusion, and I — I — I wonder about that because you look at Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, who recently has said and committed to raising the percent of underrepresented people in leadership at Google to 30% by 2025. Is this the 1930’s? Supposedly we are past making hiring decisions based on color. Further demonstrating her virtue, Harlow finished the segment by promising “to tweet out the full letter.”  CNN has been all in with the far-left’s radical agenda and will continue to be a platform for its insane ideas. This woke propaganda was paid for by Nutrisystem and Northwestern Mutual. Let them know here if you think they should be sponsoring this content. Read the full August 6th transcript here: CNN Newsroom 08/06/20 10:36 AM ET POPPY HARLOW: Welcome back. This morning an open letter calling out America’s most powerful leaders for a lack of swift action to address racial disparity signed by more than 50 chief diversity officers from big companies like Twitter, Nike, Intel, Zoom, Coca Cola, and Google. They write quote “You expressed your commitment to ensuring racism-free work environments, frequently calling for a renewed focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Collectively, however, we must share our consternation that it took thousands of protests sparked by unconscionable incidents of racial animus to garner the attention of many leaders. Denying, minimizing, or ignoring racism is no longer an option and we are hearing a resounding message from the many voices that are speaking out globally from your c-suite to the entry levels of your organizations. The message? The daily racism in your black employees lives — live with is killing them literally and figuratively. Joining me now, the author of the letter, Dr. Johnnetta Cole. She serves as the president and chair of the National Council of Negro Women, former president of Spellman College and Bennett College and Melanie Parker, Google’s chief diversity officer. Good morning ladies, thank you for being here.  MELANIE PARKER (GOOGLE’S CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER): Good morning.  DR. JOHNETTA B. COLE (PRESIDENT AND CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN): Thank you. HARLOW: Dr. Cole, let me begin with you. How is it that we are in America in 2020 and there is not today a single black woman leading anyone of the fortune 500 companies? That’s just an example of what’s going on here. And how are you actually going to affect change?  COLE: That is a perfect example of what I would call systemic racism as it is expressed in corporate America. Those of us who came together, and I must say called together by Candi Castleberry of Twitter, those of us who came together — years of experience working in corporate America, These professionals understand the struggle to not only bring more black women into corporate American but to sustain them there and to give them the — the support to rise while the letter —  HARLOW: You know — COLE: Certainly I’ll listen.  HARLOW: I — I was just going to say to Melanie’s point, who’s leading this effort at one of the big tech companies where there’s a dearth of black representation across silicon valley. Melanie, if you could just speak to Google, right? If you look at your own diversity numbers that you guys put out and transparency is important, 2.6% only of leadership by Google is black, two of the 11 board members are black and when you look back to 2014, about 1.9% of the workforce was black and even now, six years later it’s only 3.7%. How do you convince people that this time it’s different, right? That — that real meaningful change in those numbers are going to go way up going forward?  PARKER: Poppy, it’s a — it’s a great question and — and you know, at Google we actually see diversity as a verb. So it’s that action. It’s bold and decisive and so we have made steady progress over the last six years. I’ve really consider Google a leader and a learner. So we have the largest publicly available DEI data set in industry and we do that knowing that we use data to inform us how to continue to get better. But we’re transparent about it. So as we’re learning by looking at the data and informing how we hire, how we progress our talent, how we retain people every day, we want to encourage other companies to be as transparent and to come along as collectively as well to do the same.  HARLOW: Well, Dr. Cole to you, Darren walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, who has called you a, quote, singular force for transformation, he told me on — on this show that there’s — there’s a real problem with corporate America, that corporate — the culture of corporate America is white, and you know he wrote in the New York Times, it’s not just about what you’re going to give, it’s what will you give up. Do you believe that more white leaders need be stepping aside like Alexis Ohanian did on the board of Reddit and saying I want a black person to take my spot?  COLE: Well first of all, I have to say that Darren Walker is an extraordinary champion for racial justice, for social justice. You know, when you put the question in terms of a zero sum game that all white men have to give up their positions for black folk, I think that’s a — that’s an unreasonable picture, but that some black men must is clear because there are so many people of color ready, able, fully qualified to lead.  HARLOW: Yeah, there’s no question about that. Melanie, one of the things that really struck me about this letter that you signed on to is that you guys talk about the need to specifically address the racism and inequity that black people in your companies have faced. Not to — that it’s been a mistake to group into sort of overall diversity and inclusion, and I — I — I wonder about that because you look at Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, who recently has said and committed to raising the percent of underrepresented people in leadership at Google to 30% by 2025. But do you need to make that specifically about black people in setting goals for black employees specifically at Google?  PARKER: So, Poppy, at Google, we routinely set aspirational goals across underrepresented minority, including black people, and I think it’s important that we’re informed by data to see where we have gaps and what we need to do to get better, what we need to prioritize. So actually I think it’s critically important to set those goals, to measure ourselves and to learn from them as well.  HARLOW: Dr. Cole — yes, please, go ahead.  COLE: You know, our letter says specifically that we stand in solidarity — HARLOW: Yeah. COLE: — with all allies’ communities, but there is specific need, especially at this moment in our country, for corporate America, for all organizations, to address systemic racism that affects black people, and I don’t see a contradiction in calling for that and standing simultaneously with all marginalized communities.  HARLOW: Yeah, It’s a very important point. I wonder, Melanie, to the extent you’re comfortable speaking about your own experience, because one of the things that I was moved reading about your comments is that you say there’s a real difference between being at the table and being welcomed to the table. You’re a black woman who has risen very high up at one of the biggest companies in the country, one of the most important companies in the world — in the world. What — what is your experience been like throughout your career?  PARKER: You know, my personal experience as a black woman, I have benefitted greatly from mentorship, and I have been invited to the table but not welcomed, and so I’m very personally passionate about making sure that all feel welcomed at the table. One of the things I’m particularly proud of as a black woman is that in this movement today, I was able to sit down with Sundar and speak with him directly, and he asked me for my feedback and my recommendation, so that critical leadership commitment and buy-in, our CEO saying he’s with us, he’s in it and what can we do can, and we set forth a set of commitments critically important to my own lived experience as a black woman, not just in industry but in tech.  HARLOW: It’s — it’s a very, very important point and I’m — I’m glad to hear that. Thank — thank you, both. I wish we had many more minutes to talk about this. Thank you for what you’re doing to lead on this, Melanie Parker, Dr. Cole. 

