Arkansas arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson culture war Intelwars Meet the Press nbc news social conservatism Transgender issues

Arkansas Governor: Social conservatives ‘don’t need to use the instrument of the law’ to change the culture

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) criticized Republican lawmakers on Sunday for advancing so-called “culture war bills,” like the legislation banning transgender hormone therapies or surgeries for minors he recently vetoed, saying that conservatives should rely on churches and communities to change the culture.

On “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Chuck Todd interviewed the governor about his veto and asked him about other GOP legislation — like bills dealing with transgender athletes or banning critical race theory curricula in schools — describing such bills as “culture war bills.”

Hutchinson argued the Republican Party must stand by “the principles of limited government” even as social conservatives fear they are losing the culture to progressive ideologues warping the law to enforce their worldview.

“Just because you want to keep things as they have been, perhaps, you don’t need to use the instrument of the law. You don’t need to use the state to accomplish that purpose in every instance,” Hutchinson said.

Since the Arkansas legislature overturned Hutchinson’s veto of a bill banning transgender surgeries and other hormone prescriptions for people under 18 last week, the governor has been on the defensive against outraged social conservatives who felt betrayed by his decision.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Hutchinson wrote he was “being attacked by some of my Republican colleagues for not being pure enough on social issues and for vetoing a bill that limited access to health care for transgender youth.”

Appearing on several programs news programs to defend his veto, Hutchinson has made repeated appeals to limited government conservatism in support of his position.

“I signed two [bills] that I thought made sense. One was girls in sports, trying to protect women’s sports. The other one was supporting medical conscience, that doctors can claim a conscience reason if they want to deny a particular procedure, but they have to do emergency care. And so those are two bills that I signed,” he told Todd.

“The third one was not well done. It did not protect the youth. It interfered with the government getting into the lives of transgender youth, as well as their parents and the decisions that doctors made. And to me, it’s about compassion. But it is also about making, having the laws make sense in a limited role of government,” he continued. “And that’s the case that I made in the Washington Post column that as Republicans, we need to get back and ask the question, ‘Is this the appropriate role of government? Are we restraining ourselves?'”

Hutchinson said that conservatives shouldn’t use the “instrument of law” to defend the culture.

“There is the church. There is society. There is your community. And that’s where the culture is, is impacted or reflected in the future. And so again, there’s too much,” he said. “As a Republican Party, it’s the principles of limited government and it’s pushing freedom and choice in the free market. That’s what the party is about. We’ve got to apply those principles even when it comes to the social war.”

Todd challenged Hutchinson’s argument, asking why he supports laws restricting abortion if his belief is that that government should not be involved in decisions between parents, children, and doctors.

Hutchinson answered:

Absolutely. And that’s an appropriate question. But, as you know, there’s a big difference in the case of abortion, and I’ve signed a multitude of pro-life bills. I believe in protecting the life of the unborn. The distinction is that medical science is clear as to the life of the unborn. And so science — we’re reflecting that in the laws that we pass. In this case, when we’re talking about transgender youth, parents are involved in the decision making. The science is not as clear. And you have a physician that’s involved. And so you can’t apply each of those to each other. This is a separate issue. You have to evaluate them separately. But in this case, clearly, I don’t believe that this is something the government should be telling the youth, “You cannot have this treatment that your parent and a doctor recommends,” even though you could — everybody’s heart probably is in the right place in looking after the youth. It’s not an appropriate role of government, compassion says. Particularly, one of the reasons I vetoed it was there was not a grandfather clause. It would interrupt the treatment that they were having at the time.


Coronavirus covid COVID-19 Double masking Intelwars Meet the Press Michael osterholm NBC

Top infectious diseases expert says double masking may actually increase COVID infection: ‘May do more harm’

Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert, said Sunday that wearing two face masks as a precautionary measure against the coronavirus may actually increase the chances of becoming infected.

What’s the background?

As public health experts fear the spread of potentially more contagious COVID-19 variants, Dr. Anthony Fauci endorsed last week the practice of “double masking” — wearing a cloth face covering over a surgical face mask.

Speaking on NBC’s “Today” show last week, Fauci called double masking “common sense.”

“If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective and that’s the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N-95,” Fauci said.

But what is Osterholm saying?

Osterholm, who served on President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 Advisory Board during the presidential transition, explained on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that double masking could enhance infection.

“When we talk about double masking, remember what we’re really talking about is just trying to prevent the virus from being excreted by me into the air or me inhaling the virus from someone else in the air, and it’s both a function of face fit and face filtration,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm, who is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, used swimming goggles as an analogy to explain the downside to double masking.

“Think about your swim goggles. When’s the last time anybody leaked at the lenses? They leak at the fit,” Osterholm began.

