The Elitist Media never cease in their advocacy for open borders at every turn. In this instance, CNN’s Jake Tapper pleading to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin on behalf of the Haitians impacted by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming that Temporary Protected Status is, in fact, temporary. Watch as Mullin freezes Tapper after a non-question speech:  WATCH: DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin SHUTS DOWN Jake Tapper's immigration advocacy JAKE TAPPER: Do you maintain that it is safe in Haiti to send these people back? MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, I think, like I said, Jake, this is a decision that's being made from the State… pic.twitter.com/JYrf1PS9ro — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 29, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: Do you maintain that it is safe in Haiti to send these people back? MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, I think, like I said, Jake, this is a decision that's being made from the State Department, from myself and the president, and there's a lot of things that we look at as when we take this in consideration. It's not just one factor that plays into this. TAPPER: The reason I ask is because I heard Stephen Miller, who is driving a lot of this, say that Haiti is safe for Haitians. And I just looked at the State Department's Web site, and they have a level four do not travel advisory for Haiti just from a few months ago, from April, and it says -- quote -- "Violent crime is rampant. The expansion of gang organized crime and terrorist activity has led to widespread violence. Crimes involving firearms are common. Crimes include robbery, carjacking, sexual assault and kidnappings for ransom." (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: That doesn't sound safe to me. MULLIN: Well, that do not travel is not for Haitians. That's do not travel for the United States, because they are kidnapping or trying to kidnap individuals from the United States because they feel like they -- their family has the money to pay the ransom. We have a -- we have Do Not Travel in places in Mexico or advisory warnings. In fact, if you go through our Web site in the State Department, you will see there's advisories to a lot of places that are vacation destinations that we have advisories on because of the real risk to Americans. That doesn't mean it's a risk to the individuals that live there. So that isn't -- that advisory is to American citizens traveling to Haiti, not Haitians going back home. TAPPER: I understand that, but, based on everything I have read, including the U.N. and Human Rights Watch, it doesn't sound safe for Haitians. More than 8,100 killings documented last year, those weren't Americans. Haiti is among the top five countries with the highest rates of rape and sexual abuse, with more than 1,200 cases of sexual violence last year. That's not Americans; 1.4 million people have been displaced. Those aren't Americans. MULLIN: Is there a question in that?  This happened after Mullin calmly explained to Tapper all the different ways that these individuals could have applied to attain a more permanent status in the country, but chose not to. Mullin also noted that a great deal of these individuals entered into the country not in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 earthquake, but during the Biden administration’s wide open border. In fact, one grossly underreported aspect of the TPS Haitians’ story is the large number of them that dumped permanent residency cards and passports from places such as Chile and Brazil on the southern border.  100% correct. When I was at the Del Rio, TX Haitian bridge camp in 2021, many of the Haitians told me they had been living in Chile & Brazil for years before coming to the US illegally for economic (not safety) reasons. The Haitians were dumping & tearing up their Chilean… https://t.co/KbbX55bKda pic.twitter.com/okEZkjRoqI — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 26, 2026 This aspect of the migrant story is buried by the Elitist Media, right next to the crimes committed by illegal aliens, as they continue to advocate for continuously open borders. Such coverage is by design. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, June 28th, 2026: JAKE TAPPER: Joining us now is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, who joins us from his home in Oklahoma. Thanks so much for joining us, Mr. Secretary. So, more than 350,000 people from Haiti and Syria who have lived and worked legally in this country under TPS, will you be deporting all of them? Will they be all deported back to their home countries, Haiti and Syria? And when will these deportations start? Will it be immediately? MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, Jake, first of all, Temporary Protected Status was never intended to be permanent. And there's a lot of people that came over here 15, 20 years ago underneath TPS that's already changed their status. The whole time these individuals have been here underneath the Temporary Protected Status, they could have applied for a visa. They could have applied for LPR. They could have applied for different directions. But the status itself can be ended in its name itself by saying temporary. So, these individuals have a couple of choices. They can try to apply for a -- for a permanent residence here. They can apply for a temporary visa if they choose to, or they can choose to go back. And if they want to go back, we will help them with that. If I would -- if I was talking directly to the individuals with the Temporary Protected Status, either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status, or we will help you get back to your country. We will actually give you a plane ticket, plus roughly $2,100 to help you re-establish when you get there. But Temporary Protected Status, according to the courts and in its name itself, is not permanent status. TAPPER: So, if the 350,000 Temporary Protected Status holders right now start applying for permanent status, start applying for visas, will they not be deported? Is that a way for them to stay in the U.S. legal? MULLIN: Well, it depends on if they qualify or not. Underneath some visas, when you overstay your visa, when you -- you have to go back to the country you came from. Underneath TPS, while it is still -- and while it is still an order, you're able to apply for different status. Now, that