Read more

PolitiFact Lamely Throws ‘Mostly False’ Flag at Dan Bongino Facebook Page

Matt Palumbo at Bongino.com took issue with the extremely biased nature of PolitiFact’s “Truth-O-Meter” in assessing “facts.” The controversy? This week, President Trump signed an executive order to prevent illegal immigrants from being counted for the purposes of re-apportioning congressional districts after the 2020 census. PolitiFact’s Tom Kertscher decided to warn America that the following claim was “Mostly False.” “California has six extra” congressional representatives “because illegals are counted” in the census. This was counted as a “correction” of “Facebook Posts,” not as a direct judgment of the Bongino website, described as “part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.” Kertscher used the familiar liberal-media template of finding “no evidence” to support a conservative argument:  We found no evidence to back a claim that California has six more House seats than it would have if people in the country illegally were excluded from the apportionment. The claim “is off base,” said demographer Dudley Poston Jr., an emeritus professor of sociology at Texas A&M University. He and other experts say California likely has two to four more seats than it would without counting people in the country illegally. This takes us back to the obvious point we have to make over and over again when it comes to these “fact checkers.” They are taking exception to an estimate, which is not a hard fact. To disagree on an estimate on this scale should not rise to the level of “false news and misinformation.”  Palumbo effectively summarizes the tendentious nature of the PolitiFact method here:  So to summarize, his case amounts to “I can’t find evidence for this, one sociology professor disagrees with the claim, and so do some unnamed experts that I’ll quote even though you have no idea who they are.” He then rated the claim “mostly false,” which just goes to prove how Kertscher assigns his “ratings” to claims before even trying to cobble together a rebuttal. Does he really think that “well actually California only has four extra representatives due to illegals, not six!” is a satisfying rebuttal to anyone who doesn’t want illegals counted in terms of determining representation (which is almost everyone)? That sounds “mostly true” to me, but you have to understand Politifact’s partnership with Facebook to understand his true motivation. Kertscher and those like him at Facebook don’t want information like the narrative I’m spreading to gain traction, so they bring in a “fact checker” to do an “analysis” of the claim. That’s why Kertscher’s article makes many references to the fact that my article was posted on the Dan Bongino Facebook page, because once it’s “fact checked” the page gets a warning, thus throttling our traffic. It also means a warning will pop up over the article anytime someone shares it on FB, even though you can see that his fact check didn’t check any facts. In fact, Bongino’s Facebook post is no longer available, but Palumbo’s previous article is. A search of “Bongino” at PolitiFact locates four “fact checks” in the last year or so….all of them Mostly False or worse.  PolitiFact finds a reliably leftish expert witness to claim conservatives are all wet. In this case, “demographer Dudley Poston Jr.” is not just a demographer. He’s been a repetitive small donor to the Democratic National Committee. 

