As we approach America’s 250th birthday, the liberal media is doing all they can to ruin the party. Whenever they mention the Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, or Constitution, they always have to shriek about those they view as ‘othered,’ – namely, women and minorities. CBS News Sunday Morning had a prime example of this America-hating delusion over the weekend, when 78-year-old correspondent Martha Teichner traveled back to the 1970s to lament the absence of the Equal Rights Amendment from the Constitution, despite women in modern America being afforded all the rights and privileges of their male counterparts. “250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson provided the moral justification for American Independence with the words 'All men are created equal.’ And ever since, Martha Teichner tells us, women have been fighting to make certain those words include us,” proclaimed host Jane Pauley. The E.R.A. “was based on justice and common sense and fairness,” Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a radical feminist writer and one of the founders of Ms. Magazine, told Teichner. She had been in the feminist movement since the 1960s, but remains unsatisfied with her view of women’s rights today.      Pogrebin’s wish was for “the country [to] wake up and we’ll have equality,” but she never defined what that word meant. She entered activism forty years after the 19th Amendment was certified, which guaranteed women the right to vote, but she still wanted more. What ‘more’ was, though, nobody seemed to know. Pogrebin’s daughter Robin and granddaughter Maya Klaris admitted to CBS that they didn’t grow up "conscious of barriers.” “My generation had the luxury of my mother's generation breaking down the doors for us. So we were not taking to the streets ourselves,” Robin, a New York Times arts reporter, said. “I never really considered the fact that I was a woman in the way I was living my life,” Klaris said. “A lot of women I know, really, their ultimate goal is to be wives and mothers.” By Pogrebin’s family’s own words, the fight for women’s rights had succeeded. No woman today feels oppressed by some ‘patriarchy,’ at least, until the liberal media and bitter feminists put that thought into their minds.  Women can vote, run for office, and serve in the military. Legally, they can do anything that men can. But if you asked those who still cling to their victim mentality, there’s still some mysterious force keeping women from true equality. Teichner reinforced that delusion: KLARIS: When I was, you know, told about, we were doing this, it was kind of like, do women not have equal rights under the law? TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: That's right. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the E.R.A., but the deadline was long passed. So, a Constitutional guarantee of equality for women – still non-existent. The E.R.A. last made headlines in January 2025, when President Joe Biden babbled about its passing to a crowd of whooping feminists. But the President had no authority to simply declare a constitutional amendment into existence. The E.R.A. was first proposed to Congress in 1923, with a passage deadline in 1982. The amendment didn’t gain enough state approvals to pass, so it was tabled.  Perhaps Biden just thought it was still 1982, and that’s why he attempted to speak the E.R.A. into the Constitution like some sort of legislative God. But a year and a half later, the E.R.A. has still not been added as the 28th Amendment, much to the chagrin of washed-up feminists like the ones CBS platformed. Even if the E.R.A. was passed, it would have no effect on American women. The useless amendment remains nothing more than a talking point for shrill, leftist harpies clamoring for our attention as they attempt to drag America through the mud on her 250th birthday. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS News Sunday Morning 6/28/26 9:45:25 a.m. Eastern JANE PAULEY: 250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson provided the moral justification for American Independence with the words 'All men are created equal.' And ever since, Martha Teichner tells us, women have been fighting to make certain those words include us. [Cut to mini documentary] [Cut to video] PEOPLE ON THE STREET: 'Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.' [Cut to mini-doc] MARTHA TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: That's all the Equal Rights Amendment says. No mention even of women. Just 24 words, fighting words, written by Alice Paul, a driving force behind the passage, finally, in 1920, of the vote for women.  Paul first submitted a version of the E.R.A. To congress in 1923.[Cut to video] PROTESTER: What do we want? CROWD: Equality! PROTESTER: When do we want it? CROWD: Now! [Cut back to mini-doc] TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: The fight to get it passed took nearly 50 years. Getting it ratified by three-quarters of the states was supposed to be the easy part. LETTY COTTIN POGREBIN: Why? Because it was based on justice and common sense and fairness. TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: 87-year-old feminist writer Letty Cottin Pogrebin -- L. POGREBIN: Here is a Ms. cover. TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: --one of the founders of Ms. Magazine and is a titan of the women's movement. L. POGREBIN: By 1975, the country will wake up and we'll have equality. TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: Wrong. The opposition was ferocious. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, its loudest voice. [Cut to video] PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: Women do have ambition and work hard, but most women choose to apply those energies to building their families. [Cut back to mini-doc] TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: Congress set a time limit for the ratification process until 1982. But the 'yes' votes stalled at 35, three short of the 38 states needed. (...) TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: Even without the E.R.A., change has come (...) Exhibit A, Letty Cottin Pogrebin at the beginning of her career in the early 1960s, compared to her granddaughter Maya, and daughter Robin. (...) ROBIN POGREBIN: It wasn't as if I grew up conscious of barriers. TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: Robin Pogrebin, 61, has been a prominent New York Times journalist for more than 30 years. R. POGREBIN: My generation had the luxury of my mother's generation breaking down the doors for us. So we were not taking to the streets ourselves. I just didn't feel like we were putting all our chips on the E.R.A. MAYA KLARIS: A lot of women I know really their ultimate goal is to be wives and mothers.(...) TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: 27-year-old Maya Klaris works in finance. She does intend to have a career, a big one.  But the Equal Rights Amendment? Not something that ever crossed her mind. KLARIS: I never really considered the fact that I was a woman in the way I was living my life.  When I was, you know, told about, we were doing this, it was kind of like, do women not have equal rights under the law? TEICHNER, VOICEOVER: That's right.  In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the E.R.A., but the deadline was long past. So a Constitutional guarantee of equality for women - still non-existent.  Meanwhile, battles thought to have been decided once and for all over reproductive rights, equal pay, military service, and more are battles once again.