doesn't mean that it's going to be accepted. There's a lot of things that take into consideration. First of all, have you been here and been charged with a felony, or do you have a criminal background? Do you have pending charges against you? Those won't be accepted. If you have been here and you have been living off the taxpayer dollars, meaning that you have you're part of social, those won't be accepted either. If you have been here and you have had a full-time paying job, under some circumstances, those would apply. But you have to go through the regular steps that every other immigrant that wants to come to the country legally has to go through. So I can't say that everybody is going to be accepted, but you are eligible to apply. Nothing prevents you from applying -- from filling out the application, but nothing's prevented them since they have been here underneath TPS either. TAPPER: So, obviously, you're correct that the T in TPS stands for temporary. MULLIN: That's right. TAPPER: The Trump administration's argument is that this was only supposed to last 18 months. My understanding of how the process works is, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to extend it if the U.S. State Department says that the countries that these people are from are still considered unsafe, which is why they were afforded TPS status to begin with. Is it the position of the Trump administration that Haiti is a safe country to send these people to? MULLIN: Well, we take a lot of things in consideration. Secretary Rubio, the president and I have had multiple conversations about this, obviously. There's not there's -- the qualification isn't quite just that simple. And keep in mind, a lot of these individuals haven't been here 18 months. They have been here 18 years. Some of them have been here 20 years, 30 years. They have had plenty of time to reestablish their status inside the United States. They have just chose not to. Then there's some that has been here the underneath the Biden administration that took advantage of an open border. And those individuals didn't really come over here because they needed protective status. They came over here because they were taking advantage of a weak leadership. So what we want, and the president has made this very clear, those that are coming to this country legally, they need to be able to contribute to the -- to the United States, not be a burden on the taxpayers. And so we are continuing looking at our Temporary Protected Status. Those individuals that do need assistance because of the country they're in, we're always looking at -- looking at them. There isn't a more generous country in the world than the United States, but we don't want people to take advantage of it. TAPPER: Right. But do you maintain that it is safe in Haiti to send these people back? MULLIN: Well, I think, like I said, Jake, this is a decision that's being made from the State Department, from myself and the president, and there's a lot of things that we look at as when we take this in consideration. It's not just one factor that plays into this. TAPPER: The reason I ask is because I heard Stephen Miller, who is driving a lot of this, say that Haiti is safe for Haitians. And I just looked at the State Department's Web site, and they have a level four do not travel advisory for Haiti just from a few months ago, from April, and it says -- quote -- "Violent crime is rampant. The expansion of gang organized crime and terrorist activity has led to widespread violence. Crimes involving firearms are common. Crimes include robbery, carjacking, sexual assault and kidnappings for ransom." (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: That doesn't sound safe to me. MULLIN: Well, that do not travel is not for Haitians. That's do not travel for the United States, because they are kidnapping or trying to kidnap individuals from the United States because they feel like they -- their family has the money to pay the ransom. We have a -- we have Do Not Travel in places in Mexico or advisory warnings. In fact, if you go through our Web site in the State Department, you will see there's advisories to a lot of places that are vacation destinations that we have advisories on because of the real risk to Americans. That doesn't mean it's a risk to the individuals that live there. So that isn't -- that advisory is to American citizens traveling to Haiti, not Haitians going back home. TAPPER: I understand that, but, based on everything I have read, including the U.N. and Human Rights Watch, it doesn't sound safe for Haitians. More than 8,100 killings documented last year, those weren't Americans. Haiti is among the top five countries with the highest rates of rape and sexual abuse, with more than 1,200 cases of sexual violence last year. That's not Americans; 1.4 million people have been displaced. Those aren't Americans. MULLIN: Is there a question in that? Jake, I'm sorry. I... TAPPER: Well, I'm just saying -- let me let me ask you, you said you're going to give them a plane ticket if they want to get out and go back to Haiti. How logistically would it happen? Because the FAA prohibits commercial flights to Port-au-Prince because of the gunfire from terrorists and gangs. Civil aviation, by the way, is also prohibited in Syria. MULLIN: So, we have several options for deporting individuals, because we have deportation flights, where we can get into areas where maybe commercial travel can't go to. So we'd simply book them on a flight. We expect to have pretty full flights going back to Haiti and going back to some of these countries where TPS has been eliminated. So we will provide the travel for them. And, like I said, we will give them $2,100 roughly to go back home.  We want the individuals to be repatriated to their country. Maybe they can go back there and help restore their countries. Syria is a prime example. Syria's come a long ways in just a few years underneath their new leadership that we have. We truly expect that Syria can be a great country again. But it takes some -- it takes the people of Syria to build their country back. The same thing in Haiti. It takes the people of Haiti to win their country back. If we really want those countries to succeed, then they need the best of the best to be back in their country living there. And we're going to assist them in that. TAPPER: Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, thanks for joining us today, sir. Appreciate it. MULLIN: Thank you, Jake.  

