Anti-American Democrats Cartoons

Newt Gingrich on anti-American sentiment: 'The number of lies' from the left is 'astonishing'

Some Democrats are telling lies about America and President Trump is exposing those defaming the country, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday.
Comparing U.S. border detention facilities to Nazi concentration camps and denying America is "great" -- as the president's slogan declares -- are two top examples of such, Gingrich told host Laura Ingraham on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."
"The number of lies being told right now about the United States is astonishing," he said. "But all Trump is doing is, he's drawing to the surface the deep hatred which on-campus had certainly began by the middle of the 1960s and has grown and grown like a cancer."
"If you are a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the Founding Fathers were, how remarkable the Constitution is, you'd be booed off the stage."

"If you are a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the Founding Fathers were, how remarkable the Constitution is, you'd be booed off the stage."
— Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House speaker

Ingraham pointed to several examples of Democrats she considered to be defaming America.
In one clip, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo appeared to criticize President Trump's 2016 campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."
"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great," the third-term Democrat said.
In another clip, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., claimed, "There are things that are savagely wrong in this country."
Gingrich claimed Trump is able to fire up his opponents by using slogans like "MAGA."
"I think it's amazing that President Trump has this knack for framing things in such a way that his opponents go crazy," said the former Georgia congressman, whose books include "Trump's America" and "Understanding Trump."

The president says, 'I'm proud to be an American,' the left says, 'I'm ashamed to be an American'."
— Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House speaker

"You now have, for example, the president says, 'Keep America Great,' which I think is a great campaign slogan for next year. The Democrats promptly say, 'No, keep America weak.' The president says, 'I'm proud to be an American,' the left says, 'I'm ashamed to be an American'."

House Dems push for new AUMF before any military action on Iran, unlikely to pass

The U.S. may be closer to a military conflict with Iran now more than ever.
But this also means that Congress could be the closest it’s come in years to considering a new resolution to authorize the use of military force. Such a proposal could end the old authorizations Congress approved in 2001 to fight in Afghanistan and a 2002 blessing to invade Iraq. Three presidents, including President Trump, have employed these Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) for a panoply of military interventions spanning nearly two decades.
The operations have gone beyond the scope of just Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. has used those AUMFs to deploy military might in the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Niger. In fact, the House just approved a defense spending plan with a provision to extinguish the old AUMFs within 240 days of the measure becoming law.

Protesters hold signs spelling out, "No War," outside the White House, Thursday June 20, 2019, in Washington, after President Donald Trump tweeted that "Iran made a very big mistake" by shooting down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.  (AP)