Read more

‘It’s a Peaceful Protest’; Trump NUKES WashPost Hack Concerned About Press Conference Crowd

During a Friday night press conference, President Trump dished out one of his most stinging burns against the liberal media, telling CNN and Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa that the large crowd of members from his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club watching them weren’t violating any social distancing measures because they were engaging in “political activity” and “a peaceful protest” against the press. Olorunnipa began his question by noting Trump has often claimed the coronavirus pandemic would eventually “disappear,” but then added: “We lost 60,000 Americans this week and just in this room, you have dozens of people who are not following the guidelines in New Jersey, which say you should not have more than 25 people [in a room].”     The Phil Rucker underling tried to ask about the supposed disconnect, but the crowd (which had largely remained quiet through both Trump’s remarks and the Q&A) erupted in boos and drowned him out. Trump interjected and began the trolling, telling him why the golf course didn’t have to cap the size of the gathering or socially distance: “No, they don’t have to. It’s a political activity.” Olorunnipa continued to pontificate for a few seconds longer, but for all intents and purposes, he was done speaking. Trump added that he was “wrong on that because” the crowd was engaging in “political activity,” and “a peaceful protest,” which left them applauding and chuckling at this comeback. The President continued, quipping that the crowd was there to “protest” the press: They asked if they could be here. You know, a number of — and to me, they look like they all — pretty much all have masks on. But you know you have an exclusion in the law. It says peaceful protests or political activity, right? In fact, specifically — yeah, says political activity, or peaceful protest and you can call it political activity, but I — I’d call it peaceful protest because they heard you were coming up and they know the news is fake. They understand it better than anybody. Trump also pointed to a question from Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason about Friday’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence report about the actions and thoughts of U.S. adversaries China, Iran, and Russia concerning the 2020 presidential election. He noted that Mason focused on Russia, only noted China later, and didn’t bring up Iran (the last two reportedly hoping for a Biden win). Alluding to the liberal media’s Russia obsession, Trump chalked it up being “that’s the way they are” and left the podium with these final thoughts to raucous applause from club members: “If the press in this country were honest, it wasn’t corrupt, if it wasn’t fake, our country would be so much further ahead, but we’re doing really great.” Regardless of how November turns out, there’s no doubt this exchange will end up alongside his many, many, many, many, many squabbles with Jim Acosta or tussles with Yamiche Alcindor or Rucker in a list of Trump’s most amusing takedowns. To see the relevant transcript from the August 7 press conference, click “expand.” White House Press Conference
August 7, 2020
8:13 p.m. Eastern TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA: You said that the pandemic is disappearing but we lost 60,000 Americans this week and just in this room, you have dozens of people who are not following the guidelines in New Jersey, which say you should not have more than 25 people in a room. Why are you saying — why are you saying that — [INAUDIBLE] [CROWD BOOS] PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, they don’t have to. It’s a political activity. OLORUNNIPA: — [INAUDIBLE] Mr. President cause — PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You’re wrong on that because it’s a political activity. They have exceptions. Political activity — [INAUDIBLE OLORUNNIPA SHOUTING] TRUMP: — and it’s also a peaceful protest. So, when you have — and as you know, it’s a peaceful protest. [CROWD LAUGHS AND APPLAUDS] They asked if they could be here. You know, a number of — and to me, they look like they all — pretty much all have masks on. But you know you have an exclusion in the law. It says peaceful protests or political activity, right? In fact, specifically — yeah, says political activity, or peaceful protest and you can call it political activity, but I — I’d call it peaceful protest because they heard you were coming up and they know the news is fake. WOMAN IN THE AUDIENCE: Yes! TRUMP: They understand it better than anybody and they asked whether or not — they asked whether or not they can be here, like the question about Russia. He doesn’t mention Iran was in the report. He doesn’t mention or he mentions very late that China was in the report. MAN IN THE AUDIENCE: China wants Biden. TRUMP: — cause that’s the way they are. They’re not — if the press in this country were honest, it wasn’t corrupt, if it wasn’t fake, our country would be so much further ahead, but we’re doing really great. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Read more

