MRC Is Offended That TV Characters Aren't Shamed For Having Abortions Topic: Media Research Center
In a March 15 Media Research Center post, Rebecca Downs was offended that a character of the TV show "Shrill" had an abortion and didn't feel guilty about it or wasn't shamed for having one, that the procedure was portrayed as "relatively nonchalant" and that the character later feld "all empowered and glowing as she tries on a new dress." Downs continued to be offended that "the rest of the show delves into [the character's] life as if the pregnancy and abortion never happened" and that "the abortion is only mentioned in two of the six episodes for this first season."
Downs' rage was renewed in a March 28 post, in which she lectured a writer for "Shrill" who described the abortion scene as "almost boring television" and who pointed out that abortion clinic workers get harrassed and murdered:
No, we shouldn't normalize the fact that thousands of babies are killed from abortion each day, no matter how long the abortion procedure--which sucks the child out with a powerful vacuum--takes. Women are not dying because they do not have access to abortion, especially in the United States, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the world.
It’s not merely “anti-choicers” who describe abortion as something that “hurts” or is “scary” or “traumatic” or “evil.” Post-abortive women share the regret they themselves felt after their abortions, though for many women these effects were not necessarily felt right away. Those women who initially feel "really, really good" or "very fucking powerful" and want to partake in #ShoutYourAbortion may not feel that way in a few months or years.
Violence against abortion workers is not pro-life and is unacceptable. West is correct that abortion workers “don’t have to do this work,” but the success of former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson’s And Then There Were None organization that helps abortion staff transition out of the industry should give people pause.
The idea that violence against "abortion workers" is "unacceptable" seems to run counter to a recent tweet on the NewsBusters Twitter account declaring, "There is no such thing as being 'extreme' when it comes to protecting innocent lives in the womb."
Downs then served up a list of "recent examples of TV series with scenes that showed abortion in a nonchalant or positive way."
Similarly, a March 29 post by Karen Townsend was annoyed that a character on "Gray's Anatomy" said she wasn't ashamed of an abortion she'd had years earlier when she was in an abusive relationship, grumbling that the abortion "is written off as something she just 'had' to do."
CNS' Jeffrey Thinks There's No Such Thing As 'Noncriminal' Obstruction Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey offers up a convoluted way to claim President Trump is innocent of obstruction of justice in his March 27 column, focusing on Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler:
On Sunday morning, Nadler appeared on CNN's "State of the Union." Later that day, Attorney General William Barr publicly released a letter to Nadler summarizing Mueller's principal conclusions. It stated: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election."
Prior to the release of this letter, host Dana Bash asked Nadler whether he still believed — as he had "said before" — that President Trump obstructed justice.
In a nonsensical response, Nadler suggested there had been two types of obstruction of justice: criminal and noncriminal.
"Well, there have been obstructions of justice," Nadler said.
"Whether they are criminal obstruction is another question," he said. "But ... the special prosecutor is limited in scope. His job was limited in scope and limited to crimes.
"What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture," Nadler said. "We have the responsibility of protecting the rule of law, of looking at obstructions of justice, at looking at abuses of power, at corruption, in order to protect the rule of law, so that our democratic institutions are not greatly damaged by this president. And that's what we intend to do."
Bash then asked Nadler: "(I)f Robert Mueller comes out in his report and suggests very strongly, or states flat out, that he agrees with you that the president obstructed justice or that the president may have committed some crime that DOJ guidelines do not allow to be indicted, will you begin impeachment proceedings?"
"It's way too early to speculate about that," he said.
The idea of noncriminal obstruction is not "nonsensical." As one law blogger points out, it's entirely possible that there was obstruction that did not rise to criminal levels, and there are also reasons one might not prosecute Trump for obstruction even if it did rise to a criminal level.
Jeffrey then attacked Nadler for opposing President Clinton's impeachment because the offenses he was alleged to have committed didn't rise to that level. He added:
"What the president has done," Nadler said that day the House voted to impeach, "is not a great and dangerous offense to the safety of the republic."