After a dominant Primary Night that saw three of his endorsed candidates prevail in their Democrat primaries, Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City drew top billing on ABC’s This Week. The interview with Jon Karl was predictably soft. The interview opens with Karl musing about whether Mamdani can take his movement national, setting Mayor Cardamom up for a lengthy messaging set piece where he admits that in face he’s taking his message national: WATCH: ABC's Jon Karl sets Zohran Mamdani up to take his message national JON KARL: You've had a heck of a week. I mean, the election, you -- the candidates you endorsed won down the line, and you knocked off two Democratic incumbent members of Congress. Is this, is this like a… pic.twitter.com/dS3seE0qtk — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 28, 2026 JON KARL: You've had a heck of a week. I mean, the election, you -- the candidates you endorsed won down the line, and you knocked off two Democratic incumbent members of Congress. Is this, is this like a unique moment in New York, or is this the beginning of a national movement? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think we are seeing a hunger that is not just felt by New Yorkers, but frankly by Americans from coast to coast, for a new kind of politics, one that puts working people at the heart of it. And I think for far too long what we as a party have been able to say to New Yorkers who are struggling is simply to explain why they're struggling, not actually offer them a vision for how to make life better. And these candidates -- Brad, Darializa, Claire -- they ran campaigns that spoke to working people, and that said life in the nation's most expensive city need not be this way any longer. And I can't wait to have them as partners in D.C. and at work. KARL: So, do you see yourself endorsing candidates outside of New York? Or -- MAMDANI: You know, for now, my focus is on this incredible slate of three congressional candidates, as well as, as you said, the five candidates I endorsed, who ran and won, who are all going to be heading to Albany in the state legislature. But I do think, as you said, it's not just New York City where working people are asking themselves, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I find enough money in my pocket for childcare, no matter how hard I work? And I'm so excited that these incredible soon-to-be congressmembers will be helping to lead the fight across the country on making sure that working people are right there where they should be, which is the heart of the conversation. Karl offers little pushback as Mamdani confirms he will take his messaging national. There wasn’t much in the way of follow-up offered here or during the next set of questions aimed at getting Mamdani to react to critiques of his socialist messaging from within the Democrat Party. The most significant exchange from the interview is this sequence: watch as Karl lightly confronts Mamdani on the insane positions held by his protegé Darializa Avila-Chevalier. Mamdani tries to deflect by saying that DAC won on affordability, before exposing virulent anti-semitism as what is truly at the heart of the DSA’s gains in New York City. Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to… pic.twitter.com/BmCOT1U1gX — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 28, 2026 KARL:  Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? MAMDANI:  I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL:  But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI:  I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL:  So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI:  There -- KARL:  That's not your position? MAMDANI:  There are prisons. KARL:  Yes. MAMDANI:  And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL:  So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL:  But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI:  Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it. Note Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman over his support for Israel, despite Karl’s two soft passes. The record also reflects that Karl didn’t ask Mamdani to weigh in on DAC’s role in leading violent pro-Hamas protests at Columbia University.  The chummy interview closes out with Karl asking the Ugandan-born Mamdani whether he’d support an amendment to the Constitution so he may run for President: ABC’s @JonKarl more radical than @ZohranKMamdani? Mamdani rejects Karl’s idea of amending U.S. Constitution so the socialist could become President: Karl: “I got to ask you, I noticed that you’re turning 35 soon, right?...So you now hit one of the constitutional requirements to… pic.twitter.com/5aJJOJTKpS — Brent Baker

File this one under Politics Make Strange Bedfellows. Saturday’s edition of The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW relied on Tucker Carlson to make the case that the Iran war spells the "end" of President Trump, and that the MAGA coalition is “over.” Co-host Elise Jordan opened by noting that with President Trump and his party in control of Washington, one would think they’d be racking up political victories. Instead, she said, Trump spent the week going after his GOP allies. Jordan quoted The Atlantic describing Trump as “flailing.” She recounted Trump derailing a bipartisan housing bill event and a shouting match with Sen. Bill Cassidy. A source called the closed-door meeting a “venting session” for Trump. Jordan continued: “And it’s not just congressional Republicans that Trump has managed to alienate. Let’s hear from his ally-turned-frenemy on why he’s writing Trump and MAGA’s obituaries.” A clip rolled of Sky News host Yalda Hakim asking Carlson: “Do you think this war is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump?” Tucker Carlson: "Of course it's the end. Of course." When Hakim asked where that leaves the future of the MAGA movement, Carlson, unleashing his trademark insane laugh, replied:  "The future of the MAGA? Well, that's over. There's no future of the MAGA movement, obviously. We're done." MS NOW Uses Cackling Carlson To Predict 'End' Of Trump, MAGA pic.twitter.com/R9BiD7RLYE — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 28, 2026 Jordan called it an interesting moment where Trump should be at the height of his powers but it seems like the sunset.  