CNS Pushes Idea That Biden Doesn't Really Want To Be President Topic: CNSNews.com
Add Joe Biden to the list of Democratic politicians CNSNews.com has covered in a bizarre or mocking way. Susan Jones writes in a July 5 article:
Former Vice President Joe Biden, now making a third run for his party's presidential nomination, seemed to raise the possibility that he may not make it this time, either.
In a Fourth of July speech in Iowa, Biden told the crowd, "If Donald Trump has eight years in the White House, he's going to forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation. And we can't let that happen, period," Biden said to applause.
"Whether or not I'm your nominee, and I hope I will be your nominee, I'm going to work like the devil, whoever the nominee is if it's not me, to see to it that doesn't happen..."
This is under the meaningless teaser headline "Biden: 'Whether or Not I'm Your Nominee...'"
Of course, Jones is simply apply her own right-wing bias to Biden's words. Biden is simply saying that the goal of the Democrats is to oust President Trump in 2020, and he's realistic enough to note that while he may or may not be that person, keeping eyes on the prize is the important thing.
But in Jones' biased eyes, acknowledging reality gets twisted into a suggestion he's not really serious about running for president or is expecting to lose.
MRC's Double Standard On Calling A Conservative Journalist A 'Conservative Journalist' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh gets all huffy in a July 2 post:
When you’re a liberal and you fabricate a ludicrous story painting conservatives as the violent aggressors with absolutely zero evidence, your story gets nationwide media coverage for weeks on end with little scrutiny. If you’re a conservative clearly attacked on video by leftists, with corroborating witnesses however, you story is given scarce attention and cast with doubt by the media. We saw that this week with Quillette journalist Andy Ngo, whose assault by Antifa members was captured on video, yet CNN repeatedly qualified the incident as just “his word.”
“Conservative journalist assaulted says Antifa behind attack,” the chryon read on screen (emphasis mine). First off, anyone with two eyes can see clearly what happened, it’s not a matter of he said or she said. Second, why the “conservative” qualifier? Would CNN have called Ngo a “liberal” journalist who “says” he was attacked, if this had happened at a Trump rally?
We'd take Marsh's outrage at face value, but for the fact that the day before, the MRC identified Ngo as ... a conservative journalist.
"Conservative Journalist Andy Ngo Recounts Vicious Assault By Antifa" was the headline of Nicholas Fondacaro's July 1 post, adding: "On Saturday, conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who reports for Quillette, was brutally beaten with fists and weapons and doused with milkshakes laced with quick-dry cement by the left-wing, domestic terrorist group Antifa." Foncacaro's post even carries the "Conservatives and Republicans" tag (curiously missing frpm Marsh's post).
Of course, if Ngo wasn't a "conservative journalist," the MRC wouldn't be working so hard to exploit the incident (it helps that Ngo himself is eager to exploit it to boost his media profile). It crankedout a slew of its patented "a narrow slice of media didn't cover X, so that proves it's biased" post whining that Ngo's attack wasn't covered. Curtis Houck huffed that a CNN story "was spun with Ngo being dubbed a 'conservative blogger' and mentioned alongside white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys."
It's OK for the MRC to identify Ngo as a "conservative" but it's somehow bias and spin for a non-conservative outlet to do the same thing? We're confused.
WND Columnist Gushes Over Putin's Russia Topic: WorldNetDaily
A few years back, we noted how WorldNetDaily columnists were demonstrating their love for Valdimir Putin's Russia, what with the anti-gay crackdowns, the squelching of dissent and the ogling over the manly specimen that is Putin. That love affair hasn't really abated.
'Hanne Nabintu Herland devoted her July 3 WND column to gushing over Russia, delcaring that "Over 80 percent in the former atheist USSR now believe in God, >probably constituting the greatest revival of Christianity in our time," while "somehow the left in America got so tired of individual freedom and the Constitution, they now crave to become a socialist state where the elite has total control over national revenues, the media, the public, the universities." She copntinued to gush:
So, today Russia is a traditionalist, religion-friendly, capitalist society that remembers its history and honors its historic heroes: the precise values that makes the American establishment and its mainstream media puke. Russia’s turn from Leninism to Christian Orthodoxy has largely happened under president Vladimir Putin, who is so demonized in the atheist Western press that it is almost impossible to Google his name and find unbiased facts.