Would Nadler ever make the same argument about a president who committed no offense he needed to cover up?
One can also ask: If the president committed no crime, why did he act in a manner as to obstruct the investigation into whether he committed one? Jeffrey never asks that.
NewsBusters Blogger Thinks Roy Cohn Was A Good Guy Topic: NewsBusters
In a March 29 NewsBusters post, Mark Finkelstein complained that a "bitter" Joe Scarborough said that President Trump found his "own Roy Cohn" in Attorney General William Barr. Finkelstein then explained what he thought was the reason liberals hate Cohn so much: "In liberal-speak, Roy Cohn is a synonym for "someone we really hate." After all, he committed the egregious sin of successfully prosecuting the Rosenbergs, communist spies who worked to divulge America's nuclear secrets to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."
Um, no, Mark. It's more that Cohn was Joe McCarthy's henchman in purging alleged (but not necessarily proven) communists from federal jobs, then followed that up with working to purge alleged (but not necessarily proven) homosexuals from federal jobs despite being a closeted homosexual himself. He was disbarred shortly before his 1986 death from AIDS for various unethical deeds. Cohn was also a mentor to, and attorney for, a young Donald Trump -- and such an influence that President Trump once lamented, "Where's my Roy Cohn?"
A couple days later, Alex Christy similarly took offense to Scarborough likening Barr to Cohn, but offered a different defense, insisting that Scarborough "may have bungled his analogy, because the real McCarthyites were people like Scarborough who saw Russian agents or Manchurian candidates behind every corner."
Irony: WND Columnists Complain About Dishonest Journalism (But Not At WND) Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's always deliciously ironic when WorldNetDaily columnists complain about the media behaving the way WND does ... but never acknowledging that the publisher of their columns behaves in those ways.
First up this time around is Laura Hollis, who compalins in her March 28 column about how the media had an "obsession with the theory – now thoroughly debunked – that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election because Donald Trump and his team colluded with Russians." No mention, of course, of her publisher's obsession with the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories involving Barack Obama's birth certificate and the death of Seth Rich.
Hollis then offered up ways that the media can "try and earn back the public’s trust" -- most of which, such as "Stop portraying your personal opinions as fact" and "Stop ignoring stories and hiding facts that paint your side, your preferred candidates or elected officials, or your favorite celebrities in an unfavorable light," should be followed by WND if it ever wants to try and earn back the public’s trust.
Then, it was Adriana Cohen's turn to selectively lecture the media. In her March 31 column, she proclaimed the "hoax" of Russian collusion by Trump a to be "an all-out propaganda war against a sitting president," apparently forgetting that her publisher's Obama birther obsession was the exact same thing. She obliviously added:
Countless members of the press committed media malpractice by spreading propaganda based on fictitious conspiracy theories and lies on their networks to target a politician they didn’t like.
That’s not journalism, folks. It’s a political hit job launched from America’s newsrooms, an unconscionable abuse of power by the media our nation has never witnessed before.
Spreading propaganda based on fictitious conspiracy theories and lies was, and is, WND's business model. But Cohen won't tell you that.
Charlie Daniels Wants To Move On From Mueller Report (Which Hasn't Been Made Public) Topic: CNSNews.com
Despite the fact that the Mueller report has yet to be made public, Charlie Daniels declared in his April 1 CNSNews.com column that "Everybody in America is ready to 'move on' from the Mueller Report."
Of course, those people are right-wing Trumpophiles like himself, who "want to actually move on, put the past and all its ugly implications and divisive rhetoric behind us and get down to the business of enjoying the best economy we’ve had in decades. And they’re ready to do something meaningful about the opioid pandemic and come together on a truly comprehensive solution to our immigration problem and the millions of illegals who are already in the country." ON the other hand, there are "the intransigent ones, who just a little of a week ago hailed Robert Mueller as the essence of truth and honesty, anxiously waiting for the report."
Daniels didn't explain why we shouldn't wait for the actual report to be released before moving on. Instaed, he attacked those who want to see that report for exacting revenge on Trump for winning the election:
Personally, I do not and have never believed that members of Congress nor the preponderance of the media ever really believed that a man who is a multibillionaire, who has accomplished what he has accomplished in his life, and has even won the highest office in the land would be stupid enough to actually collude with the Russians or anybody else for that matter.