Co-host Catherine Rampell pushed back on Jordan's “height of his powers” line, calling Trump a lame duck: "he's going to potentially spend the next couple of years dealing with a flood of subpoenas, potentially another impeachment." That's the dream according to MS NOW.  Rampell claimed that Republican infighting, rather than reflecting concern over issues like the Iran war or inflation, is entirely opportunistic, as figures like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance position themselves to inherit the Trump movement. She depicted Rubio as positioning himself as "the competent one," while Vance is offering himself as the more anti-immigrant, isolationist alternative. Rampell added that Tucker Carlson has a bigger following in that lane. The spectacle spoke volumes. MS NOW and its predecessor MSNBC, which have spent years demonizing Carlson, suddenly treated his words as authoritative proof that Trump and MAGA are collapsing. The panel highlighted GOP tensions while glossing over policy realities and their own side’s divisions.  As our Brent Baker has noted, Ayman Mohyeldin closed the show by announcing it was The Weekend: Primetime's final episode. But the sendoff revealed more about MS NOW’s selective sourcing than any real conservative crack-up. We'll miss The Weekend: Primetime. As we've often noted, as here, it was a gold mine for "prime" examples of MS NOW's flaming-liberal bias. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend: Primetime 6/27/26 6:01 pm EDT ELISE JORDAN: Good evening and welcome to The Weekend Prime Time. With President Trump and his party in control of Washington, you would think they'd be racking up political victories.  But instead, Trump spent this week going after his GOP allies. As Jonathan Lemire and Russell Berman described Trump's day of grievances in The Atlantic, quote, For President Trump, things aren't going great.  He normally thrives in chaos, reveling in the unpredictability to keep his opponents off balance. But right now he's just flailing. This comes as Trump derailed his own party when he abruptly canceled an event to sign the bipartisan housing bill that was meant to boost supply and lower costs.  His reason to tell Senate Republicans to pass the Save America Act first, which critics have warned will enact strict election laws ahead of the midterms.  And hours later, Trump engaged in a shouting match with Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, who he had already successfully primaried over the war in Iran during a closed-door GOP Senate lunch.  It was convened to calm intra-party tensions. A source familiar with the spat told MSNOW the gathering was a, quote, venting session for Trump.  And it's not just congressional Republicans that Trump has managed to alienate. Let's hear from his ally-turned-frenemy on why he's writing Trump and MAGA's obituaries. SKY NEWS HOST YALDA HAKIM: Do you think this war is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump?  TUCKER CARLSON: Of course it's the end. Of course.  HOST: I wonder, Tucker, where this leaves the future of the MAGA movement.  CARLSON [insane laughter]: The future of the MAGA? Well, that's over. There's no future of the MAGA movement, obviously. We're done.  JORDAN: It's an interesting moment where Trump should be at the height of his powers, but it does seem like the sunset as the question of what's next looms large within Republicans, who just don't have the authentic Trump factor to necessarily replace him.  So what's it going to be? And then you have the Democrats having their own Tea Party circa 2010 fight going on, too, at the same time.  And you see how that battle is unknown, too.  CATHERINE RAMPELL: Yeah, I don't know that I would agree with the characterization that Trump should be at the height of his powers.  He's a lame duck, right? I mean, he is potentially about to face a Democratic House, maybe even a Democratic Senate.  He can't run again, despite his best ambitions. And he's going to potentially spend the next couple of years dealing with a flood of subpoenas, potentially another impeachment.  And I think what you're seeing here in this fracturing of the Republican Party is not so much that, you know, they've, they're offended by the war or they're upset about fiscal indiscipline or whatever, or the the, you know, high gas prices, stuff like that.  I think it's just opportunistic, and they are trying to figure out how to inherit the Trump movement.  And you have, like, Marco Rubio, who's gonna cast himself as the one competent one, the one who gets memed as taking over every job.  And then you have J.D. Vance, who's gonna try to position himself as the anti-immigrant, you know, even further isolationist one.  And Tucker Carlson clearly has a bigger following in that lane. 