In the U.S., very few are even aware of the massive revival that is happening in Russia as millions have turned to their cultural roots in Eastern Orthodoxy in the past years. 25,000 churches all over Russia, Putin on repeated pilgrimages to Mount Athos in Greece and so on.
Actually, Putin's Russia is a crony capitalist system run by oligarchs with Putin's blessing (and profiting off the scheme) that suppresses dissent, sometimes violently, as LGBT activists have discovered. And Herland describing Russia as "religion-friendly" ignores that pretty much the only religion it's friendly to is the Russian Orthodox Church, effectively the state religion, and is hostile to even other Christian religions.
Herland did aver that "Russia is far from perfect, still battling corruption, elitism and its own vices," but she didn't mention Putin's role in said corruption and elitism; she was too eager to return to gush mode over how "an address by President Putin at the 2013 Valdai Summit illustrates the million miles between the borderless relativism most Western politicians seem to promote and the Russian way of thinking."
NEW ARTICLE -- CNS' Managing Editor of Gay-Bashing: 2019 Edition Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman has been spewing hate at the LGBT community for years, and he's continuing to use his Media Research Center-provided platform to spew more of it. Read more >>
Newsmax Columnist Somehow Blames Obama For HIV Among Gay Black Men Topic: Newsmax
Former NFL player Jack Brewer goes on a weird little tirade in his July 12 Newsmax column:
I’m all for equal rights for gays and lesbians, but I think the large campaign donations hypnotized Obama to prioritize gay marriage over bringing quality education and criminal justice reform to the ancestors of our ailing former slave population. I’m sure both were important issues to him at some level, but in politics you have to prioritize as all presidents know they are on a short timeline.
The debate is still out there as to whether the Obama years brought the country farther from our Christian foundation.
I applaud President Obama for openly saying Jesus and quoting powerful scripture on many occasions. I was just a little bothered by his policies, which too often went against the word of God.
Obama stuck to his commitment to the LGBTQ community when he backed unprecedented legislation that expanded the sacred biblical “marriage” characterization to gay and transgender couples. I just think we could have given all Americans their deserved equal rights without challenging the biblical definition of marriage. Now homosexuality is on super speed in the black community where you see a surge in gay black males particularly in urban communities like Atlanta, LA, and throughout the south.
The CDC recently reported that 50% of black gay men will contract HIV, which is scary given the growing gay lifestyle promotion as a result of the Pride movement. Despite being only 12% of the population, blacks make up 43% of those infected with HIV in America. This epidemic can’t be ignored and we can’t deny the results of a culture that promotes sex and homosexuality as things that are publicly glorified.
In short: Brewer is mad that Obama didn't hate the LGBT commmunity as much as he does, and he offered no evidence that ceasing to hate gay people has created more of them or caused an increase in HIV infections. Also, allowing gays to marry does not "challenge the biblical definition of marriage"; it expands it. Further, there are numerous reasons that gay black men are at a higher risk of HIV that don't involve "promotion" of the "lifestyle."
Brewer also complained:
The Obama administration chose to pour food stamps on our most underserved with few effective programs to incentivize our impoverished to go to work. Obama ironically boasted about giving out more food stamps than any other president in U.S. history. You can’t make this up.
Brewer didn't mention that the country was recovering from a recession for much of Obama's presidency, and he doesn't explain how cutting off food stamps to those who needed them would have helped things.
Though Brewer proclaimed himself to be a "lifelong Democrat" who supported Obama (until he stopped hating gays, apparently), he's basically a pro-Trump shill here. In praising Trump for signing the First Step Act, he bashed Bill Clinton and Joe Biden for supporting the "evil" 1994 crime bill, ignoring that the bill had the support of many black officials at the time, as well as bipartisan political support. He also didn't mention that the First Step Act had bipartisan support too.
And, lo and behold, on July 21 Brewer tweeted thanks to Trump "for taking so much time to meet with me this weekend to discuss tackling the critical issues affecting blacks in America." If the reason Brewer sucked up to Trump was to get a meeting with him, he succeded.
MRC Seems To Be Making Things Up In Assigning Ideology To Debate Questions Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center did its best to try and work the refs ahead of the Democratic presidential debate in June -- but, as usual it refuses to complete show its work in assigning ideology to the questions asked at the debate.
