Published on Jun 28, 2019
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Asks Kamala Harris How She Doesn’t ‘Have Hatred Towards White People’ (VIDEO)

June 28, 2019
MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Kamala Harris how she does not have “hatred towards white people” after she claimed to have been one of the first groups of black children in California to be bused to schools to enforce desegregation.
During Thursday night’s Democratic primary debate, Harris confronted former Vice President Joe Biden about his boasting of working with two segregationists during his career in the senate.
“I do not believe you are a racist. And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Harris said. “But it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
Harris went on to tell a story about her childhood, saying “there was little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day — and that little girl was me.”
During her post-debate interview in the spin room in Miami, Matthews asked her about the story of her childhood — and how she doesn’t hate white people.
“I have a great deal of respect for Joe Biden,” Harris told MSNBC. “I do not believe he’s a racist but his perspective on those [segregationist] senators was something that was hurtful and it had consequences.”
“How did you come out of that and not have hatred towards white people, generally?” Matthews asked.
“Most Americans do not conduct themselves that way, and most parents don’t conduct themselves that way,” Harris responded. “So there was no need to create a broad application because of that one experience, but we cannot deny that there are many children, black children in America who have had that experience.”
UN Debuts New Global Warming Hysteria Buzzword: ‘Climate Apartheid’

The globalists have invented another neologism to scare the masses about the weather.
With constant global warming hysteria not frightening enough people across the world to spur a one-world government, the United Nations has invented the term “climate apartheid” to inject social justice dogma into their ongoing propaganda campaign against capitalism and industry.
Philip Alston, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, is claiming that climate change is going to disproportionately affect the poor.
“Most human rights bodies have barely begun to grapple with what climate change portends for human rights,” Alston said.
The climate apartheid refers to the supposed inequality that will emerge from dealing with the ill-effects of climate change.
The rich will be able to adapt while the poor will suffer the most, according to so-called experts.
“As a full-blown crisis that threatens the human rights of vast numbers of people bears down, the usual piecemeal, issue-by-issue human rights methodology is woefully insufficient,” Alston said.
Alston predicts that all kinds of calamity, such as unwanted migration, food shortages, rampant disease, and even death, will emerge from the climate apartheid.
“It could push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030,” Alston said. “Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction.”
Alston is releasing a new report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this week where he is re-packaging the globalist hysteria for another generation.
“The human rights community, with a few notable exceptions, has been every bit as complacent as most governments in the face of the ultimate challenge to mankind represented by climate change,” Alston’s report states.
The report goes on to do even more fear-mongering: “The steps taken by most United Nations human rights bodies have been patently inadequate and premised on forms of incremental managerialism and proceduralism which are entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threat. Ticking boxes will not save humanity or the planet from impending disaster.”
Alston supports drastic, unprecedented measures to solve the climate apartheid, similar to the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Alston wants “deep structural changes in the world economy” to de-industrialize society with welfare benefits increased to fill the employment gaps as sustainability is achieved.
“Climate action should not be viewed as an impediment to economic growth but as an impetus for decoupling economic growth from emissions and resource extraction, and a catalyst for a green economic transition, labour rights improvements, and poverty elimination efforts,” he said.
This latest round of hocus pocus from the doomsayers is not likely to be much more effective than any of the other times they have peddled the same line, at least not in America. President Trump recently finalized new coal rules that will unleash prosperity and empower the states, and it will happen despite bureaucratic whining from any UN hack.
Jimmy Carter Claims Donald Trump an Illegitimate President

By Joshua Caplan
Former President Jimmy Carter suggested Friday that President Trump’s victory in 2016 was illegitimate due to Russian interference in the election.
“The president himself should condemn it,” Carter said when asked how the administration should deal with alleged election meddling. “Admit that it happened, which 16 intelligence agencies have already agreed to say.”
“There’s no doubt the Russians did interfere in the election and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated, will show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.”
“He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” he added.
Carter was then asked if he believed President Trump illegitimately occupied the White House, he replied: “Based on what I said, which I can’t retract.”
Despite the two presidents’ policy differences, President Trump and Carter have shared a cordial relationship. Carter recently stated Trump was correct to not launch a military strike against Iran after a U.S. drone was shot down by the regime. The pair have previously discussed foreign policy issues such as North Korean denuclearization and trade with China.
The Tears of a Clown
JUNE 28, 2019

Russiagaters’ darkest hour: Trump may come to Moscow for 2020 Victory Day celebrations

Russiagate’ theorists and Trump haters may soon have their worst nightmare come true – the US President hinted that he could travel to Moscow next year to mark Victory Day alongside Vladimir Putin.
Mueller fans are probably shaking in their boots, as Donald Trump “responded very positively” to an invitation to come to Moscow for the 75th anniversary of victory in the World War II, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters during the G20 summit in Osaka.
The two Presidents discussed their countries’ involvement in the war, mentioning “the Soviet contribution to that victory.”
If that comes true, the liberal Twitterati will surely collapse in full-on meltdown, but Trump will not be the first US president to have visited the Victory Day parade in Moscow. George W. Bush was on the Red Square in 2005, while his Democratic successor, Barack Obama, declined the invitation to came to the commemorative parade in 2010.
Trump trolls press, ‘orders’ Putin not to meddle in US elections (VIDEO)