In my opinion, it has been about losing an election that would have continued to take this nation down the path the shadow players, deep state, or whatever you want to call them, want it to go.
If that's true, can we also assume that Daniels' longtime animosity toward President Obama -- he has delcared that Obama "doesn't like America very much" and has deliberately distorted Obama's words -- is because he is unable to deal with what Obama has accomplished what he has accomplished in his life?
WND Columnist Thinks About AOC's Conception Topic: WorldNetDaily
James Zumwalt is creepily concerned with the conception of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in his March 27 WorldNetDaily column:
The safe assumption is, on the evening of Jan. 11, 1989, as President Ronald Reagan delivered his farewell address to the American people, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) parents were preoccupied. Nine months later, AOC was born. Sadly, had her parents listened to Reagan that night, they could have gained invaluable insights to share later with their democratic socialist-to-be daughter.
Reagan shared several pearls of wisdom that evening – wisdom clearly lost on AOC.
Zumwalt seems to be weirdly suggesting that if her parents had listened to Reagan's speech instead of having sex, Ocasio-Cortez might never have been born and there would be one less "socialist" in the world.
The speech in question is Reagan's farewell speech in 1989, in which he talked about patriotism and national pride. Zulwalt then lashed out at Ocasio-Cortez:
Three decades later, in AOC, we have a congresswoman who denigrates America as “garbage.” We have a woman representing constituents who knows little about American history and the values that once made our nation great. We have an elected official who, despite having an economics major, has little understanding of tax incentives and budgets. We have a legislator who, prior to taking office, admitted little knowledge on Middle East matters, yet now asserts herself as an expert by condemning Israel for “occupying” Palestine.
Despite Reagan’s call for an “informed patriotism,” in AOC we have neither – her lack of the former inhibits her ability to possess the latter. Instead, she seeks to totally destroy a system she fails to understand, replacing it with one which, historically, has experienced nothing but abject failure.
Zumwalt once again relies on fringe right-wing websites to support his attacks, which is where the utterly false claim that Ocasio-Cortez called America "garbage" comes from. In fact, she was explaining that right-wing views have become normalized in America -- particularly on immigration, where conservatives defend caging children and forcibly using psychotropic drugs on them -- and that her ideas "sound radical compared to where we are, but where we are is not a good thing,” adding that we shouldn't settle for being merely "10 percent better than garbage."
Zumwalt probably thought America was "garbage" during the Obama years, so he has little room to talk.
Zumwalt concluded by huffing:
Reagan ended his farewell address referencing early Pilgrim John Winthrop’s description of the America he imagined as a shining “city upon a hill.” Asking “how stands the city,” Reagan proudly proclaimed America, “still stands strong and true. … Her glow has held steady no matter what storm” she endured. However, the socialist storm AOC favors is a Hurricane Katrina in-waiting. Hopefully, an informed public, recognizing what Katrina did to New Orleans – and despite the media’s naive promotion of AOC’s ideology – will recognize socialism’s similar destructive potential to impact the city upon a hill.
Shockingly, the March employment numbers were so bad that CNSNews.com covered them as if President Obama, not President Trump, was in office.
Susan Jones wrote disappointingly in her lead article by leading off with that Obama-ear staple, obsession over the labor force participation rate:
The number of Americans working in March declined by 201,000, dropping from 156,949,000 in February to 156,748,000 in March, according to the data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The labor force participation rate also fell by two-tenths of a point, from 63.2 percent to 63.0 percent.
The economy added 196,000 non-farm jobs in March, with notable gains in health care and in professional and technical services, said the Bureau of Labor Statistics report.
The unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8 percent, within a tenth of a point of the 3.7 percent Trump-era low.
Jones did do somsething that she rarely did under Obama, though, pointing out that "not changed much in recent years" because of "the growing number of retiring Baby Boomers" -- thus giving Trump a pass Obama didn't get.