Biden Collusion: CNN’s Sciutto Hypes New Trump-Trashing Book in Time for Election

On Friday’s New Day, CNN co-host John Berman brought on anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto to continue the long tradition of media leftists colluding with Democrat campaigns. Sciutto, a former Obama administration official, hyped his new book, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World, which he is conveniently releasing 88 days before the election. Berman predictably gave the anti-Trump author a glowing review:     So new this morning, we’re learning now that President Trump’s unpredictable behavior led advisers to hesitate to give him military options amid escalating tensions with North Korea. We’re learning this because of a brand-new book out from CNN anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, the author of the book out next Tuesday, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World. I am holding a well-worn copy, Jim, in my hands right now. This reporting is fascinating, particularly as it pertains to North Korea. In order to promote the campaign interests of his old boss, Joe Biden, Sciutto accused President Trump of being a warmonger: This — this happened at the height of tensions with North Korea in late 2017 where the President’s military advisers hesitated to give him military options because they were concerned he might use them, and that would take the U.S. and North Korea on the path to war. This was something the military advisers were reluctant to do and — and diplomats, U.S. diplomats involved in this. And, remarkably, John, in the midst of that, you had U.S. negotiators communicating to their North Korean counterparts that they did not know what the President was going to do, that he was unpredictable, out of concern, again, about what path this would lead the country on. This was not isolated to North Korea during the most tense moments with Iran in 2019. A similar dynamic, reluctance to give military options, worry that the President would use them, unjustifiably to some degree, but also, again, communicating to the Iranian side, the President’s unpredictable, we don’t know how he’s going to act here, because they were worried about spiraling towards a conflict there. This claim has little accuracy behind it. Trump has consistently railed against “endless conflicts”, and has worked to bring troops home. In fact, the same Democrats who praised President Obama for troop removal have attacked Trump for doing so. Ironically, they had little to say about Obama killing 3,797 people through drone strikes. Sciutto then pushed contested claims that Trump does not read his briefs: It became very clear that the President was not reading his briefing materials. His — his briefers would come in and they could tell because when they began to discuss stuff that was in his briefing materials, it was the first time he heard it. So, under H.R. McMaster and his team, National Security Adviser, he devised a plan to boil down the briefings to just three bullet points on notecards hoping that that level of information would get through. What they discovered over time was that the President was only reading the first two of those three bullet points, so they adjusted again and then concentrated the most important information in the first two points and the third point became sort of a throwaway line hoping he’d at least get through those first two. Then they began to discover he wasn’t even reading the first two. And, again, because they would brief him and as they brought up issues, it — it was clearly the first time he was — he — he was hearing it. The Obama stooge also defended his former bosses’ nuclear deal with Iran and brought up the debunked Russia collusion conspiracy: We — we should note, that the President has contradicted, the intelligence, his military advisers, not just on the Lebanon attack, but on intelligence about Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, on intelligence about North Korea expanding its nuclear program. And, of course, most notably on Russian interference in the election. This — this is — this is a feature, not a bug of the Trump presidency, and that’s one revelation from this book. Ah yes, the Russia collusion myth. CNN is still pushing it despite that the Obama officials involved testified under oath that there was no collusion. Sciutto also couldn’t help but attack Trump for derailing his former bosses’ disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, which did basically nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. CNN is all in for Biden, so it only makes sense for one of its Biden lackey employees to go on air and push lies about Trump from his very conveniently-timed book. This Joe Biden propaganda was paid for by Sensodyne and Amazon. Let them know here what you think about them sponsoring this content. Read the full August 7th transcript here: CNN New Day 08/07/20 6:42:47 AM JOHN BERMAN: So new this morning, we’re learning now that President Trump’s unpredictable behavior led advisers to hesitate to give him military options amid escalating tensions with North Korea. We’re learning this because of a