Instead, the US sent 76 troops from the Army’s 18th Infantry Regiment which had taken an active part in the 1944 D-Day offensive in Europe. The US personnel paraded through Red Square alongside British and French soldiers, as well as troops from former Soviet republics.
EVERYONE MUST VOTE IN 2020

The left has never been so radical in our nation’s history.
Gutfeld on Wednesday’s debate
Political pandering from Democratic 2020 hopefuls at first presidential debate was muy loco.

It’s not a new problem, so why does the media only care about dead migrant children under Trump?

By Danielle Ryan
The tragic image of a drowned father and child washed ashore on the Rio Grande is being used as easy ammunition against Donald Trump — but where was the outpouring of grief when migrants were dying under the Obama administration?
There is no good argument to be made that journalists should not be critical in their coverage of the Trump administration. After all, to hold the president to account, to inform the public on the consequences of his policy choices, “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” as that famous saying goes, is all in the job description. It’s just a pity they only decided to take the responsibility seriously when Trump took office.
Why should anyone believe that their showy displays of grief and horror are sincere now, given their silence during the Obama years, when many of the same policies causing outrage now were also in place then?
The same thing goes for the Democrats, who are eagerly attempting to cast themselves as the party of compassion. Joe Biden railed against Trump’s “deportation state” in the Miami Herald this week, despite having served as vice president under Obama, dubbed the ‘Deporter in Chief’ by immigrants rights activists.
The Obama administration deported more migrants than any previous administration, with children “moved to the head of the line” to be turfed out.
Two years before Trump appeared on the scene, in 2014, 445 people died attempting to cross an increasingly militarized border. Obama boasted in 2011 that the number of border patrol agents had more than doubled since 2004 — proud that he had continued the increases that had begun under the Bush administration.
The University of Arizona’s Binational Migration Institute explained in a 2013 report that “segmented border militarization”had resulted in “the redistribution of migratory flows into remote and dangerous areas such as southern Arizona.” Rights organizations spoke up about the “alarming rise of migrant deaths on US soil.”
It would be inaccurate to say that there was no coverage of the crisis while Obama was president. There was some bland, less-emotional coverage. There was also some in-depth reporting which captured the extent of the crisis — but there was no mass media mobilization against Obama himself. The facts and death tolls were not plastered across the cable news networks night and day. No one argued that Obama was shaming America.

A clip of a Trump administration lawyer arguing that migrant children did not need soap and toothpaste to be “safe and sanitary” went viral last week. It was jarring to listen to, but again, there was nothing new here — only the willingness of some to suddenly be moved to outrage.
A 2015 lawsuit described “inhumane” conditions in border detention facilities under Obama. Men, women and children, it said, were “packed into overcrowded and filthy holding cells with the lights glaring day and night.” They suffered “in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep,” were denied adequate food, water and medical care, as well as “basic sanitation items” like soap, toilet paper and diapers. This all while the media treated Obama with kid gloves and liberals sang his praises.
There were no deaths of children in Customs and Border Protection custody under Obama — and there have been six under the Trump administration, so it is fair to argue, that with the implementation of some more extreme anti-asylum policies and perhaps an even greater lack of caring, Trump has taken an already dysfunctional, inhumane and under-funded system — and simply made it worse.

There is a case to be made that he has done this on purpose; to make the situation as unappealing as possible to those who might be tempted to make the treacherous and potentially fatal journey to and across the US’s southern border — but the reality is, however unappealing he tries to make it, for many, it will still be more appealing than the alternative.
The biggest elephant in the room, however, is not that the Obama administration was guilty of many of the same things as the current one. It’s that every single US administration for decades has been guilty of contributing to the creation of this crisis through an abominable imperialist foreign policy that has ravaged the very countries these migrants are coming from.
Democrats and Republicans have spent decades enthusiastically destabilizing Latin America under the guise of democracy promotion. In reality, they have stolen its wealth and resources, engineered military coups and installed dictators, funded and equipped death squads — and imposed deadly economic sanctions. Where are all the liberals crying about that? How could such inhumane policy have led to anything else?
It’s hardly the first time an image of a dead child has been used to serve a political agenda. Remember Omran Daqneesh, the five-year-old boy who became the face of Syria’s war after a photo of him, covered in ash and sitting shell-shocked in an ambulance, shot around the world?
Regime-change activists within the mainstream media commentariat had the audacity to use that image to call for more Western bombing — so, seeing some of the same crowd using the image of Valeria Martinez to frame Trump as uniquely evil in the history of the US presidency is no big surprise.