Author Page | Media Matters for America

Cydney Hargis

Author ››› Cydney Hargis
  • Multiple polls show vast support for background checks. NRA's Dana Loesch says none of them count.

    Loesch discounted data as House prepares to consider an expanded background checks bill

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    National Rifle Association spokesperson and NRATV host Dana Loesch said that she has “not seen any cross-tab data” showing almost unanimous support for requiring background checks on all gun sales despite years of polling showing just that.

    During the January 7 edition of her NRATV show Relentless, Loesch previewed the forthcoming introduction of a bipartisan U.S. House bill to expand background checks on gun sales and read House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “it is an honor” to introduce a bill “which 97 percent of the American people support.” Loesch took issue with the statistic, claiming she has “not seen any cross-tab data that at all supports that assertion whatsoever” and that she is “awaiting all of that.” In an interview with Loesch, NRA Institute for Legislative Action spokesperson Lars Dalseide claimed Pelosi is either “unaware of the facts” or is “spreading yet another false rumor”:

    DANA LOESCH (HOST): House Democrats are set to introduce their first salvo of gun control bills tomorrow. California Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Mike Thompson have chosen tomorrow’s date, January 8, for the unveiling -- the eighth anniversary of the Tucson shooting, which left six dead and 15 wounded including former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who will join Pelosi and Thompson in the Capitol. Says Pelosi, “It is an honor to join Congressman Mike Thompson and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords to answer their call by taking the first step to pass commonsense background checks, which 97 percent of the American people support.” Now Congresswoman Pelosi must be unaware that we have a background checks system, a system that is made possible thanks to the NRA. I’ve seen that 97 percent thrown around for quite some time, but yet have not seen any cross-tab data that at all supports that assertion whatsoever. And still am awaiting all of that. Joining me now to discuss is Lars Dalseide, spokesman for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.      

    In fact, a February 20, 2018, Quinnipiac poll -- conducted nearly one week after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL -- showed both 97 percent of all Americans and 97 percent of gun owners supported requiring all gun buyers to undergo a background check. The background check issue has been polled repeatedly over the last several years by different polling firms, and the results always show near-universal support for requiring checks.

    Dalseide echoed Loesch’s falsehood. And he made a dishonest comparison between polling on the background check issue and the outcomes of two 2016 state background check ballot initiatives -- i.e. not polls -- to falsely accuse Pelosi of spreading incorrect information:

    LARS DALSEIDE: As for Speaker Pelosi and her “97 percent,” if that were true then you have to wonder about why that’s not reflected when it comes to the polls. There were two huge universal background check ballot initiatives that came up in 2016, for example. And neither -- well, one of them broke 50 percent and the other one hit 50 or 48 percent. So to say that 97 percent of the public supports these universal background checks, either she’s unaware of the facts or just spreading yet another false rumor when it comes to gun control.      

    Notably, the NRA ran false attack ads against the Maine and Nevada background check ballot initiatives suggesting that the laws could easily land law-abiding gun owners in jail. When the public is plainly asked about support for requiring background checks for all gun sales, the answer is consistently near-universal support.            

  • NRATV correspondent used white nationalist talking point on air to fearmonger about immigrants

    Chuck Holton: Democrats want to “import” people from “the Third World” to counterbalance American voters

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    Chuck Holton, a correspondent for the National Rifle Association's broadcast outlet NRATV, echoed a longtime white nationalist talking point when he accused the Democratic Party of trying to “import another group of voters” from “the Third World” in order to “to stay in power in perpetuity.”

    During the January 4 edition of NRATV’s Stinchfield, host Grant Stinchfield attacked Democrats in Congress for allegedly creating “fugitive havens” instead of supporting “anything that will make us safer along the border.” Holton agreed, claiming “they don’t care about border security” because they want to “import a new populace that will vote for them by offering them all these free benefits.”

    GRANT STINCHFIELD (HOST): I’ve seen no evidence that the Democrats have ever supported border security. Ever. They voted against Kate Steinle’s law. They voted against laws to keep gangbangers out. They love sanctuary cities. Give me one piece of evidence that the Democrats have supported anything that will make us safer along the border. All they have created are fugitive havens. Well, veteran Army Ranger and Frontlines correspondent Chuck Holton has been on this story for a very long time. Chuck, welcome to the program.