Even the usual sidebars didn't come off as well as usual. Terry Jeffrey had to admit that manufacturing jobs declined and government jobs increased in March. Jeffrey did try to spin things by claiming that "there has now been a net increase of 466,000 manufacturing jobs during Trump’s presidency" and that federal hiring decreased. Even Craig Bannister had to admit that the new obsession with Hispanic jobs didn't pan out, since the Hispanic unemployment rate increased by 4/10 of a percent.
But remember, all these numbers are simply fodder for the larger Media Reserch Center to exploit. And according to the MRC, there weren't any bad numbers at all. Julia A. Seymour declared that "The strong March jobs report 'should end' concerns that a recession is 'lurking' as one Hill op-ed suggested," and later complained thatthe media didn't report those numbers positively -- despite the MRC's own "news" division being unable to do so -- and that unemployment remained "extremely low."
Another WND Columnist, Another Bad Take on Mosque Massacre Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily filled out its trifecta of bad takes on the New Zealand mosque massacre with a March 24 column by Barbara Simpson. She starts off by a fit of whataboutism, whining that attacks on Christians didn't get the same news coverage:
Hours of broadcast as well as internet and print news are filled with thousands of words about the killings. Most are sympathetic for the victims.
That is as it should be; but what is wrong with overall media reportage is there is virtually NO coverage of the mass killings of Christians across the world by militant Islamists – the same day, the same week.
Did you know that the same day as the New Zealand shooting, more than 20 Christians in the Philippines were shot in their church by Muslim militants?
The same week in Nigeria, Christians were the continued targets of militant Islamists, with 53 dead and 43 homes destroyed. The day before, another village was a target – 17 dead and multiple homes destroyed. A month prior, 16 were killed in another village.
Did you see any headlines about those killings? Did you get inundated with sympathy for the dead Christians, or anger against the Islamist killers?
No, you did not. Media ignored it and them.
(Media Research Center employees Matt Philbin and Allen West are similarly tired of hearing about dead Muslims and would rather hear about dead Christians instead.)
Simpson then complained about an "over-reaction by non-Muslims"in New Zealand to the massacre, one of which was "Extra protection is being given to mosques by armed police even though New Zealand police usually aren’t armed." Apparently, protecting Muslims is a bad thing in Simpson's eyes.
Finally, Simpson rants that we're being too nice to those evil Muslims:
The death count in Europe of people killed in Islamist attacks total in the thousands. Those attacks continue.
Never forget, in the United States more than 3,000 Americans were killed in one day by Islamist terrorists who perpetrated the World Trade Center attacks, and many more have died since.
At what point do we have the courage to report the truth of what is going on – or have we lost already because of lack of courage?
The problem is, the media have turned into a mass movement with homogenized thinking. There is so little original thought, perceptive analysis of what is transpiring and what it all means, that media are rendered impotent except for their ability to rile up the unthinking masses and spread untruths and innuendo.
Simpson knows untruths and innuendo, having made up quotes from an anti-genocide researcher to support her factually incorrect assertion that blacks in South Africa are committing "genocide" against the minority white population.
MRC Mad At CNN For Accurately Reporting Trump Is Not Exonerated Topic: Media Research Center
As we know, the Media Research Center just hates accurate reporting when it makes its look bad. And the MRC's Bill D'Agostino was mad that CNN pointed out that, according to William Barr's summary of the Mueller report, President Trump has not been completely exonerated on the issue of obstruction of justice:
Attorney General William Barr's inclusion of the phrase “does not exonerate” in his summary on Sunday afternon of the Mueller report has become a much-needed security blanket for liberal journalists. For the past 24 hours, CNN analysts, commentators, correspondents, and hosts have clung to the phrase, repeating it ad nauseam in a vain attempt to reassure themselves that maybe — just maybe — President Trump might still be found guilty of obstruction of justice.
MRC analysts looked at the past 24 hours of CNN coverage (from 5:00 p.m. Eastern on March 24 to the same time the following day), and found a total of 120 instances in which hosts or other journalists asserted that President Trump had not been exonerated. Those 120 cases did not include quotes from Democratic politicians or other explicitly partisan sources.