Geoffrey Dickens kicked things off in a June 24 item by demanding that NBC and affiliated networks ask questions with a right-wing bias: "If they are to match what their colleagues did with Republican candidates in 2015, they should ask questions designed to humiliate, badger and paint them as not ready for prime time, cartoonish, out-of-touch extremists." Dickens refused to acknowledge that the questions asked of the Republicans were legitimate even though they put the candidates on the spot.
After the first night of the debate, the MRC was quick to frame anything non-conservative as a pejorative. Scott Whitlock declared that "the NBC and MSNBC hosts" asking questions "catered to the party's far-left base, offering questions about just how to take guns away from Americans, the need for aggressive action on climate change and repeated questions about how the nominee would fight the looming threat of Mitch McConnell."
Rich Noyes followed up by falsely conflating "left-wing," hard-edged leftism" and "liberal," asserting: "A Media Research Center analysis finds 39 of the questions at the debate echoed liberal talking points or were framed around a liberal world view, vs. only five that challenged liberal/Democratic assumptions. Another 15 questions were framed in a neutral fashion, or were neutral follow-ups to previous questions.?" Noyes never explained how the MRC made these decisions, though he linked to Whitlock's post containing a complete list of questions.
Noyes followed up after the second night of the debatye with more of the same:
After two nights, NBC/MSNBC has proved that they deserve the nickname “MSDNC.” The twenty Democrats who made the presidential debate stage were treated to questions that were wildly skewed (69%) to the left, with only a scant 13% challenging the candidates to defend their outside-the-mainstream views, a five-to-one disparity.
A Media Research Center analysis finds 70 of the 102 distinct questions at the two debates echoed liberal talking points or were framed around a liberal world view, vs. only 13 that challenged liberal/Democratic assumptions. Another 19 questions were framed in a neutral fashion, or were neutral follow-ups to previous questions.
here’s a reason why these debates are moderated by (supposedly) independent journalists, who are supposed to challenge the candidates, rather than party insiders who would want to present both the candidates and the party’s platform in as favorable a light as possible.
But it’s hard to see how NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo’s approach was at all different than a debate moderated by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and other liberal Democratic bigwigs. Real journalists should gag at the two-night display of bias.
Noyes again failed to explain the MRC's alleged methodology, nor did he provide evidence that any view of any Democratic candidate -- let alone all of them, as he seems to be claiming -- is "outside-the-mainstream." Its standards here are purely subjective: a question was deemed "liberal" seemingly because it needed a big number of "liberal" questions to make the so-called analysis exploitable for politial purposes.
If Noyes can't offer a sound, scientifically valid methodology for determining "bias," we have to come to the conclusion that the MRC is simply making things up, letting their own right-wing opinions color their judgment and are motivated only by partisan politics designed to advance its anti-media agenda.
WND Frames Transgenderism As A Disease Topic: WorldNetDaily
The LGBT-haters at WorldNetDaily do an interesting but of framing in an anonymously written June 27 article, suggesting that transgender people are "victims" of gender dysphoria, which they "suffer" from:
An organization that monitors the readiness of the U.S. military is opposing an amendment to a defense spending bill that would allow gender dysphoria victims in the ranks.
The military disallowed people who suffer gender dysphoria – defined clinically as persistent feelings of identification with another gender and discomfort with one’s own assigned gender – until President Obama changed the policy with an executive order. President Trump reversed the order, but courts have ruled in favor of military personnel with gender dysphoria.
In keeping with its history of journalistic bias, WND quotes only right-wing anti-gay groups attacking efforts to reverse Trump's ban: Elaine Donnelly's Center for Military Readiness and the Family Research Center, "whose leadership includes experts in military matters." WND repeated unchallenged the FRC's assertion that "People with gender dysphoria should be excluded because it’s a specific medical diagnosis, and 'it is associated with significant mental health problems.'"
Such blatant bias is not the sort of thing that inspires confidence in the integrity of WND's journalism or the idea that it deserves to live.