brand-new book out from CNN anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, the author of the book out next Tuesday, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World. I am holding a well-worn copy, Jim, in my hands right now. This reporting is fascinating, particularly as it pertains to North Korea. What have you learned? JIM SCIUTTO (CNN ANCHOR; CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT): This — this happened at the height of tensions with North Korea in late 2017 where the President’s military advisers hesitated to give him military options because they were concerned he might use them, and that would take the U.S. and North Korea on the path to war. This was something the military advisers were reluctant to do and — and diplomats, U.S. diplomats involved in this. And, remarkably, John, in the midst of that, you had U.S. negotiators communicating to their North Korean counterparts that they did not know what the President was going to do, that he was unpredictable, out of concern, again, about what path this would lead the country on. This was not isolated to North Korea during the most tense moments with Iran in 2019. A similar dynamic, reluctance to give military options, worry that the President would use them, unjustifiably to some degree, but also, again, communicating to the Iranian side, the President’s unpredictable, we don’t know how he’s going to act here, because they were worried about spiraling towards a conflict there. It’s a remarkable instance of distrust in the President’s decision making from his own advisers. BERMAN: There’s a lot in this book, Jim, and everyone should go out and read it as — as soon as they can. One of the things that jumped out to me, and, again, you spoke to a lot of the people involved here, is that they had to pare down what they would tell him every day because they knew he wouldn’t get that far. SCIUTTO: Yeah. BERMAN: They basically knew he wouldn’t get to number three — SCIUTTO: Yeah. BERMAN: — on a list of information? SCIUTTO: Well, this — this was early on in the Trump administration. It became very clear that the President was not reading his briefing materials. His — his briefers would come in and they could tell because when they began to discuss stuff that was in his briefing materials, it was the first time he heard it. So, under H.R. McMaster and his team, National Security Adviser, he devised a plan to boil down the briefings to just three bullet points on notecards hoping that that level of information would get through. What they discovered over time was that the President was only reading the first two of those three bullet points, so they adjusted again and then concentrated the most important information in the first two points and the third point became sort of a throwaway line hoping he’d at least get through those first two. Then they began to discover he wasn’t even reading the first two. And, again, because they would brief him and as they brought up issues, it — it was clearly the first time he was — he — he was hearing it. Why does this matter? Of course, we want our leaders make informed decisions here. And you have a president who often doesn’t take in that information, but also, at times, ignores it, dismisses it, disagrees with it, says he knows better than his briefers or even intelligence agencies. It’s a remarkable dynamic. BERMAN: Or sometimes he invents things, Jim, which brings us to this week. SCIUTTO: Yeah. BERMAN: Because I think one of the most under covered stories of this remarkable week has been when the President went out there, after the Beirut explosion, we just had Arwa reporting from there, and at the White House, in the Briefing Room, said he was told that it was bombs, or a bomb that caused this explosion. He even said that — that military advisers told him that. And we can’t find any evidence that anyone told him that. SCIUTTO: Yeah. BERMAN: What went on there? SCIUTTO: It — it’s not clear where — where that came from, right? And it is, as you say, not the first time the President has claimed something that, well, either turned out not to be true or — or — or had no basis. And it matters, right, because in the midst of that, tensions very high in Lebanon. They always are in that region, particularly now. There were suspicions, you know, did — did — Israel — Israel carry out attack — an attack? And when you have the U.S. President say, well, hey — heck, it might have been an attack, that, of course, puts people on alert here. And that — that is a dynamic, John, we — we should note, that the President has contradicted, the intelligence, his military advisers, not just on the Lebanon attack, but on intelligence about Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, on intelligence about North Korea expanding its nuclear program. And, of course, most notably on Russian interference in the election. This — this is — this is a feature, not a bug of the Trump presidency, and that’s one revelation from this book. BERMAN: Jim Sciutto, great to have you on. Congratulations on your work. Again, the book is The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World, out next week.

Read more