    CHUCK HOLTON (NRATV CORRESPONDENT): Yeah, good to see you, Grant. You are absolutely right. They don’t care about border security and that’s because they are trying to put together a voter base that will keep them in power in perpetuity. And they know that the American people are not going to allow them to stay in power in perpetuity, and so essentially what they’re trying to do is import another group of voters. They’re trying to import a new populace that will vote for them by offering them all these free benefits. Look, we have to address these pull factors that are bringing people out of -- basically all over the Third World, it’s not just the Western Hemisphere, it’s not just Latin America. I’ve been down there on the border, and I’ve seen people from India and Cameroon and Pakistan and Nepal and Afghanistan and all over Africa, Somalia. They’re all coming north and they’re all looking for the same thing. And that is, to win that lottery ticket and get across that easy-to-climb border fence that we’re seeing right there, and coming into the United States so that they can get a lot of free stuff. And, really, who can blame them?

    Describing immigration as “trying to import a new populace” from “the Third World” is a common tactic advanced by white nationalist publications including VDare and American Renaissance.

    Holton has a well-documented track record of using racist rhetoric, such as complaining that former President Barack Obama left a “mocachinno stain” on America, fearmongering about the Black Lives Matter movement committing mass violence against whites, and demanding Black people “join us in respecting authority and taking responsibility for your own actions.”

    Previously while speaking about immigration on NRATV, Holton repeatedly pushed the conspiracy theory that philanthropist George Soros is behind the migrant caravan, a remarkably similar conspiracy theory to the one that motivated a gunman who carried out a mass shooting in a Pittsburgh, PA, synagogue in October. He also said that the migrant caravan is “an invasion under the guise of migration.”

    The NRATV correspondent also has a symbiotic relationship with white nationalists; he has previously repeated the white nationalist talking point that cultural “homogeneity” is responsible for low crime rates, repeatedly promoted the work of scientific racist Stefan Molyneux, and been praised by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer.

  • The NRA connection behind the Parkland school safety commission's recommendation of arming teachers

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    The National Rifle Association’s far-right news outlet NRATV repeatedly hosted members of a Florida school safety commission to advocate for arming teachers as a solution to school shootings. The commission, formed after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, recently released a draft report that recommended arming teachers -- a notion that has been consistently rejected by experts, who point out that adding firearms into schools would actually increase the danger to teachers and students.

    The 16-member panel was put together as part of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a “sweeping school-safety law” signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) in March, a month after the Parkland school shooting left 17 dead. The panel held its initial meeting on April 24 to “investigate system failures” by reviewing Florida’s policies for active shooter situations, the use of school resource officers on campuses, and other recommendations. Members were chosen by Scott, then-Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran (R) and then-Senate President Joe Negron (R) and included three Parkland parents -- though Andrew Pollack, whose daughter was killed in the shooting, later resigned.

    On December 12, the commission released a draft report that listed “a series of failures by Broward County agencies and recommendations for avoiding a similar tragedy in the future” the Sun Sentinel reported. Among its other recommendations, the commission voted 14-1 to allow arming classroom teachers provided they go through background checks and training. A final report will be sent to the governor and state legislature by January 1.  

    The recommendation echoes comments made by members of the commission during appearances on NRATV. On the August 16 edition of NRA spokesperson and NRATV host Dana Loesch’s show Relentless, commission chairman and Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said: “The unfortunate reality is that cops can’t be everywhere all the time, and if there had been a good guy with a gun on that campus or in that building, there’s no doubt in my mind that they would have been able to minimize the carnage.”

    Two weeks before the draft report was released, commission member and Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd also appeared on NRATV to praise Gualtieri’s support for arming teachers -- and to pat himself on the back for helping guide his “dear friend” toward that view after Gualtieri initially expressed discomfort with the idea. From the November 28 edition of NRATV’s Stinchfield:

    GRANT STINCHFIELD (HOST): Here we have another recommendation that teachers should be armed. Not surprising to you, but what do you think about this recommendation? Was it surprising to others in Florida?