On Monday's episode of CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish left no doubt where her sympathies lie in the debate over birthright citizenship: squarely with those opposing any limits on the policy. After airing a clip of Speaker Mike Johnson explaining that the policy has been abused—with people crossing the border illegally simply to have a baby on U.S. soil—Cornish turned to her panel and injected her own perspective as a mother. “Does anyone on this panel have kids other than me?” Cornish asked. When Michael Scherer of The Atlantic answered "yes," Cornish continued: “Okay, do you remember being in the hospital, and do you remember thinking to yourself, I really want to fill out citizenship documents right now? Like, why would you piss off a whole bunch of parents before the election?” WATCH: CNN's @AudieCornish: Limiting Birthright Citizenship Would 'Piss Off' New Parents pic.twitter.com/8ansG3NBEO — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 29, 2026 How many new parents are asked to fill out citizenship documents? A "whole bunch"? Of parents who vote? Cornish’s framing casts any effort to restore the original understanding of the 14th Amendment as an immediate inconvenience to ordinary American families fresh from the delivery room. Never mind the current seamless process, or the policy’s goal of removing an incentive for illegal immigration and birth tourism. She then teamed up with Scherer [who started his career at the far-left Mother Jones] for a pointed parting shot at Johnson and conservatives. When Scherer called it “hilarious” that conservatives once championed the original text of the Constitution rather than a “living and breathing document,” Cornish eagerly finished the thought. “We need to interpret it based on the now, which the Democrats would love to be hearing as an interpretation. “We’re just going to change what the Constitution means. I mean, originalist means something to someone.” Cornish’s commentary perfectly encapsulates the left’s approach to this debate. Johnson’s argument—grounded in the Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, historical context, and modern realities of mass illegal immigration—gets reduced to Republican cruelty toward new parents. You know who ending birthright citizenship would really piss off? Illegal immigrants doing birth tourism, and above all, Democrats seeing a source of new voters being cut off. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 6/29/26 6:51 am EDT AUDIE CORNISH: I'm going to turn to the elections in one second, but I want to ask you, Michael, one more thing. This is Mike Johnson talking about why he thinks birthright citizenship should end. I want you guys to hear it.  MIKE JOHNSON: Like all good things, they can be abused, and birthright citizenship goes back to the root of the country, the history of the tradition.  You look at the original intent of the Constitution and the founders and what they were doing, of course, They were facing a very different set of circumstances than we're facing now.  We know that it's been abused in recent years because people have literally just come over the border just to have a baby.  I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think we can celebrate immigration, legal immigration. We are a nation of immigrants, as we all recognize.  CORNISH: So this is, for them, always couching the immigration conversation. Does anyone on this panel have kids other than me? Yes. Okay, do you remember being in the hospital, and do you remember thinking to yourself, I really want to fill out citizenship documents right now?  Like, why would you piss off a whole bunch of parents before the election?  MICHAEL SCHERER: The hilarious part about that clip is I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were about the original text of the Constitution. It wasn't a living and breathing document.  His argument there is basically because we have different people and new ways of travel and people are coming into the U.S. -- CORNISH: -- We need to interpret it based on the now, which the Democrats would love to be hearing as an interpretation. We're just going to change what the Constitution means. I mean, originalist means something to someone. Okay. 

