CNS Entertains Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Topic: CNSNews.com
Patrick Goodenough started off his Feb. 19 CNSNews.com article in a somewhat promising way:
Did the coronavirus that emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year originate from a market where live animals were sold alongside seafood? Or is there another explanation – one that may be linked to China’s leading institute dealing with virology, virus pathology, and emerging infectious diseases?
Debates over the issue have been raging online, even as scientists around the world are, as Science News reported last week, “furiously exchanging data, including genetic details of viruses that have infected people.”
Conspiracy theories birthed by the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus, now named COVID-19, include claims of a Chinese bioweapon, deliberately or accidentally discharged.
Unfortunately, Goodenough felt the need to justify the existence of those conspiracy theories. He claimed that "Beijing’s poor record of transparency – in this and previous coronavirus outbreaks" was enough justification, touting how "some critics, while not necessarily promoting the notion of a bioweapon, are calling into question the assertion that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was the source. They are raising questions about a possible link with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located less than nine miles away."
He then gave space to Republican Rep. Tom Cotton to peddle that very conspiracy theory:
“So we don’t know where it originated. But we do know that we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level-4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”
“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there [at the WIV], but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” he continued. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”
Curiously -- since he's probably the closet thing to a real reporter CNS has -- Goodenough offered no pushback or balance, refusing to mention that people who know more about the subject than Cotton does have debunked his claim. The Washington Post reported:
In response to Cotton’s remarks, as well as in previous interviews with The Washington Post, numerous experts dismissed the possibility the coronavirus may be man-made.
“There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. “The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.”
Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is “highly unlikely” the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab.
“We don’t have any evidence for that,” said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering.
After Cotton’s Sunday remarks, Narang said, “These kinds of conspiracy theories are unhelpful.”
“I don’t think it’s particularly helpful, and it’s borderline irresponsible to — and it’s without evidence, so at this point it’s a conspiracy theory — peddle it,” he said. “Cotton should spend more time funding the agencies in the United States that can help contain and combat the virus rather than trying to assign blame.”
That seems like relevant informtion, but Goodenough apparently deemed it unnecessary for his article. Instead, he quoted Ebright from a Twitter thread suggesting that the coronavirus could have been "a natural accident or as a laboratory accidentand ignoring Ebright's statements in the Post denouncing the idea that the virus is an engineered bioweapon.
We hate to see Goodenough bowing to CNS' increasingly virulent right-wing bias, but that's what appears to be happening.
MRC Melts Down Over 'Throuple' Who Wants To Buy A House Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is vehementlyopposed to the mere existence of anyone who is not exclusively heterosexual, let alone allowing such a person to be depicted, in real life or fiction, in the media (at least not with a healthy dose of shame for being who they are). So when the HGTV show "House Hunters" featured a "throuple" looking for a suitable house, a meltdown was inevitable even though they were contributing to the Trump economy by buying a house. Crank up the sneering condescension, Alexa Moutevelis:
The nuclear family is so 20th Century. That’s what our culture is telling us repeatedly. The latest iteration comes from HGTV’s popular program House Hunters, which featured it’s very first “throuple” (a three-person polyamorous couple) in an episode that aired Wednesday night.
Just in time for Valentine's Day, the episode, titled “Three’s Not a Crowd in Colorado Springs,” introduced married couple Brian and Lori, who have two biological children together, and their partner Angelica “Geli.”
"I didn't plan on being in a relationship with a married couple, but it just happened very naturally, organically," Geli said. Yes, what could be more natural and organic than a three person relationship?
"The past four years, I've been living in Lori and Brian's house, so buying a house together, as a throuple, will signify, like, our next big step as a family of five rather than all four of them plus me," Geli said. Sounds like Geli has been a little jelly (jealous) of the original nuclear family. Those poor kids!
Moutevelis seemed to be encouraging residents of the city the throuple is moving to harass and shame them in her stead: "By the way, they might have some additional trouble fitting in, Colorado Springs is known as one of the most conservative cities in the country, home to Focus on the Family and the U.S. Air Force Academy.
Moutevelis concluded by whining that "Again, pushing polyamory is not a new cultural phenomenon. ... To get really weird, Freeform’s mermaid drama Siren even boasted an interspecies triad," before closing with one final sneer: "I don't even want to think about the latter happening in real life, let's just hope HGTV doesn't turn it into another special episode."
Moutevelis' obvious hatred undercuts any other message she might be trying to send.
For WND's Brown, There Is No Bottom Where Trump Is Concerned Topic: WorldNetDaily
We'vedetailed how WorldNetDailiyu columnist Michael Brown has made it more than abundantly clear that he'll ride or die with President Trump no matter how evil he gets, as long as he continues to deliver the goods that boost the right-wing agenda Brown supports. Brown summed it up again in his Feb. 5 column:
President Trump's State of the Union message, coupled with the Democratic response, reminds me of why I voted for Trump in 2016 – and why I plan to vote for him again in 2020. The contrasts are just too extreme. I am conscience-bound to vote against the radical left and to vote for the causes Trump will uphold. Everything else pales in comparison.