About one third of those 120 instances were journalists reading aloud the same phrase found in Barr’s summary of the Mueller report, which read:
…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Every show featured at least one direct reading of that line, while some uttered it at a considerably higher rate.
That's right -- D'Agostino is mad that CNN directly quoted from Barr's letter.
D'Agostino then cast doubt upon whether that claim was even true: "As far as the veracity of the claim that the President has not been exonerated? That’s only true of [sic] one believes Special Counsel Mueller is the only individual capable of doling out said exoneration. Mueller himself left the determination of whether to prosecute President Trump for obstruction of justice up to the Attorney General, who in turn determined that the President was not guilty of any such crime."
So, apparently, it's OK if the media reports a false claim as long as it makes Trump look good.
AIM Justifies Right-Wing Attacks on AOC Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a March 25 Accuracy in Media post, Brian McNicoll took offense to a writer, Zach Beauchamp, who believes that repeated right-wing media attacks on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are driving down her popularity numbers. McNicoll huffed in response with, yes, right-wing attack lines:
It’s not that she has threatened to recruit primary opponents for Democrats not sufficiently socialist for her taste. It’s not that she has proposed a massive government takeover of the energy and construction industries that could cost as much as $94 trillion in the first decade – the entire U.S. federal budget now is less than $5 trillion – and that could not garner a single vote in the U.S. Senate.
Or that early drafts of the deal called for people to be paid with taxpayer dollars if they are “unable or unwilling to work” and that all jobs should be unionized.
Or another bizarre line of questioning when she tried to get a Wells Fargo Bank executive to admit responsibility for a spill on a pipeline that had not even opened.
When Beauchamp noted that Ocasio-Cortez has gotten "disproportionate attention" for a first-term congresswoman in right-wing media -- and garnering more mentions then Democratic presidentical candidates -- McNicoll insisted right-wingers are just scrutinizing her more closely because she's a "threat":
A more likely explanation is Republicans have paid better attention to her policy proposals and realize the threat they pose to the U.S. economy. Beauchamp points to the fact she has been mentioned more on Fox News than Democrat presidential candidates, such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
But Warren and Sanders largely have stuck to their scripts in terms of policy. It has been Ocasio-Cortez who has proposed measures that pose the most serious threat.
McNicoll conclued by insisting that right-wingers like him attack Ocasio-Cortez not because they "hate and fear her" but because she "has the most disturbing policies."
CNS Blogger Hides Fact Mueller Probe Is Largely Paying For Itself Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister rewrites a press release in a March 25 CNSNews.com blog post:
Taxpayers didn’t get their money’s worth from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s $25 million investigation into President Donald Trump, a new Rasmussen Reports surveyshows.
More than half of those surveyed in the national poll of 1,000 likely voters, conducted March 25-26, 2019, said taxpayers did not “get a good return on their investment” – double those who said they did:
But Rasmussen didn't its poll respondents -- and, thus, Bannister didn't tell his readers -- that the Mueller investigation is likely to nearly break even, if not actually turn a profit, because of the assets seized from defendants in the investigation, mainly former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. He has surrendered assets valued at $26.7 million, including an apartment in Trump Tower and an estate in the Hamptons.
In other words, Mueller's investigation has largely paid for itself, which is a very good return on investment by any definition, particularly when it involves a government probe. Too bad Bannister didn't feel the need to tell his readers the full truth.
WND Can't Stop Lying About Margaret Sanger Topic: WorldNetDaily
If there's one thing WorldNetDaily loves to do at least as much as spreading conspiracy theories, it's spreading lies about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Spoo much so, in fact, that two WND columnists told similar lies about her on the very same day.
Mychal Massie ranted in a March 25 column of failed satire:
As Christians, we can rationalize our support for baby killing, selective though it may be, as doing God’s work. After all, Obama invoked God’s name saying, “God bless Planned Parenthood” because they do “good work.” Hillary Clinton calls murdering unborn babies “humane.” Clinton also lauded baby killing as a “fundamental human right.”