Democratic leaders emphasized this point when summoned to the White House Situation Room Thursday afternoon for a briefing on Iran.
“We make it very clear that in order to get engaged in any military activities, we must have a new Authorization of Use of Military Force,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “That is clear in our caucus.”
When asked if members of the Trump Administration agree that the existing AUMFs lack rationale for attacking Iran, Pelosi replied “No. They didn’t say anything. They didn’t say yes. They didn’t say no.”
“We told the room that the Democratic position is that Congressional approval must be required before funding any conflict in Iran,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “One of the best ways to avoid bumbling into war - a war that nobody wants – is to have a robust, open debate and for Congress to have a real say. We learned that lesson in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
That’s the fundamental difference here. The Administration of President George W. Bush made a concerted case in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction. In the shadow of 9/11, President Bush argued that the U.S. needed to strike Iraq pre-emptively to stave off a catastrophic terrorist attack. As it turned out, the U.S. relied on faulty intelligence to appeal to Congress and the public for war. Less than two years later, Congress concluded a post-mortem on the reasons given for seeking war. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. Based on what lawmakers learned later, Roberts doubted that the Senate resolution to approve the Iraq war could garner the 77 Senate yeas it commanded in 2003.
This is why Congress has been reluctant to modify or refine the existing AUMFs – let alone adopt new ones. Lawmakers know they lack the votes to get everyone together to approve a modern AUMF. That would then leave any presidential administration one option: go it alone. And if an administration opts against acting? The U.S. could be vulnerable to attack and lack the appetite to initiate justified reprisals.
So, an administration could decide to send in military forces without a Congressional blessing. Sure, lawmakers may howl that the president is ignoring the Constitution. But at least Messrs. Bush, Obama and Trump can point to some Congressional, tacit endorsement of war: the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
Even if it is a stretch…
In other words, had the Bush Administration not leaned on defective information to start a war, lawmakers today may have more confidence in building a case for battle under the proper circumstances. But the Iraq experience was so onerous that many lawmakers lack the conviction to cobble together a coalition to either endorse or oppose the war option. Congress then reverts to relying on the old AUMFs. Lawmakers diminish their own power, ceding authority to the executive and incapacitated to legislate.
But no one is sure what is coming on Iran – if anything. The Trump Administration again finds itself at a familiar locus. It’s called the brink.
President Trump declared Thursday “you’ll soon find out” if the U.S. intends to strike Iran militarily.
Nearly two years ago, the President warned North Korea it had better shape up or Pyongyang would “be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
It wasn’t that long ago that Trump was threatening to slap devastating tariffs on Mexico.
Democrats may demand an AUMF. But many Republican leaders are more than willing to defer to President Trump.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said it was “unacceptable” for Iran to shoot down the American drone. But when asked what the U.S. should do to retaliate, McCarthy replied that “the President will have options before him.” When asked if the U.S. should use force, McCarthy said “I will leave that to the experts in the military and those in the intel community.” McCarthy reiterated that Trump “has the current authority” to wage war if necessary, based on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the Trump Administration should proceed with “measured responses.”
The Senate aims to begin debate next week on the annual defense policy bill. Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have long implored their colleagues to trash the calcified AUMFs and draft something new. Udall and Kaine have prepped an amendment to the defense legislation which would require Congressional signoff before going to war with Iran.
Of course, this touches off the age-old question. What defines “going to war?” Congress has only formally “declared war” five times against 11 nations. The last such declaration was against Romania in 1942. But what constitutes “war?” If the U.S. bombs Iranian defense facilities or engages Iranian aircraft and ships at sea, is the U.S. “at war?” Was the U.S. “at war” in Niger when four American soldiers were killed in an ambush two years ago? Few Americans even knew the U.S. had forces in Niger. That’s why Democrats and some Republicans demand Congressional consent. If the U.S. is going to be involved somewhere and lawmakers are expected to foot the bill, they’d like to vote. That’s because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority “to declare War.”
And, if military action is unpopular politically or with the public, lawmakers always to know why an administration is involved militarily somewhere without Congressional imprimatur.
“I cannot really predict what actions the White House will take,” said Pelosi after returning to the Capitol following the White House briefing. “They did consult with us today.”
But consultation is different from the adoption of an AUMF or a declaration of war. And that’s something Democrats are demanding if President Trump decides to strike.

Hannity takes on Biden's racially insensitive past

Fox News' Sean Hannity didn't hold back Thursday night, calling out Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden for his racially insensitive past.
"Now, there's a pattern here because crazy uncle Joe came out hard against busing...integration of public schools in the 1970s; he made inflammatory comments when pushing the Clinton crime bill; he used the phrase 'predators on our streets' talking about urban crime; he even made excuses for segregationist Strom Thurmond calling him a product of his time," Hannity said.
Biden faced criticism Wednesday from his Democratic primary rivals for invoking his ability decades ago to work with two segregationist southern senators to “get things done.”
“Apologize for what?” Biden told reporters Wednesday night when asked about the criticism over his remarks. “Not a racist bone in my body. I've been involved in civil rights my whole career. Period. Period. Period.”
Hannity also talked about the presidential candidates 'flexible' opinions.
"Biden's advisors are actually now even publicly begging him, stop talking about your political past because it is a massive liability. He has no core ideas, no solutions, eight years of failure. Willing to say and do everything to try to appease the radical Democrat socialist party, but is anyone buying it. Remember his Anita hill apology tour, the flip-flopping on the Hyde amendment? He held that position for 40 years, having to pander to the real speaker of the house, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," Hannity said.
The Fox News host blasted Biden for his current positions and his campaign chaos.
"And he's adopted, yes, the crazy new green deal climate change nonsense, he's averaging about a flip-flop a week making the campaign spin and spin in a million different directions," Hannity said.
"Someone with no plan for our future and he has to run on the Biden-Obama record. $150 billion to mullahs in Iran, 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more on poverty."
Fox News' Alex Pappas contributed to this report.