Now That Carl Cameron's No Longer At Fox News, MRC Goes On The Attack Topic: Media Research Center
When longtime Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron announced he had joined a website operation that declared it would be the liberal answer to the right-wing Drudge Report, we knew the Media Research Center would lash out at him following the decades of protection that was afforded him as a Fox News employee. Tim Graham does the deed in a June 25 post:
For decades, Carl Cameron was a top political reporter for Fox News. But now he says he left because "right-wing hosts drowned out straight journalism with partisan misinformation."
He said this in a promotional video for a new left-wing website called Front Page Live, which hopes to be the "antidote" to the Drudge Report. "What’s a former Fox guy doing here on Front Page Live partnering with progressives? Well, it’s about facts, not partisanship." But Cameron sounds a lot like partisan networks like CNN and MSNBC in this video.
Anyone glancing at this website sees sections on "#Climate Crisis" and "#RadicalRight." It's an attempt at Drudge for liberals. Except Cameron promised there would be "ACT NOW" buttons for people to get involved in campaigns. They link to articles pushing concepts like "The Green New Deal is surprisingly popular."
When Cameron pointed ot that Trump did, in fact, "collude and coordinate with Russia to get elected" and is endangering democracy, Graham couldn't offer any facts in response but instead just sneered, "Riiiight."
Prior to this, the only time we could find that the MRC ever criticized Cameron was in a 2008 post claiming that he "took the low road" by "repeating rumors and gossip from unnamed staffers in the McCain camp about Sarah Palin: her knowledge, temperament, being a shopoholic, etc." in a "somewhat fevered manner." Funny how one becomes an MRC target once you veer from right-wing orthodoxy or, as Cameron has ultimately done, escape the right-wing Fox News media bubble completely.
Consider this yet another reminder that the MRC doesn't give a damn about journalism and cares only about forcing the media to embrace only right-wing narratives.
Alveda King Pushes Partisan Attacks In July 4-Related Column Topic: CNSNews.com
Anti-abortion activist Alveda King used her Independence Day-related column -- published July 3 at CNSNews.com, which managed to avoid gracing her with the false "Dr." title, because her doctorate is honorary and not earned -- to make a decidedly partisan political statement. First, she lashed out at Democratic presidential candidates advocating reparations for blacks:
Currently, presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is most fervently backing reparations. The self-help guru and spiritual adviser wants to set aside $200 billion to $500 billion for a reparations program. She’s not offering to foot the bill personally.
Meanwhile, Senator and presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren is rooting for reparations for Blacks, Native Americans and Gays. The other candidates running against President Trump, including Senators Corey Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, are also backing tax-payer funded reparations for descendants of former American slaves.
All of these candidates are fully in favor of tax-payer funded abortion laws that help to disproportionately kill the very population they say they are trying to repair. How can you repair people by aborting them?
King then diverted to praising the anti-abortion film "Maafa 21," which she says "documents that, in the 1800s, ultra-wealthy white elitists financed the eugenics movement as a way to rid the country of freed blacks. It also documents the following: (a) this campaign has been in place every day since then; (b) it is still being carried out today; (c) it has inflicted demonstrable harm on the existing African-American community’s personal, societal, familial, financial and political well-being; (d) the plans for this effort – including its intentional targeting of this racial group – were widely publicized by those responsible; and (e) the [fruits of the] perpetrators still exist, [and] are easily identified and have enormous wealth in both cash and other assets."
In fact, "Maafa 21" has been criticized for its selective and distorted reading of history, with one critic calling it "an exceedingly dishonest propaganda exercise, one that aims to convince African Americans that both family planning and evolutionary theory are part of a massive conspiracy against them."
Ultimately, though, King's column is piece of pro-Trump propaganda. After praising Trump for opposing reparations, she writes:
Thinking back, I remember that while seeking the votes of the American people, President Trump asked African American voters an open-ended question: “What do you have to lose?” I remember following up on his question with this request to our very forward-thinking president: “Sir. Please tell us what we have to gain.”
Not only has President Trump told us, he has shown us gains in the job markets, for the sanctity of life, for religious freedom, through criminal justice reform, and so much more. America is on the mend.
Further, President Trump speaks to all Americans, including African Americans when he says, “[W]hether we are black, or brown, or white, we all bleed the same red blood” and that “[i]n America, we don’t worship government. We worship God.” From this perspective, goals that involve partnerships among the governments, private sector and people of faith would be a good start. If we are really listening, perhaps we will hear an invitation to seek God and not humans, and pray for the guidance for solutions to bring justice and the jubilee that will be required to make the wrongs right in America’s Reparations Saga.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
How is the Media Research Center going into LGBT freakouts these days? Let us count the ways.