We can invoke the exact same language Margaret Sanger used when referencing blacks, the poor and immigrants. We’ll call the babies we’re targeting “human weeds.” We’ll argue it’s forward thinking to prevent our families from knowingly having babies with genes that indicate homosexuality and undesirable abnormal behavioral genes. By killing them as they’re being born we prevent what Sanger called, “reckless breeders, spawning … human beings who never should have been born.”
We’ll claim Sanger’s words for our purposes. Sanger said: “The most successful educational appeal to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea of it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger, 1939).
Massie is not only spreading the lie that Sanger referred to blacks (or anyone else) as "human weeds," he's falsely taking that "exterminate the Negro population" out of context -- as we've documented, the full context of that statement involved recruiting black leaders for Sanger's "Negro Project," which aimed to bring birth control to black communities, to allay suspicions blacks might have had about whites like Sanger being involved.
That was joined by Larry Tomczak's column the same day shilling for the anti-abortion film "Unplanned," in which he engaged in the same false propaganda:
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist who influenced Hitler, declaring, “We want a world freer, happier, cleaner – we want a race of thoroughbreds!” She strategically established her first clinic in Harlem in 1930 because that’s where the black people she labeled “human weeds” lived. She described it as “an experimental clinic established for the benefit of the colored people.”
Planned Parenthood “clinics” love to prey on the plight of poor black women. That’s why they plant many of their abortion chambers in their neighborhoods.
To learn more about Sanger who wanted to “exterminate the Negro population” and her multimillion dollar organization that still is supported by your and my tax dollars (this must be stopped!), I encourage you to read a book written by my friend Dr. George Grant, “Killer Angel: a Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger.
Actually, Sanger opened her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. While Sanger did open a clinic in Harlem in 1930, it was supported by black leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois and Mary McLeod Bethune and the city's leading African American newspaper.
Tomczak is also lying when he claims "many" abortion clinics are in black neighborhoods; in fact, the majority are in white neighborhoods.
And that book Tomczak is recommending? Don't trust it. For instance, Grant claims the term "human weeds" appears in Sanger's book "The Pivot of Civilization" (it does not) and tries to argue that the "Negro Project" strategy "was of course racial" with the goal of getting blacks "to cooperate in their own elimination," the opposite what Sanger researchers have found. Grant also smears Sanger as a slut, asserting without evidence that "She went from one lover to another, sometimes several in a single day."
Publishing such easily debunked lies does not do anything to restore trust and credibility to WND.
MRC Thinks Chick-fil-A Was 'Smeared' Because Anti-Gay Donations Were Accurately Reported Topic: Media Research Center
When is telling the truth a smear? When someone reports accurately on the political activities of a fast-food chain.
The headline on Gabriel Hays' April 1 Media Research Center post blared, "NY Airport Bans Chick-Fil-A Over Malicious ThinkProgress Smear." What was that "smear"? ThinkProgress accurately reported that Chick-fil-A Chick-fil-A donated $1.8 million in 2017 to organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Salvation Army, as well as to other anti-gay organizations, and the airport in Buffalo, N.Y., declined to allow a Chick-fil-A restaurant based on that reporting.
Accurate reporting that has consequences? That will not do for Hays, who went into a frothing rant:
Another airport has just banned Chick-Fil-A from setting up shop on account of the fast food chain’s financial ties with Christian groups. Buffalo, New York’s regional airport just followed a San Antonio airport’s lead in being delusional enough to trust the judgment of crazy lefty outlet ThinkProgress and banned Chick-Fil-A on account of their supposed anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
ThinkProgress wrote about the latest installment of #boycottChickFilA with all the smugness of someone who just cheated their way to victory and got away with it -- which is, of course, what the outlet’s crazed lefty journalists did. They claimed the company promoted “anti gay positions” via donations to Christian non-profits and now more pencil-necked lawmakers feel the need to embrace the petty outrage game.