Even while trapped in Europe’s deadly summer sweatbox, two guilt-ridden New York Times reporters fretted about the modern-day life-saver of air-conditioning, issuing a snotty, dismissive story, “Europe’s Deadly Heat Wave: A Jolt for Climate Action, or Just for A.C.?”  Even the byline had a touch of heatstroke by Times standards: “Michael D. Shear reported from London. Jeanna Smialek from Brussels. Both places were very hot.” The story nudged the sweating Euro-populace to keep favoring hypothetical reductions in average global temperatures over decades, against the urgent deadly problem of the summer heat wave, misery exacerbated by Europe's stubborn refusal to embrace the modern-era of air conditioning (perhaps not wanting to be like those soft spoiled energy-wasting Americans). Of course, left-wing European politicians ideologically opposed to air conditioning don’t have to swelter like the commoners several floors below them. Shear likely came up with the opening dig at Britain’s conservative leader. It was a crisp 54 degrees in Aberdeen, on the northeast coast of Scotland, last week when Kemi Badenoch, the leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, once again championed the country’s fossil fuel industry. .... Eight days later, thermostats across southern England and Wales recorded soaring heat, with temperatures in London nearing 100 degrees. Schools closed, trains were canceled or delayed and some hospitals halted elective procedures…. For politicians like Ms. Badenoch, whose party won a special election in Aberdeen, the increasingly intense heat presents a challenge. How do they reconcile their support for faster extraction and use of polluting energy sources that contribute to the warming of the planet, with the reality of a planet that already feels like it’s burning up? Meanwhile, Europeans are suffering and dying now. A spokesman for Ms. Badenoch, who has called herself a “net zero skeptic,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in an interview this week with the right wing broadcaster GB News, Ms. Badenoch said that while it was “important that we do what we can to tackle climate change,” the country’s climate approaches are not “actually sorting anything out. All they have done is send jobs and emissions to other countries.” Shear and Smialek blew more hot air, as if the desire to live at a bearable temperature was a right-wing plot. Increasingly, the answer from right-wing politicians is to focus on a short-term fix that almost everyone agrees is necessary — the installation of air-conditioning units in European homes, schools, public buildings and hospitals. During intense heat waves, calling for improvement of the sometimes crumbling infrastructure of aging European cities can be an effective way of drawing attention to that problem without saying much about the longer-term, underlying cause: rising greenhouse gas emissions. In France, far-right politicians who have advocated cutting net zero initiatives hope to gain from the heat wave, using it to accuse the government of failing to make the country more resilient, but also as a cultural issue against the hard left, which has often opposed the use of air-conditioning on environmental grounds. The article had one cool blast of common sense: In the Belgian city of Ghent, which is run mostly by left-of-center politicians, the municipal website this week discouraged citizens from using air-conditioners, saying that “the best air-conditioner is a tree” and advising they use fans and request a free tree to plant outside their houses. Maurits Vande Reyde, a right-wing member of the Flemish Parliament, responded to Ghent’s recommendations on social media. “It is absurd that all governments in our country, under pressure from left-green mumbo-jumbo, advise against the use of air-conditioning,” he wrote on Tuesday. “The most efficient and best solution. How many deaths would the government already have on its conscience with this kind of absurd advice?” This was intended to be the cherry-on-top conclusion: In London this week, environmentalists were hoping that the intense weather would underscore their arguments. “There is irony in the fact that a London Climate Action Week event had to be canceled due to extreme heat in a temperate, wealthy country,” said Chris Anderson, head of climate risk and resilience at Practical Action, an environmental group. Snowstorms have canceled global warming conferences in the past, to conservative amusement -- but the Times doesn't use those opportunities to take shots at environmental hysterics.