    GRADY JUDD: Well you know, I don’t think it was a surprise to others in Florida because Senate Bill 7026, which we pushed through, mandates armed guardians or school resource officers on every campus. Sheriff Gualtieri is a dear friend of mine and chairs the commission, I’m on that commission with him. I established that position early on as you know, through my “Sentinel program.” Bob originally -- Bob Gualtieri the chair -- was not really comfortable with that. And as I worked with him -- and he and I are dear friends and are on several committees together. And the research we developed through this shooting, it was abundantly evident had teachers, not all teachers, those that wanted to and were capable of and completed thorough training, could have and would have saved lives that day. We know one teacher that was shot by our suspect, had actually pulled himself over into a corner, and then the suspect came back and shot him again, fatally killing him, obviously. But we know he would have shot and killed the active shooter had he had a firearm. Had he had that firearm, not only would his life have been saved but so would have a lot of other children in school that day. As I’ve said over and over, Grant, this is not something we want to do. When I was a kid in school, we didn’t have to have armed security on campuses. But this is a new normal and a new day. And we have to have someone there so if we can’t discover this active murderer, shooter ahead of time, that when they arrive on campus, somebody is there to stop them before they can hurt our students and our teachers.

    STINCHFIELD: You know sheriff, to me this is all common sense. I mean I don’t really even think you really need research to understand the very basic premise that [NRA executive vice president and CEO] Wayne LaPierre coined the phrase, “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I know that research has been done, it backs up your case, but to me it comes down to just simple common sense. You’ve got to meet a threat with equal or greater force. That’s the only way to stop a threat. This does that, doesn't it?

    JUDD: It absolutely does.     

    This is not the first time that Judd has gone on NRATV to promote arming teachers; he appeared on NRATV in 2016 to discuss Polk County’s “Sentinel program” that allows Southeastern University to arm “select faculty and staff.” After his naming to the commision, Judd appeared on the network at least five other times to push for more guns in schools.

    Despite NRATV hosts promoting Judd’s program and praising Gualtieri’s recommendation, there is little evidence that arming teachers or other civilians will stop mass shootings. An FBI study of 160 active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 found that only four incidents were stopped by armed security guards and one was stopped by a licensed and armed citizen -- compared to 21 incidents stopped by unarmed citizens. A working paper released in March by Johns Hopkins University education professor Sheldon Greenberg that relies on analysis of police officers’ confrontations with armed suspects also concluded that arming teachers would do more harm than good. CityLab explained:

    In two roundtable discussions Greenberg held with law enforcement in January 2013 (in the aftermath of Sandy Hook), police officers voiced a range of other concerns about arming teachers, including the erroneous assumption that a teacher would be in proximity to the shooter, the likelihood that an armed teacher and plainclothes police officer (who would be the first to arrive on the scene) would mistake each other for an active shooter, and the fact that teachers’ firearms training would be a one-off event.

    “Basically, it’s highly unlikely that there will be an incident in the first place,” said Greenberg. “And the risks outweigh the potential benefit.”     

  • NRA spokesperson calls pediatricians “irresponsible” for pointing out link between firearms and adolescent suicide

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch used her NRATV show to take on a doctor who recommended “a better strategy” to prevent teen suicide “is simply not to have a gun in the house.” Instead, Loesch argued to focus on homes where “the parenting is absent or subpar.”

    Loesch highlighted a November 30 article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics that “the safest home for a kid is one without guns.” The article highlighted that “adolescents, in particular, are at a higher risk for suicide when there is a gun in the home” and mentioned the recent example of a local teenage girl, Ivey Mustaki, who died from suicide using her grandmother’s firearm.

    The NRATV host took particular issue with the article’s quotes from Dr. Daniel Blumenthal, a retired pediatrician and former president of the American College of Preventive Medicine. Blumenthal speculated that if the teenager’s family had “only known that there are far more gun-related suicides than homicides. If they’d only known that is it next to impossible to hide a gun from a teen, … perhaps Ivey would be alive today.” Blumenthal reiterated that “there are things individuals can do, and one of them is not have a gun in the house.”