Alexander Hall insisted that Google CEO Sundar Pichai was "pandering" to his LGBT employees and cared only about "maintaining politically correct status" by saying in a memo that he would consult "many groups, including people who have themselves experienced harassment" in setting future company policy in the wake of right-winger Steven Crowder's rampant homophobia against gay journalist Carlos Maza. Hall didn't frame if that way, of course; to him, Crowder is just a "conservative comedian" who was merely "making jokes at [Maza's] expense." Hall went on to sneer: "The memo didn’t mention how conservative employees feel excluded after their favorite YouTubers were banned from the platform or demonetized. " Hall did not name any YouTuber who was banned or deplatformed merely for expressing conservative views (unless he's counting homophobia as a conservativ value).
Jorge Plaza complained that author Nicholas Sparks was being unfairly attacked after a lawsuit by the former headmaster of a Christian academy Sparks co-founded exposed communications in which Sparks was trying to shut down diversity efforts at the school, including forbidding the formation of an LGBT club. Plaza lamented that the lawsuit "fit too perfectly into the media’s narrative: Christian organizations are racist, sexist, bigotted, and homophobic."
Alexis Moutevalis Coombs furthered the MRC's Taylor Swift-bashing by complaining about the video for Swift's song "You Need To Calm Down," which featured "dozens of (mostly) LGBT celebrity cameos" and "virtue-signals with shots of angry, illiterate, toothless hicks protesting and holding signs that say, 'Get A Brain Morans!' and 'Homasekualty Is Sin!'" Coombs did take pleasure, however, in some people on "the left" criticizing the video.
Karen Townsend was hate-watching Freefom's "Good Trouble" when she came across a transgender Hispanic character named Jazmin being given a quinceanera-type ceremony:
The episode is a vehicle for the LGBTQ activists in Hollywood to promote their social agenda. Jazmin’s family is having difficulty dealing with her transition and the father is cast in a poor light. The far left still doesn’t get it – transgenderism is not normal behavior. Most Americans feel as the Martinez family does – it is a struggle to come to grips with this situation from a loved one.
The storyline is also a chance to virtue-shame over the ban on transsexuals in the military. Many Americans disagree with transsexuals serving openly in the military, including President Trump. Jazmin tells the party-goers that her quinceañera is an opportunity to fundraise for The Center for Transgender Veterans. She says there are 134,000 trans military veterans, including 15,000 currently serving. The fundraiser raises $10,000 for the fight to end the military ban. And the young people watching this show are further indoctrinated.
As if Townsend isn't attempting anti-transgender indoctrination here.
Gabriel Hays lost it when current "Spider-Man" Tom Holland said he would be open to the superhero being gay, going on to attack Marvel Studios' "inclusive" vision for its superhero franchises, complaining that a "very minor gay character" in "Avengers: Endgame" was "a giant leap for the homosexual agenda being uploaded into the psyches of young comic book fans. Who knows? We may well soon be privy to seeing Spidey in some new rainbow colored digs. And we’re all just going to love it."
The mysterious Jay Maxson whined in a rant against "Big LGBT":
"The story" of Wimbledon so far has been 15-year-old Floridian Coco Gauff. Ranked 313th in the world, she is a wildcard entry who stunned her idol Venus Williams and also made an amazing comeback to defeat Polona Hercog. So who is Timemagazine's Wimbledon coverage focusing on? Why, it's the history-making first lesbian couple playing together in the famed tournament!
And you thought you could escape from the LGBT-in-your-face media frenzy by switching the channel from the lesbian-dominated World Cup women's soccer tournament to Wimbledon tennis. No dice!
Hays returned to grouse that "RuPaul's Drag Race" was nominted for an Emmy, mocking: "No one can outdo RuPaul when it comes making crossdressing fun for the whole family, that’s for sure."