“So, what we’re concerned about is that many of these face cloth coverings do have already compromised fit or filtration capacity,” he continued. “If you add on another mask, you may actually make it tougher for the air to move through the two cloth area, and then at that point, it causes more air to actually leak around the sides, which actually enhances your ability to get infected.”

In fact, Osterholm claimed that double masking may do “more harm” than good.

I’m not saying that some couldn’t be used in a better way. But at the same time, there are many that actually, you may do more harm. Let me just say right now one thing that’s really, to me, very important is we see up to 25% of people who wear it under their nose. You know, that’s like fixing three of the five screen doors in your submarine. You know, what’s going on there? We’ve got to get people to start using these right. That would help right there tremendously.

Full Osterholm: ‘We Need To Get As Many One-Doses … As We Possibly Can” | Meet The Press | NBC News

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not yet issued guidance about double masking.

Current CDC guidance says that cloth face masks (as opposed to the disposable paper kind) should “have two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric” and should “fit snugly against the sides of your face and don’t have gaps.”

Meanwhile, Fauci, who is Biden’s chief medical adviser, has since backtracked on double masking being “common sense.”

“There’s no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference,” Fauci said of double masking.

anthony fauci Chuck Todd Coronavirus covid COVID-19 Intelwars lockdowns Meet the Press NBC

Dr. Fauci admits new lockdowns ‘not out of the question’ under Biden presidency

Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted over the weekend that a national lockdown could become reality under incoming President Joe Biden.

What did Fauci say?

Fauci, the infectious diseases doctor who will serve as the chief medical adviser in Biden’s administration, was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday whether lockdowns are on the table in response to the latest surge of coronavirus that is plaguing states nationwide.

Show host Chuck Todd asked, “When President-elect Biden becomes president, are we going to need to do another 15 to 30 days, stop the spread, maybe do a partial lockdown?”

Fauci admitted that such extreme measures may be necessary, despite the fact that they cripple small businesses. In fact, Fauci called for more “uniform” restrictions, such as a national mask mandate, claiming uniformity would help slow the spread of COVID-19.

“We certainly need to enhance and make more uniform our public health measures,” Fauci said. “President-elect Biden has called for 100 days of everybody wearing a mask uniformly throughout the country. That’s really a good start.”

Citing California, which Fauci said “is really being stressed with regard to the hospital beds and the personnel who are really getting exhausted with the number of cases that are coming in,” Fauci said new lockdowns are not out of the realm of possibility.

“So, that’s not out of the question,” he said.

Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, went on to say that he hopes officials do not have to implement a nationwide lockdown, but suggested it would be dependent on compliance with public health measures.

“We hope we don’t have to do it countrywide, because we feel that if you adhere to the public health measures, you can turn things around short of a uniform lockdown,” Fauci said.

Full Dr. Fauci: ‘Hopefully We’ll Pick Up Some Momentum’ On Vaccine Distribution | Meet The Press

What did WHO say about lockdowns?

Prior to the autumn season, which began the resurgence of COVID-19 cases, a top official at the World Health Organization publicly discouraged lockdowns — with one exception.

Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO’s special envoy on COVID-19, said in October, “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.”

“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted,” he added. “But by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Alexandria ocasio-cortez AOC Intelwars Joe Biden Kate bedingfield Meet the Press NBC Progressive

Top Biden official promises AOC will not be ‘disappointed’ with Biden’s agenda: ‘Incredibly progressive’

Joe Biden’s presidential administration will not disappoint far-left progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), according to a senior member of Biden’s presidential campaign.

What’s the background?

As TheBlaze reported, Ocasio-Cortez is not pleased that the Democratic Party does not accept her brand of progressive politics. In fact, Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times that, internally, Democrats have been “extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.”

So when moderate Democrats blamed far-left progressive politics for their Election Day losses, Ocasio-Cortez was none too happy.

“I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the Movement for Black Lives is not the enemy, that Medicare for all is not the enemy. This isn’t even just about winning an argument. It’s that if they keep going after the wrong thing, I mean, they’re just setting up their own obsolescence,” she told the Times.

What are the details?

During Biden’s victory speech on Saturday after the media declared him the president-elect, Biden hinted that he would compromise with Republicans. Responding to the notion of political compromise, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out in her interview with the Times that the Democratic Party historically leaves progressive groups that elect moderate Democrats “promptly abandoned” after electoral victories.

But Kate Bedingfield said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Ocasio-Cortez would not be “disappointed” with Biden’s agenda as president.

Show host Chuck Todd asked, “Let me ask you this: do you believe that [Ocasio-Cortez is] going to be disappointed, or not, when she sees the agenda of the Biden administration in the first six months?”

Bedingfield responded that Biden will “make good” on promises to implement “an incredibly progressive and aggressive agenda.”