    Loesch rejected the doctor’s recommendations, saying that maybe “a firearm in a house where the parenting is absent or subpar” is a problem, but it is “irresponsible” to “pretend that this is a universal rule and not an outlier.” Loesch suggested focusing on “the correct precautions” and called Blumenthal’s recommendations an attempt “to incite fear into the hearts of every family across America.” From the December 3 edition of NRATV’s Relentless:

    DANA LOESCH (HOST): It seems a little bit like it’s trying to incite fear into the hearts of every family across America. And what’s lost in all of this is, what about making sure that Ivey had the mental help that she had needed, identifying maybe perhaps that she was going through depression and doing everything possible to make sure that she got the attention and the help that she needed in order to remedy the situation. I mean maybe perhaps taking just the correct precautions that millions of families across the country take every single day in determining how they would like to store their firearms -- how it works best for their own personal needs and their family’s needs -- maybe that would have been helpful in this situation. I mean there are definitely some instances when a firearm in a house -- a firearm in a house where the parenting is absent or subpar, where storage and responsibility and respect for privacy and/or life isn’t paramount. Then yeah, maybe we definitely need to have a conversation with those individuals about where their priorities are and how they’re storing things. But to pretend that this is a universal rule and not an outlier -- that this is somehow indicative of every gun-owning family across the country as opposed to an exception -- that in itself is irresponsible. Because if that were the case, then we would have far more of these awful instances than we do.  

    Contrary to Loesch’s claims, firearm suicides account for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, “over half of suicide deaths are with firearms,” and 80 percent of child firearm suicides “involved a gun belonging to a family member.” While studies have found that nine out of 10 people who fail in their first attempt do not go on to die from suicide later, Everytown notes that firearm suicide attempts “are by far the most lethal, with a fatality rate of approximately 85 percent.”  

    While Loesch insisted that there is no connection between firearms in the home and suicide, an analysis of research conducted by the the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that “preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.”

    The NRA was recently raked over the coals by medical professionals for suggesting that doctors should “stay in their lane” after the American College of Physicians released a position paper recommending several gun safety regulations from a medical perspective.        

  • NRATV tells people to run at active shooters

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton irresponsibly advised people who find themselves in an active shooter situation to charge the gunman and “take him out” as the first course of action. This potentially deadly advice is contrary to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines, which advise people in an active shooter situation to first attempt to escape, then hide and make barricades if escape is not possible, and finally “as a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate” the gunman.   

    During the November 27 edition of NRATV’s Relentless, host and National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch highlighted a Northwestern University training video based on the DHS guidelines that urges students and faculty to first run if they hear gunshots, to hide if running isn’t feasible, and to fight “as a last resort.” Loesch specifically focused on the “fight” portion of the video, criticizing the suggestions of using “anything you can use as a weapon,” such as a fire extinguisher, during a “last resort” situation.

    Holton took particular issue with the “linear thinking” of run, hide, fight and called it “run, hide, and die,” arguing that victims will be waiting for their “turn to get a bullet to the head.” (Holton, in fact, misrepresented the guidelines, which do call for physically confronting the gunman as a last resort when other better options are exhausted and do not advocate waiting around to die.) He claimed, “It says a lot about our culture that we’re not training our sons that you need to be the hero” and instead suggested, “You find the guy that is hurting other people, you go after him, and you take him out.” Holton also added that if “you are a capable male in the American population, then your mindset should not be run, hide, and then fight. It should be find, fix, and finish,” apparently excusing women from his erroneous advice.

    CHUCK HOLTON (NRATV CORRESPONDENT): Look, I sit on the board of a company that does security training around the country and around the world. And I can tell you that people do want the ability to be able to protect themselves. But today’s culture kind of trains that out of them. And it says, “No, no, no, no, you can’t do that. Only people who are qualified and trained can do anything.” One of the things that they’re even seeing problems with in the U.S. military today is that guys are coming into the military that have literally never enforced their physical will on another being in their life. And so they don't have any idea how to do that. They’ve been taught in a zero-tolerance school for violence at all. And that’s not necessarily bad except for the fact that this is what you end up with.

    Now, look, instead of run, hide, and die, which is essentially what they’re training them to do -- I mean, if you think about it, if you are training them -- we didn’t get to show the rest of that video that Northwestern put out -- but the first two-thirds of that video is all about how to run away and how to hide. Look, if you’re in a wheelchair or you’re not capable, well, OK, fine. But if that is the linear thinking that we’re going to engage in, run and hide, then people are going to literally be waiting to die in a situation like that. They’re going to be coming in and just basically, go, hide, and wait your turn to get a bullet to the head. Every second in a situation like that, that you wait, somebody else is dying. And I think it says a lot about our culture that we’re not training our sons that you need to be the hero in this situation.