WND's Massie Serves Up Another Bad Rant, Plus Thesaurus-Diving Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie's July 8 WorldNetDaily column is purportedly about "why both the left and right lie," though it's suspiciously silent on the five-digit amount of falsehoods spread by the current leader of the right, President Trump. Massie did go to his thesaurus to pull out the term "Erebusic marplots," then goes on this little rant:
Today American politics is about duplicitous dishonesty on an unprecedented scale. Politics is about getting away with committing treasonous betrayals and having others pay the price for your murderous political machinations.
Speaking of which, do you remember Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian, who was knowingly falsely accused of fomenting murder and mayhem on a global scale? Nakoula was imprisoned and ultimately reduced to “living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California.”
You probably are more familiar with Nakoula as the falsely accused filmmaker whose YouTube video was blamed by Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice and a torrid around-the-clock montage of false claims looped by the mainstream media as the singular primary reason for the Benghazi attack by terrorist Muslims.
Massie offered no evidence that Nakoula was "knowingly falsely accused" of inciting the Benghazi attack through his crappy film; that was a theory initially advanced by the intelligence community that was ultimately proven to be false, though it did apparently inspire (or was exploited as an excuse to engage in) protests that sometimes turned violent.
Massie also falsely portrays Nakoula as having been imprisoned because he made an anti-Muslim film. In fact, Nakoula is a criminal with a long rap sheet who was imprisoned for violating probation by using the internet in the form of uploading his film. Nakoula also deceived the actors in the film by letting them believe they were making something else and not that their performances would be re-dubbed into an anti-Muslim screed.
Further, the "homeless shelter" Nakoula was living in after serving his prison sentence (wher ehe had his own bedroom, not among the general population) was run by one Wiley Drake, an Obama birther who prayed for President Obama's death.
Massie then huffed that "It seems that the only thing the dark evils mentioned above hate more than the truth is President Trump," apparently oblivious to the fact that the real truth-hater here is Trump himself.
MRC Writer's Rant: There Isn't Enough Islamphobia In The Media! Topic: Media Research Center
Actor Riz Ahmed's complaint about "Islamophobic sentiment in the media" making it "really scary to be a Muslim right now" seriously set off Media Research Center writer Alexis Moutevelis Coombs -- to the point that she devoted a June 28 post to adding more Islamophobia to the media in a screed dedicated to shouting down Ahmed by insisting that, if anything, there isn't enough Islamphobia in the media and that Christians are the real victims:
Do you know where it is really, super scary to be a Muslim right now? In a Muslim nation where women aren’t allowed to work or go to school, where women face the threat of getting acid thrown in their faces or honor killings, and where everyone fears terrorism and persecution from their own government or another Islamic sect.
Did he seriously compare the U.S. wanting travel restrictions for a few Muslim-majority countries that have problems with terrorism and the U.K. voting to leave the European Union to Communist China’s human rights abuse of Uighur Muslims in real concentration camps?! The moral equivalence is astounding!
Ahmed encouraged the audience “to research how Muslims are represented on television and in movies in a data-driven, targeted, systemic way, so that ultimately Muslims aren’t only portrayed as terrorists or bogeymen.”
Having run MRC Culture’s On TV Blog for the last 4 years, I can tell you it is 100 percent false to claim Muslims are “only” portrayed as terrorists or bogeymen. In fact, Hollywood often bends over backwards to turn this stereotype on its head with storylines featuring positive Muslim characters in key roles – including a Muslim superhero, and innocent Muslims framed by white terrorists or victimized by evil racists -- including an innocent Guantanamo Bay detainee.
But Ahmed wasn’t done. “I think lives are quite literally at stake here,” he went on. “The representation of Muslims on screen — that feeds the policies that get enacted, the people that get killed, the countries that get invaded.”
In what world does he think decisions about policies and war are made because of how Hollywood portrays Muslims? The only representation of Muslims on screen that ever did that was the tv footage of 19 Islamist terrorist hijackers crashing planes in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on 9/11.
Meanwhile, Christians are the most persecuted religious in the world. With how hateful they are towards Christianity, maybe it’s time Hollywood reconsiders its representation of Christians on screen.
Coombs has pulled a fine combination of outrage and victimization. The MRC must be proud.