I think that Vice President Biden campaigned on an incredibly progressive and aggressive agenda. Take a look, for example, at his climate plan. It’s the boldest, biggest climate plan that’s ever been put forward by, you know, by a nominee running for president and now a president-elect. He’s going to make good on those commitments. I mean we, you know, he spent time during this campaign bringing people together around, around this climate plan. He was able to get the endorsement of groups like the Sunrise Movement and the endorsement of Labor for this plan. It’s a big, aggressive plan. It’s a perfect example of the kind of, you know, big effort that he is going to make to meet this moment and to meet these crises that we’re in.

Full Bedingfield: Biden ‘Going To Make Good On … Commitments’ | Meet The Press | NBC News

What does that agenda include?

According to the Washington Post, Biden plans to sign a series of executive orders immediately after taking office next January, reversing some of President Donald Trump’s policies.

Biden plans to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, allow “Dreamers” to remain in the U.S. legally, reverse the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and repeal “almost all” of Trump’s controversial travel ban on people from certain Muslim-majority countries.

Amy coney barrett Campaign 2020 Cory Booker Intelwars Meet the Press NBC Supreme Court

Booker suggests Amy Coney Barrett will ‘delegitimize’ SCOTUS if she doesn’t recuse herself from election-related cases

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) suggested Sunday that Amy Coney Barrett will “delegitimize” the Supreme Court if she does not preemptively recuse herself from cases related to the 2020 election.

What’s the background?

After Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained why confirming a new Supreme Court justice prior to the election is crucial.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear, they intend to challenge this election, they intend to fight the legitimacy of the election,” Cruz said. “We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court.”

“A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine justice Supreme Court, particularly when there’s such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election,” the Texas senator explained.

What did Booker say?

Despite Cruz’s warning, Booker suggested on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Barrett, if confirmed prior to Election Day, should not have a say in any election-related case.

“I’m going to make it very clear. One of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself, in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized.”

Booker then turned to bash President Donald Trump.

“In other words, President Trump has said, ‘I will not accept the result of the election unless I win. I’m going to push it to the Supreme Court, and oh, by the way, during the election I’m going to put somebody on the court, as well.’ So I hope to have a conversation with her, and I’m blessed to be on the [Senate] Judiciary Committee, and I’ll have that, as well. And hopefully, I’ll have a good, informed dialogue back and forth,” Booker said.

Booker went on to claim the Republican Party, by supporting Barrett’s nomination, is “undermining their legitimacy, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

Democrats are working overtime to delegitimize Barrett’s nomination. They’re claiming her nomination is part of a power-grab by the president, and that she would take health care away from Americans.

However, there remain some honest Democrats who admit that, despite disagreeing with Barrett’s judicial philosophy or the circumstances of her nomination, she remains “highly qualified” for the job.

“I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,” Harvard Law School’s Noah Feldman wrote in an essay. “And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.”

Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias Meet the Press nbc news William Barr

NBC News admits it ‘inaccurately cut’ AG Barr interview, which presented false depiction of what Barr actually said

NBC News admitted wrongdoing on Sunday after the network’s Sunday show, “Meet the Press,” was caught presenting a deceptively edited clip of Attorney General William Barr.

“Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error,” the official “Meet the Press” Twitter account said.

In a recent interview with CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, Barr was asked how he thought history would look back on the Justice Department’s decision to drop its Michael Flynn case.

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr responded. “But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

However, on “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Chuck Todd only played the first part of Barr’s response, slamming him for “cynicism,” not mentioning “the rule of law,” and “almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.”

But as Barr’s full quote shows, Todd was not being honest.

The dishonest reporting elicited a stern rebuke from the Justice Department.

“Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd on @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview. Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview,” DOJ spokewoman Kerri Kupec wrote on Twitter.

NBC, however, did not give an on-air apology to Barr or the Justice Department.

Chuck Todd Deceptively edited video Intelwars Meet the Press Michael Flynn William Barr

DOJ spokesperson ‘very disappointed’ in Chuck Todd for ‘deceptive editing’ of Barr’s comments on Flynn case

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice accused Chuck Todd of deceptively editing a video clip of William Barr. Todd played a clip on “Meet the Press” that appeared to be purposely cut short to misinterpret Barr’s comments about the charges being dropped against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

On Sunday morning, Todd played a clip from Barr’s recent interview with Catherine Herridge on CBS News. However, the clip played did not provide Barr’s full answer, which told a completely different story than the snippet given.

Herridge asked Barr, “When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written?”

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr replied.

After playing the short clip, Todd said, “I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of the answer. It’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.”

However, Barr’s full response to Herridge puts his answer in a completely different context.

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr told Herridge. “But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec wrote on Twitter:

Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd on @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview. Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview.

Todd accused Barr of not mentioning anything about “the rule of law” when in reality, the attorney general literally said the ruling “upheld the rule of law.”

Attorney General Barr defends Justice Dept. decision to drop criminal case against Michael Flynn