Nicolle Wallace may be popular among MS NOW viewers, and that might be because she says remarkably untrue things that please the so-called progressives. On Friday’s Deadline: White House, as she boasted about how Barack Obama is still waaayy more popular than President Trump, she uncorked several whoppers, like Trump has “literally muzzled” half the media. How on Earth do you say a network like CBS has been "literally" silenced by Trump? Nicolle Wallace lies to please her MS NOW audience. How on Earth do you claim Trump's "LITERALLY muzzled" half the press? He muzzled CBS, and CNN? Wallace: Donald Trump has, as the Rev [Sharpton] was saying, not just all the trappings of the office, he's literally muzzled half… pic.twitter.com/Kutwuf8VrT — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 WALLACE: Donald Trump has, as the Rev was saying, not just all the trappings of the office, he's literally muzzled half of the media organizations. Um -- only approved deals to put them under his political donor and friend, the Ellison family. And President Obama is still twice as popular as he is. JONG-FAST: Yeah, because president Obama created Obamacare. I mean, remember before President Obama, people did not have health care. People “had no health care” until Obama came along, imagine that. The idea that even CBS under the Ellisons (they don’t control CNN yet), or any network that settled a lawsuit with Trump is “literally muzzled” is completely at odds with reality. Reckless Wallace also uncorked the old whopper that Obama had “no scandals” – twice.   Nicolle Wallace boosting Obama, "who had no scandals, who did not breed algae in any of our monuments, who did not attack our allies, who did not start wars, that he promised -- I mean, the comparisons go on and on. And I'm sure that's what drives Trump so nuts." This "no… pic.twitter.com/ixJX9TH1Un — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 JONG-FAST: You know, it's just to look back on someone who took it so seriously and whose word was their bond is it's really striking. WALLACE: Who had no scandals, who did not breed algae in any of our monuments, who did not attack our allies, who did not start wars, that he promised --  I mean, the comparisons go on and on. And I'm sure that's what drives Trump so nuts. Obama had “no scandals”? False. No algae in the Reflecting Pool? False. He never criticized our allies? False. No "wars" started? Try again, with military actions in seven countries. You can imagine these lies might drive Trump a little nuts. Earlier in the segment, Wallace claimed “absence of scandal,” sounding like CNN host Fareed Zakaria in 2016 boosting Obama's dignity and grace and his "largely scandal-free" administration.  Nicolle Wallace comes out of a video medley of Trump saying "Barack Hussein Obama," and claims Trump has an "unprecedented and deeply unhealthy obsession" with Obama, who unlike Trump, had "enduring likability and absence of scandal, or any crimes ever committed.” Somehow the… pic.twitter.com/3tLJ4lElYo — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 WALLACE: It’s been going on a decade since former President Obama left office, and he still lives completely rent-free inside Donald Trump's head. It's an unprecedented and deeply unhealthy obsession on Trump's part. It's the most public display of inferiority and insecurity about the superior job that president Obama did, and the real, serious presidential focus and dedication and high job approval rating numbers, and enduring likability and absence of scandal, or any crimes ever committed.” Feel free to giggle at the idea that Nicolle Wallace or Team MSNBC ever stopped having a “deeply unhealthy obsession” with Trump, certainly after he left the White House in 2021. But this "no Obama scandals" line was routine on MS NOW around the Obama Presidential Center opening. -- MS NOW contributor Claire McCaskill, June 18 Deadline White House: “There was no scandal. There was no lying. There was no grab for money.” -- Michelle Norris on All In, June 19: “no scandals, no unforced errors.” -- Sen. Dick Durbin on The Beat with Ari Melber, June 24: “I remembered a president we respected, a president who had no scandals in his administration of any major -- a president who really led this country, even though he was controversial to some.”