AIM To Mark 50th Anniversary With C-List Conservatives (Minus Scaramucci?) Topic: Accuracy in Media
A July 9 post by Carrie Sheffield announced that Accuracy in Media "is celebrating its 50th anniversary at a black-tie gala dinner November 13 at the National Press Club." The "special guest" list was a bit on the motley side, though, dominated by conservative C-listers like Diamond and Silk, Ben Carson, Daily Caller publisher Neil Patel and ever-so-brief Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.
The article gushed over founder Reed Irvine, but it was silent on longtime staffer Cliff Kincaid, who served AIM for three decades with his Obama derangement, white nationalism and homophobia until leaving abruptly in 2017 for reasons that have still yet to be explained publicly (Kincaid has claimed he left because it was "mismanaged").
But it appears there is now one less conservative C-lister on the guest list. A July 18 tweet touted the dinner again -- but without Scaramucci's name. When we responded to the Twitter post by asking what happened to Scaramucci, not only did AIM not respond, it went back to Sheffield's July 9 post to scrub Scaramucci's name from it and replace the faux invitation with a Mooch-free viersion. But as you can see, we saved a copy of the original Scaramucci-laden invite.
It was reported earlier in the day that Scaramucci had been disinvited from a Florida county GOP gathering because he (accurately) called President Trump's tweets attacking Democratic congesswomen of color "racially charged."
This isn't the first time AIM has disappared someone who suddenly became inconvenient. In 2015, AIM convened a "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" that was stacked with right-wing Obama-haters, birthers and conspiracy theories -- and one total fraud. In the midst of the so-called investigation, commission member Wayne Simmon's self-proclaimed career as a CIA operative was exposed as a fabrication; AIM moved quickly to scrub him from any reference to the commission while issuing only a brief statement arguing that "As with everyone charged with a crime or crimes in this country, he is innocent until proven guilty." (He was proven guilty, and AIM was silent about that too.)
As we've noted, the post-Kincaid AIM changed from conspiracy-obsessed craziness to just another boring pro-Trump website, which may not be an improvement. If the AIM gala's low-end guest list is any indication, it may not survive much beyond its 50th anniversary.
MRC's Graham, Bozell Also Try To Discredit Trump Sexual Assault Accuser Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center worked to assail the credibility of E. Jean Carroll, who accused President Trump of a sexual assault against her in 1994. That comes from the top, as demonstrated by the June 26 column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell.
They sneered that Carroll "vaguely guesses" when the assault took place then, after a noncommittal disavowal of the incident, played the Clinton Equivocation card:
That sounds horrible. We should all agree we want to have a president who is not a rapist. The liberals and the Trump haters turned the page back to when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton 20 years ago, insisting that conservatives made her a cause celebre.
Yes, that's true. But there's at least one important difference: the speed of the journalism.
Myers thoroughly investigated the allegation and had placed both Broaddrick and Clinton at the alleged location on that day — April 25, 1978, at the Camelot Hotel. Three female friends said Broaddrick had told them of this assault, and that she had a black and swollen lip. Liberals energetically attempted to ignore or knock Broaddrick's story in 1999.
But Graham and Bozell forget one key piece of evidence: Not only did Broaddrick spend 20 years denying that any such "rape" occured, she made a sworn affidavit to that effect to the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation of Clinton. As George Conway points out, Carroll's allegation sits on a much more solid foundation that Broaddrick's because of that sworn affidavit, as well as "the sheer number of claims that have now surfaced against Trump — claims in which women have accused Trump of engaging in unwelcome or forcible sexual conduct or assault against them."
Graham and Bozell didn't mention Conway's analysis, Broaddrick's sworn affidavit or the fact that at least 24 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct -- much more than the accusations against Clinton, whom they would like to assure you is the supposed gold standard for presidential misconduct.Instead, they whine that this story somehow proves that "most Americans think the 'news' media are partisan hacks who define what is "news" and what is not 'news' based on how it can advance (or inhibit) the left's crusade to fundamentally transform America."
Of course, they did not think that the things that discredit Broaddrick were "news" worth telling their readers.
Graham followed up the next day with a post bashing a newspaper article for asking why Carroll's accusation had little impact, complaining that it "made absolutely no reference to Carroll's strange interviews, like her insisting to Anderson Cooper that "most people" thought the concept of rape was 'sexy.' That kooky outburst seemed to cool the media's ardor for the story."