It’s time to find out who had the Worst Media Quote of the Week. This interactive series is where you — our loyal NewsBusters visitors and MRC supporters — get to vote on which leftist journalist or celebrity had the worst media quote of the week.   Much appreciation to all who voted last week via NewsBusters and the MRC’s various social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, X, and Truth Social).   The results of the Worst Media Quote of the Week are in and the winner is… Joy Reid! The former MS NOW host won with 46 percent of the vote! Reid took first place for buzzkilling Independence Day as she declared: “nobody black,” is “excited about the Fourth of July.” ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts came in second place with 44 percent. Former NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd finished last with 10 percent.  Check out the following clip (via the MRC Video team) to see the nominees in action:     Watch the worst quotes from @chucktodd, @RobinRoberts and Joy Reid pic.twitter.com/UEdXUBfYz0 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 25, 2026   WINNER (46 percent of the vote)   Joy Reid: “Nobody Black” is “Excited About the Fourth of July”  “Nobody black I know is really excited about the Fourth of July. Because it is a, it is what Frederick Douglass said it is. It is the celebration of slaveholders who freed themselves from having to pay taxes to the Crown for their slave empire.”— Former MS NOW host Joy Reid on her podcast, June 19.   SECOND PLACE (44 percent of the vote)   Robin Roberts to Barack Obama: Your Presidential Center is About the “Promise of Democracy,” So How Do You Deal with the “Freedoms Being Taken” By Trump?   “And walking the halls here, the museum really, it’s about the promise of democracy. And it’s very difficult for people right now when they feel a lot of their freedoms are being taken from them. They’re very familiar now with Project 2025, many of your policies are being rolled back. How do you, when you see these things, these things happening, how do you deal with that?”— ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts to President Barack Obama, June 17.   THIRD PLACE (10 percent of the vote)   Chuck Todd: The Only Reason People Think Barack Obama Was Liberal Is Because He’s Black Former NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd: “What policy was he [Barack Obama] that liberal on, Chris? It’s one of the biggest-”Former CNN correspondent/current NewsNation contributor Chris Cillizza: “It’s because he was black.”Todd: “Thank you. The only reason people think he was liberal is because he’s black.” — So What with Chris Cillizza podcast on Substack, June 22.   Thanks again to all who participated!    Sponsored by James P. Jimirro

On his Saturday morning show First Of All, CNN anchor Victor Blackwell felt it necessary to proclaim that the Declaration of Independence is racist. Happy 4th of July! CNN anchor Victor Blackwell devoted a segment to "Grievance 27" in the Declaration of Independence and its language about "merciless Indian savages" and the Founders having a "deep hatred for indigenous people." Don't watch CNN this weekend. pic.twitter.com/t61UJTMWWp — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 29, 2026 BLACKWELL: There is a slur in America's founding documents. And we all know about this passage from the Declaration of independence adopted 250 years ago next week that “we hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But farther down in the Declaration is a list of grievances against the king. A series of reasons the colonies wanted to split from the United Kingdom. And this is the final one. "He has excited domestic insurrections among us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Merciless Indian savages. Words in the Declaration of Independence largely forgotten that line and Native Americans place in the celebrations of the 250 years since our nation's founding. Blackwell is not the first one on the bandwagon. NPR did it in 2021, under the headline “Examining A Racist Passage In The Declaration Of Independence.” Anchor Ari Shapiro underlined this language in "Grievance 27" was used to "perpetuate genocide, stealing of land and other crimes against Indigenous people." But that segment had more nuance than CNN. CNN promoted a Cherokee podcaster named Rebecca Nagle, who proclaimed: “I think that we're all used to celebrating the lofty Enlightenment ideals that are there in the Declaration of Independence. But right alongside those was actually our founders' deep hatred for indigenous people. And the line about merciless Indian savages. It's actually not a throwaway line.” Naturally, CNN wants us to feel guilty about celebrating the country’s anniversary: “I think for Native people, the founding of the U.S. government feels a lot different, because instead of getting more freedom or more liberty. For a lot of tribes, it was less. And I think this is a really hard part of the story of the revolution that's often left out.” This is not the way CNN would celebrate Gay Pride Month. "Let's tell you some stories about why you shouldn't be Proud." It didn’t take long for Blackwell to take our historic racism to current events: “I'll say, specifically the deportation efforts in Minneapolis, where people are saying this is un-American. This is not of America. And you focus on some of this in the podcast, that detachment from it suggests that this is something that is new in our country.” Nagle talked about how Indians were interned in a “concentration camp” at Fort Snelling in Minneapolis in the 1860s, and that’s where ICE was now stationed to enforce immigration laws, and she mentioned the death of Renee Good. Nagle claimed: And so what you saw in Minneapolis was, you know, our government rounding people up, detaining people, and literally doing that in the same place. And so, so much of what our government is doing, you know, it's not that our government has never done this before. You know, our government has actually done this, not once, not twice, but many times. Maybe CNN should replay this during all their Fourth of July coverage this weekend. Guilt trips in heavy rotation. "Your government is routinely inhumane. Have another beer."

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.