    Look, being a hero is chosen for you very often. You didn’t wake up that day, just like Col. [Oliver] North says, and think, “I’m going to be a hero today.” You’ve gotta be trained and prepared to be a hero every day. And one of the things I trained my sons is that wherever you go, people should be safer because you are there. And that means that if you find yourself in a situation like this and you are a capable male in the American population, then your mindset should not be run, hide, and then fight. It should be find, fix, and finish. That is, you find the guy that is hurting other people, you go after him, and you take him out. You do whatever you have to do. And if somebody’s got to die, you stand up and you go, “I am the one that’s willing to die today rather than Dana Loesch or that lady over there or that little kid. I am the one that’s willing to -- I am that man that’s is going to go in and take that guy out.” And I think we need to train our boys more in that line of thinking.  

    In reality, Holton’s irresponsible advice goes against DHS guidelines in its “Active Shooter: How To Respond” guide, which specifically tells people not to seek out the gunman as a first measure.

  • The fatal police shooting of Jemel Roberson disproves the NRA’s favorite myth

    NRATV struggled to not admit the obvious

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    The fatal police shooting of an armed and trained security guard outside a bar, after he stopped a gunman from opening fire, provides further proof that the “good guy with a gun” myth peddled by NRATV is just that: a myth.

    On November 11, 26-year-old security guard Jemel Roberson “apprehended an alleged gunman” outside an Illinois bar, holding him on the ground at gunpoint until police arrived. According to witnesses, bar patrons were yelling to officers that Roberson was security, while officers demanded he drop his firearm before fatally shooting him. An investigation is underway.

    The National Rifle Association and its media outlet have long peddled the narrative that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and they have frequently suggested that the victims of mass shootings could have saved themselves had they been armed. During the November 13 edition of NRATV’s Relentless, NRA spokesperson and host Dana Loesch referred to Roberson as “a good guy with a gun, one of those individuals that anti-gun advocates love to pretend do not exist.”

    Loesch admitted the incident made her “worry a little bit” as a concealed carrier, and she questioned what good guys should do when they’re “that close” to the gunman “and law enforcement shows up.” NRA-certified instructor and frequent NRATV guest Guy Relford responded that there is “no perfect choice” between exposing “yourself to the risk of the known bad guy who is underneath you that you’re holding, or exposing yourself to the risk of being shot by police officers”:

    DANA LOESCH (HOST): I worry about this as, you know, a concealed carrier, I worry about this as someone who -- you know, I’ve done a lot of training, and I always make sure that I have my skills up to speed if heaven forbid, you know, I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it in that situation. But I’ll be frank with you, stories like this make me worry a little bit. And not just for -- you know, for all Americans, Black Americans, white Americans, men and women, because this is one of the -- I think, one of the concerns that concealed carry holders have. So, how should concealed carriers look at this particular story and -- because, again, it makes me worried and if I’m feeling a little nervous about this, I would imagine other people are too.

    GUY RELFORD: If you can possibly avoid it, you do not want to have a gun in your hand when responding police officers show up, even if you’re the good guy. Now, here, he’s holding someone, you know, against their will. Did he have the ability to put that gun away or not have that gun in his hand or get that gun back in the holster before police officers arrived? And again, I don’t want to second-guess anyone without having more facts, but if there was any opportunity to get that gun out of his hand, not in the sight of police officers when they show up, we always want to try to do that because unfortunately this isn’t the first time that someone survived a potentially deadly attack and was completely lawful in what they did, but lost their life because of confusion by responding police officers.

    LOESCH: I am so glad that you brought that up, Guy, because in all of these -- and I’m sure that you can talk a little bit about this, last question for you, in some of the cases that you’ve handled, because normally in everything that I’ve read, whenever there’s been a defensive gun usage and someone is holding someone, there’s some distance there. You know, there’s at least five to three feet between the individuals. This -- I mean Roberson was on this guy, he had his knee on his back, and that makes it a little bit harder for him if this -- and who knows if this guy still -- we don’t even know if this guy still -- the criminal still had his gun in his hand. We don’t know that either. And then police show up -- you don’t really have a lot of time to make sure you’re in a safe position. If that criminal can access that firearm immediately, you kind of -- so, I don’t want to speculate, but at the same time, it’s such a rare instance, it’s a very difficult spot for anybody to be in when they’re doing the right thing. I mean, he was a security guard, he wanted to be on the police force, he had some training, so he knew what he was doing up until a certain extent. That gets into a real kind of gray area, what do you do when you’re that close and law enforcement shows up and maybe the perp still has his hand on the gun?