Needless to say, Graham did not mention Broaddrick or her credibility issues. Instead, he whined that the paper didn't initially publish "even though Clinton ended up settling with Jones for $850,000." Does this mean Graham is conceding that Trump committed adultery with a porn star because he paid her hush money?
Graham played the Clinton Equivocation further in a July 1 post complaining about CNN's Brian Stelter discussing Carroll's accusations: "Stelter set up Carroll with a very negative tweet from Donald Trump Jr called her a "nut job" -- instead of asking her skeptical questions about her wildly controversial claims. (He didn't recall that poor, patriarchy-oppressed Hillary called Monica Lewinsky a 'narcissistic Looney Tunes.')" Of course, if Lewinsky was to be believed, shouldn't Graham also beleive Carroll?
Nah -- that would require him putting the truth ahead of politics.
After Attack-Filled CNS Columns, Charlie Daniels Wants Us To Reject The 'Politics of Division' Topic: CNSNews.com
By dint of his friendship with Brent Bozell, Charlie Daniels has always been the Media Research Center's exception to its shut-up-and-sing policy regarding entertainers with political opinions. It helps, of course, that Daniels reliably spews right-wing talking points with a fair amount of venom; that's why he has a regular column at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com.
Take, for example, Daniels' attack on President Obama in his June 24 column:
I don’t think Barack Obama really wanted to see America be all it could be. I believe Obama saw America as a bully, as an expansionist nation forcing our will on the world at large, a repressive tyrant that needed to be brought down a notch or two and take its place in the New World Order, a placating, passive nation of repentant supplicants, forever apologizing for our greatness and paring it down by sharing it with the world.
I think the statements Obama made to describe those he so disagreed with and feared – the ones about people clinging to their “guns” or “religion” and that America is “no longer just a Christian nation” – most clearly define the disparity of his ideas about America.
Most all the people I associate with believe in Almighty God and own guns that they will never give up without a fight. And I don’t know where President Obama got his stats, but America is still, by and large, a Christian nation.
Daniels then gushed over Donald Trump, "a New York real estate developer and former television star – brash, abrasive, pugnacious, plain-spoken, and afraid of no one – who could trade punches with any politician or pundit, and who was willing to stand toe to toe with any detractor and insist that his concept of America was totally different from Obama, Clinton, et al. ... He was pro-gun, pro-Israel, embraced Christianity and told us that with the easing of regulations and some sane tax policy that the manufacturing jobs we had lost, or basically given away under Obama could be brought back on shore." Daniels seems bamboozled into thinking Trump has genuine convictions and is not simply doing what he thinks will get him votes and clicks.
I can’t bring myself to believe that there aren’t enough Americans alive who still remember the reality and abject failure of socialism and the wide path of human deprivation and suffering, shattered societies and failing dictatorships all socialist governments eventually morph into.
But behind all the high-flying phraseology and the inflated promises lies a world that actually differs little in philosophy from the plantation days, when a hand full of the elite who wield the power live in splendor with different health care plans, different benefit and retirement packages, different pay scales and different privileges than the lumped-together, one size fits all, numbered but unnamed masses who live under their thumb.
God forbid that that day should come, but the indications are strong that we are headed in that direction – a socialist America.
We could end up another deceived nation on the scrap heap of history.
But after peddling all that hate, Daniels suddenly decided he wanted to tone it down, trying to go all kumbaya in his July 1 column headlined "Can We All Put Aside Our Differences, Recommit Ourselves to Each Other, Our Nation?" which concluded:
In my opinion, what separates America today is that we dwell too much on the things we disagree on and not enough on the things we have in common, on what’s wrong instead of what’s right.
Yes, America has a lot of problems. Yes, there is injustice, inequality and unnecessary human suffering. Yes, there are many inequities, but we will never solve them as a divided people.
Can we just stop for a minute, put aside our differences, count our blessings, ignore the politics of division and recommit ourselves to each other and to our nation?
So, let’s start with me.
But before he got there, he was somewhat less than interested in setting aside differences, complaining that "the American dream has tarnished, which he blamed in part on how "the wanton taking of unborn human life is treated as casual as having a manicure." And that put-aside-our-differences blather differs greatly from the politics of division that dominated his two previous columns, which makes us wonder about his sincerity.
You want people to put aside their differences and ignore the politics of division? You first, Charlie.