Ex-Bolton chief of staff says Trump 'responded with restraint' after Iran downed US drone

President Trump acted responsibly after Iran shot down a U.S. Navy drone over a key strait in the Middle East, a former top National Security Council official told Fox News Thursday.
Former NSC chief of staff Fred Fleitz told "Tucker Carlson Tonight." that the president does not want war with Iran but is not afraid to defend American interests,
"I don't want a war with Iran," Fleitz said. "I know that this president was elected to get us out of wars and not to start new wars. The president was right to pull us out of the fraudulent nuclear deal with Iran.
"But the use of force is on the table if Iran threatens our interests."
Fleitz, who also served as chief of staff to current National Security Adviser John Bolton, claimed some observers believe they can fault Trump if Iran uses violence in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear accord.
"There's people saying right now [that] the president is responsible if Iran responds with violence because we withdrew from that deal," he said.
"That is a fraudulent argument. We don't stay in an agreement because the other party threatens to respond with violence. The president has responded with restraint. He has given [Iran] an opportunity to deescalate the situation, and I think he handled it right today."
The former CIA analyst added that the Trump administration beefed up American forces in the Middle East because he wants to defend American interests, not go on the offensive.
"It doesn't mean that the president's going to do this, but the president can't ignore clear intelligence that Iran is planning to respond with violence to his policies," Fleitz said. "This president is not going to give in to blackmail but he does not want to use force if he doesn't have to."
The downing of the drone by a surface-to-air missile is only the most recent Iranian provocation in the region. Thursday's incident comes on the heels of a disputed attack on a pair of oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week. U.S. officials say Iran was behind the tanker attacks, however, Tehran has not claimed responsibility and even suggested American involvement in the incident.
Similarly, Iran claimed the U.S. drone shot down Thursday was over Iranian airspace, but American officials stated unequivocally the incident occurred in international airspace. U.S. Central Command said in a statement that a U.S. Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance ISR aircraft, known as a BAMS-D, was shot down at approximately 7:35 p.m. ET Wednesday.
Fox News' Edmund DeMarche and Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.

CNN Fake News Cartoons

NBC’s Chuck Todd calls out AOC over 'concentration camps' comment: 'Some things are bigger than partisanship’

NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd called out U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for doing migrants “a tremendous disservice” by comparing U.S. detention camps at the U.S.-Mexico border to Nazi concentration camps.
Todd said Wednesday that Nazi death and concentration camps are “not comparable in the slightest” to what’s going on at the border.
“You can call our government’s detention of migrants at our southern border many things depending on how you see it. It’s a stain on our nation, maybe. A necessary evil to others,” Todd said. “But do you know what you can’t call it?” he asked, before airing a clip of Ocasio-Cortez’s controversial remarks.
Todd said the New York Democrat's use of the term “concentration camps” only distracts from the debate on how to resolve the humanitarian crisis at the southern border.
Todd also criticized other Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, who were reluctant to condemn Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks.
“One of the lessons of the Holocaust is ‘Never Again,’ Nadler tweeted Tuesday. “We fail to learn that lesson when we don’t callout such inhumanity right in front of us.”
“Why are we so sheepish calling out people we agree with politically these days?” Todd asked viewers. He claimed the issue exists on both sides of the aisle — among both Republicans and Democrats.
"Are we really so ensconced in our political bubbles, liberal versus conservative, that we cannot talk about right versus wrong anymore? Some things are bigger than partisanship, or at least they used to be."