    RELFORD: Yes, and sometimes there may just be no good decision. I mean, there is no perfect choice between choosing whether you’re going to expose yourself to the risk of the known bad guy who is underneath you that you’re holding, or exposing yourself to the risk of being shot by police officers.

    Even though NRATV continually pushes the “good guy” narrative, statistics and anecdotal commentary from law enforcement repeatedly prove armed citizens rarely stop mass shootings or violent crime incidents. In 2016, the Dallas police chief anecdotally stated that this type of civilian action creates more confusion for responding officers. And a 2000-2013 FBI study of 160 active shooter incidents -- in which “individuals [were] actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in populated areas” -- found that only four incidents were stopped by armed security guards and one was stopped by a licensed and armed citizen, whereas 21 incidents were stopped by unarmed citizens. A 2015 analysis by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that the likelihood of people sustaining an injury during a robbery didn’t change based on whether or not they were armed.

  • NRATV host Dan Bongino used doctored Infowars video of Jim Acosta in White House press briefing

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    One day after White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared a deceptively edited video of an exchange between CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta and President Donald Trump, NRATV host Dan Bongino highlighted that same misleading video to attack Acosta.

    Acosta’s White House press pass was revoked following a contentious exchange during a November 7 briefing, when a White House intern attempted to take the microphone from Acosta while he was asking the president a question. During the interaction, “Acosta’s hand appeared to briefly brush” the intern’s arm, but Sanders later accused the reporter of “placing his hands on a young woman.” To bolster her accusation, Sanders then shared a deceptively edited video that originated from Paul Joseph Watson, editor at large of conspiracy theory website Infowars.com. The Washington Post noted that the video “appeared to have been altered to make [Acosta’s] actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.” 

    Bongino used that same deceptively edited footage for his coverage of the event on the November 8 edition of NRATV’s We Stand, despite multiple reports debunking the edited footage:

    DAN BONGINO (HOST): Acosta is claiming right now that he didn’t put his hands on this woman. This is a White House intern who has to move the mic -- folks, I worked in the White House for a long time, this is how this works. They walk the mic around. Jim Acosta -- now I don’t wanna overdramatize this, Denise was right before the show -- he didn’t attack her, it’s not a karate chop, he wasn’t trying to -- I sincerely doubt he was trying to hurt the woman, I would not even venture to go that far. But can we all acknowledge this is grossly inappropriate behavior? This is the president of the United States, he answered your question, move on. You don't put your mitts on the woman. It’s disgusting, you know I was very upset about this on Twitter yesterday. Have some dignity, Jim. Apologize and move on. This is the president of the United States, this young lady didn’t ask for this. She works for a living too, you know. Give up the microphone. Pathetic.    

    While admitting that Acosta didn’t “karate chop” the intern and wasn’t “trying to hurt” her, Bongino played the edited clip during the segment while calling Acosta “pathetic” and alleging that the CNN journalist put his “mitts on the woman.”

    Bongino is no stranger to Infowars, having appeared on the network multiple times from 2013 until 2016 with host Alex Jones, who was the chief architect of the conspiracty theory that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax 

  • NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch: The Thousand Oaks mass shooting was “horrific,” but “so are CA gun laws”

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    Several hours after a mass shooting at a bar in California, National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch compared the “evil” incident to the state’s gun laws.

    On November 7, at least 12 people were killed when a gunman with a .45-caliber handgun opened fire at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, CA, during a “country-music night” for college students. Just hours after the shooting, Loesch tweeted out a list of California gun safety measures, saying the latest shooting was “horrific” and “evil,” but that “so are CA gun laws”:

    It’s true that California does have some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country, including universal background checks, a ban on most assault weapons, regulations on gun show purchases, and 10-day waiting periods. The state also has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country; it dropped by 56.6 percent between 1993 and 2013, which was “29.9 percentage points more than the decline in the rest of the nation.”