“Setback?” How cute. To think that a boycott by a few deranged progressives will slow down Chick-Fil-A’s momentum is absurd. How delicious will it be when these people are found to be discriminating against the proud Christian chain for its religious affiliation?
For those of you counting at home, that four whacked-out attacks on ThinkProgress in three paragraphs: two variations of "crazy," one reference to "deranged," and a claim that it "cheated their way to victory and got away with it."
Hays then rushed to Chick-fil-A's defense, denying it was targeting the LGBT community with the donations, and besides, the company can donate to anyone it wants:
Chick-Fil-A feels that it has every right to donate to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Salvation Army, for example. Still, ThinkProgress spun the negativity, claiming that the franchise’s donation of “$1.8 million in 2017” to such Christian groups amounts to an attack on LGBTQ rights. Yes, these groups believe in traditional marriage, but that is their prerogative as well as it’s Chick-Fil-A’s. It also certainly doesn’t mean that LGBTQ employees or customers are in Chick-Fil-A’s crosshairs.
It’s just heavy spin to destroy a political enemy and, in the case of the ThinkProgress-inspired San Antonio Chick-Fil-A ban, investigations are underway to prove it was an unfair hitjob.
Spinning things in order to destroy a political enemy? Isn't that what Hays is trying to do to ThinkProgress here?
This is not the first meltdown Hays has had over accurate reporting. When the San Antonio airport similarly declined to allow Chick-fil-A a slot over the donations a couple weeks earlier, Hays declared that the company is "Jesus-loving" and "may actually believe in biology," then reframed the anti-LGBT stance of evangelical Christians in order to portray them as victims: "Traditional Christians tend to stick with the belief that homosexuality is not an optimal life choice, so of course LGBTQ groups want them wiped off the map -- even at the expense of free speech or freedom of religion." Hays also claimed ThinkProgress was engaged in "bullying" by, yes, accurately reporting the company's anti-LGBT leanings.
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' New Authoritarian Friends Topic: CNSNews.com
The Trump-lovers at CNSNews.com embrace right-wing foreign leaders who are trying to emulate Trump but have even more extreme policies. Read more >>
Newsmax's Hirsen Cheers On The Myth Behind The 'Unplanned' Movie Topic: Newsmax
James Hirsen spent his March 25 Newsmax column gushing over the then-upcoming movie "Unplanned," cheering on the story it tells:
The movie boldly tells the true story of Abby Johnson, one of the youngest individuals in the country to ever have served as a Planned Parenthood clinic director.
After working at an abortion clinic for eight years and winning an “Employee of the Year” award, Abby had the enormously disturbing yet incredibly enlightening experience of having to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. What she witnessed was absolutely horrendous: a tiny baby inside the womb, who was in the struggle of his or her life, having to suffer through the gruesomeness of dismemberment.
Following the experience, Abby summoned up the courage necessary to leave her financially lucrative position and extensive employment stint. She walked away from the nation’s largest abortion provider and set out to launch a ministry that would help other former Planned Parenthood employees to transition out of abortion related work.
Except that's not the "true story" at all. As we documented, Planned Parenthood has stated that there were no ultrasound-guided abortions on the day that Johnson claims, Johnson did not assist on any abortion that day, and the only abortion patient that day who comes closest to the person described in Johnson's story was too early in her pregnancy to require the use of ultrasound. (Johnson stands by her version of the story and suggested Planned Parenthood doctored records to make her look bad.)
The rest of Hirsen's column is straight PR for the movie as well, parroting the producers' complaints that the film got an R rating for graphic scenes and complaining that "a teenage girl can obtain an actual abortion without her parent’s permission, but the same teenage girl is not allowed admission into a theater, minus the supervision of an adult, to view a film that includes a scene that merely depicts the real life procedure." Sticking to the script, Hirsen doesn't dare ask why the producers couldn't simply make cuts to the scene to achieve a PG rating.
Hirsen concluded his column with an over-the-top endorsement: "In honor of all the babies who have had to endure the procedure that Abby witnessed and worse, let’s all go see 'Unplanned,' and perhaps we can escort some teens and other youth who are secondary victims in this whole abortion tragedy."