Battle lines are drawn as two cable networks skip Trump kickoff

When President Trump kicked off his reelection campaign in Orlando, two of the three cable news networks chose to blow it off.
MSNBC didn't air any of the speech, and CNN dumped out of it after a few brief minutes (just as Trump started bashing the press and the crowd chanted "CNN sucks"). Instead, they had their own pundits and prognosticators talk throughout the event and spent yesterday critiquing the speech that they decided not to share with viewers.
This is an important moment.
In passing up the speech (which was carried in its entirety by Fox), the networks were, intentionally or otherwise, making a statement. They were saying that what we have to say is more important than letting you hear from the leader of the free world as he makes his case for a second term.
That, in my view, plays into the old Steve Bannon charge about the media acting as the opposition party.
I'm not saying that the cable news channels need to air every Trump rally, even though Fox carries many of them. And the Orlando speech did turn out to be highly partisan, with the president ripping not just the media but the Mueller "witch hunt," "18 angry Democrats," "Crooked Hillary," and "radical" Democrats "driven by hatred, prejudice and rage." That's how he chose to frame his launch, with little about what he'd do in a second term.
So run the speech and then your anchors, reporters, commentators, and analysts can rip it any way they want. If it's important enough to cover on program after program, why isn't it important enough to air?
Can anyone imagine CNN and MSNBC not carrying Barack Obama's reelection launch? When he held his first official 2012 campaign rally in Columbus, they covered it, along with Fox.
When Hillary Clinton gave her 2015 kickoff speech on New York's Roosevelt Island — I was there and part of the coverage — Fox carried it live along with the other news channels.
(In a mirror-image move, South Carolina Democrats have barred CNN, Fox and even C-SPAN from covering this weekend's party convention, giving exclusive rights to MSNBC. This is a dumb move that will limit the exposure of the 21 presidential candidates who are slated to speak.)
The whole question of air time and balance is going to be a tricky one for television networks and the press as this campaign unfolds. That's because Trump's mighty media megaphone is such a powerful force — and a dilemma for the Democrats.
The Washington Post has just documented Trump's dominance:
"Through the first five months of the year, Trump has received about three times as much Google search interest in the United States, on average, as all his Democratic rivals put together.
"He has been having about 75 percent more social media interactions on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram than his rivals combined since February.
"And when it comes to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel, Trump was mentioned nearly twice as often as the 23 Democrats last month."
The Democrats, the paper says, are trying to figure out how to get higher ratings, even if they're not at Trumpian levels.
The highest-rated town hall — Bernie Sanders on Fox — drew over 2.5 million viewers. But that pales next to the 24 million who tuned into the first debate between Trump and other Republicans, also on Fox, back in August 2015.
During that campaign, according to a Harvard study cited by the Post, Trump drew 63 percent of the primary coverage in a field of 17 candidates, and 15 percent more than Hillary Clinton that fall. I said over and over during that campaign that even negative coverage benefits Trump because it means he's dominating the agenda.
Guy Cecil, chairman of an anti-Trump super PAC, is quoted as saying: "We have a culture that rewards the clown show at the expense of real issues." But that's been true for decades, and successful politicians adapt to the culture.
The current crop of 2020 Dems is doing plenty of interviews, but these are diluted by the sheer size of the field.
They will have one advantage in the coming months: the Democrats will be engaged in a race, with no contest on the GOP side. But they'll still be competing for ink and air time with an incumbent president who can make news at will.
Footnote: Donald Trump has called much of the media fake, dishonest and treasonous, but he was outdone in Orlando by his "spiritual adviser."
Paula White said, during an opening prayer no less: "Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus."
Do we really need this kind of demonizing, literally, in the name of religion?