    Stronger gun safety laws have had positive impacts elsewhere too: Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, pointed out that permit-to-purchase gun safety laws in Connecticut caused a 40 percent decrease in firearm homicides and a 15 percent decrease in firearm suicides. Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center also found that in study after study, “where there are more guns there is more homicide.”     

    But in the wake of another horrific mass shooting, the NRA’s spokesperson once again shifted the blame to fearmonger about “evil” gun safety laws. 

  • NRATV attempts to blame the media after Pittsburgh synagogue shooting despite pushing similar conspiracy theories as the gunman

    Blog ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS

    Grant Stinchfield, host of the National Rifle Association's media outlet, NRATV, said he felt “disgust” for the “devious media and the liberals they serve,” who he said blame the shooting at a synagogue in Pennsylvania on “everything but themselves and ... the shooter.” Stinchfield conveniently ignored the fact that NRATV relentlessly pushed conspiracy theories about the migrant caravan that were similar to those the gunman embraced.

    On October 27, a gunman armed with an AR-15 assault weapon and three handguns opened fire in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, killing 11 people and wounding six others, making this the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in American history. The gunman frequently posted on the far-right social media network Gab, where he repeatedly threatened the Jewish community and spread conservative conspiracy theories about a migrant caravan of refugees headed for the U.S. Specifically, the gunman pushed the conspiracy theory that Jews are behind the caravan.

    While not mentioning any of the gunman’s right-wing conspiracy theories, NRATV host Grant Stinchfield accused the media of trying to play the “blame game” and said that “devious media and the liberals they serve want to blame everyone and everything but themselves” for the shooting. He went on to claim President Donald Trump and NRATV “have never issued calls for violence” and said, “It’s Democratic leaders who make room for antifa to riot and call on Trump haters to harass his supporters.” During his comments on the October 29 edition of Stinchfield, he also called the victims of the attack “pawns now in the game to destroy our president and his party just days before the midterms”:

    GRANT STINCHFIELD (HOST): When I look at the face of the devil, in a man that decided to take 11 lives simply because of their faith, I get angry. So many emotions rush through my mind -- grief for the victims, sadness for their families and a world where far too many killers among us. But I also feel disgust. Disgust for the media and the political propaganda they spread just moments after a deadly, heinous crime. It’s not just the calls for gun control and so-called assault weapons bans, but it’s the blame game that makes me angry. The devious media and the liberals they serve want to blame everyone and everything but themselves and of course the shooter, who is ultimately responsible. This time the blame reached an all-time low. Over and over again, the media from the anti-Trumpers on Meet the Press to everyone on CNN and beyond pushed this bogus, insane idea that somehow President Trump is responsible for a deranged lunatic going on a killing spree inside a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

    STINCHFIELD: It is absolutely shameful. Shameful. 11 people dead, injured law enforcement, all pawns now in the game to destroy our president and his party just days before the midterms. President Trump has never issued a call for violence and they know it. We as conservatives, we at NRATV have never issued calls for violence either. Yet they have the gall to blame President Trump for this shooting when it’s Democratic leaders who make room for antifa to riot and call on Trump haters to harass his supporters.

    In actuality, NRATV hosts themselves have repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories about the migrant caravan; NRATV correspondent Chuck Holton claimed during an October 19 NRATV broadcast that “a bevy of left-wing groups are partnering with a Hungarian-born billionaire [George Soros] and the Venezuelan government to try to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north” in a caravan. Soros is a prominent Jewish philanthropist who frequently makes donations to liberal and progressive causes.

    During another recent NRATV appearance, Holton falsely claimed that Soros was funding the caravan and said that he is “an expert at sowing chaos and discord around the world.” Holton went on to say that Soros’ views are “at odds with civilization as a whole” and said, “The guy really makes a kind of perfect Bond villian, don’t you think? This socialist anti-gun, anti-American agenda is nothing short of apocalyptic.”

    During yet another segment Holton hosted, NRATV showed a picture of Soros above a chyron that said, “Immigrant Caravan: Who’s Paying The Bill?”

    Both Holton and Stinchfield have referred to the caravan as an “invasion,” which is also how the gunman characterized it.