I am voting against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up the president's speech for the whole world to see.
And so, when I vote for Trump, I am voting against the socialism of potential Democratic nominee like Bernie Sanders. The effects of his proposed policies, along with those of other leading candidates, would be disastrous.
I feel conscience-bound to cast my vote, a vote that will be meaningful.
I am also voting against every Democrat (including Speaker Pelosi) who chose to sit rather than stand when the president called on Congress to ban late-term abortions.
My conscience doesn't allow me to skip the election because Trump does not live up to all my ideals. Nor does it allow me to cast a protest vote for another candidate who cannot possibly win.
Maybe that's what your conscience dictates, but not mine.
Brown tackled a thornier issue in his Feb. 14 column: "How should Christian conservatives respond to President Trump's statement that he would have no problem voting for a gay president?" But this ended up not being thorny at all -- in Brown's eyes, Trump's personal friendliness toward gays is outweighed by the anti-LGBT policies pushed under his adminstration:
Trump's policies have consistently pushed back against LGBT activism and for Christian conservative rights.
That's why last year, the HRC (the world's largest gay activist organization) labeled Trump the "worst president on LGBTQ issues ever."
To be clear, I stand against LGBT people being "attacked" or "targeted." But when the HRC uses that language, it often means this: "The Trump administration is pushing back against the radical extremism of queer activism." For that, I am glad.
Brown went further in his faux-sympathy tack, again cheering Trump's anti-LGBT polilcies while parenthetically adding: "Again, I have no joy in seeing those who identify as LGBT feel attacked. And I do not want them hurt. I simply believe that many of their goals are detrimental to the overall well-being of our society, which is why I oppose them."
Oh, knock it off. One of the acts under Trump that Brown is that, citing the HRC entry he quoted, "Less than two hours after Trump and his virulently anti-LGBTQ activist Vice President Mike Pence were sworn into office, all mentions of LGBTQ issues were removed from the official White House webpage." Acknowleding the existence of an entire group is "radical extremism"? And eliminating all mention of it is not an attack on that group?
Brown is overjoyed by the prospect of the Trump administration having a policy that Christians have and deserve more rights than non-Christians, undoubtedly helped along by "the nearly 200 conservative judges who have been appointed by Trump" Brown also gushed over.
Brown concluded: "That's one reason my vote for him in 2016 was justified. And that's why I believe my 2020 vote for him will be justified as well."
In short, there is no bottom, at least as long as Trump's policies hate the LGBT community as much as Brown does.
NEW ARTICLE: Drag Queens and Nonbinary and Cross-Dressers, Oh My! Topic: Media Research Center
It's not just transgenders: The Media Research Center's war on non-heterosexual people continues. Read more >>
CNS Once Again Wants To Make Sure You Know That Buttigieg Is Gay Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how the gay-haters at CNSNews.com are desperate to remind you that Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is gay and married to a man. With Buttigieg's emergence as a major candidate following a strong performance in the Iowa caucuses, CNS suddenly felt the need to drive home that message anew.
An anonymously written Feb. 7 article carried the headline "Buttigieg on What U.S. Looks Like to Teens: ‘They See Gay Nightclubs Opening Up Across the Country’" and made sure to warn readers: "Buttigieg himself is an avowed homosexual who is in a same-sex marriage." We suspect that CNS has never called anyone an "avowed heterosexual." The sexuality-obsessed hits kept coming after that, which made sure to rope in Buttigieg's "same-sex husband," Chasten (most of which, curiously, are anonymously written). Here's what CNS has published in just the two weeks since the Iowa caucuses:
That's 13 articles in two weeks directly or obliquely referencing Buttigieg's sexuality.
That onslaught was joined by CNS reproducing a Feb. 13 column by gay-hating WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown under the headline "I Will Say What the Political Leaders Cannot Say about Pete Buttigieg" in which he did exactly that: "Choosing an out and proud “married” gay man to run for president, let alone become president, would contribute to the further degeneration and moral confusion of our society along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights." (More on that later.)
By contrast, CNS published just a few articles about Buttigieg's political positions, most of which were cherry-picked and slanted to make him appear as liberal as possible:
Alveda King Descends Even Further Into Pro-Trump Sycophancy Topic: Newsmax
Alveda King's descent into pro-Trumpsycophancy has continued apace with her recent Newsmax columns.
In her Jan. 24 column, King gushed over President Trump speaking at the annual March for Life anti-abortion rally -- or as she put it, "we top the whole week off with the president of United States of America, Donald John Trump, in a historic event, addressing the crowd at the March for Life Rally under the authority and in the presence of God Almighty. Who could ask for anything more?" In her "llinks of interest" at the end of her column, she included someone talking on grifter evangelist Jim Bakker's show offering "Three Reasons Who [sic] God Chose Donald Trump."
King slobbered even more over Trump for his appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast in her Feb. 7 column:
[I]n a moment of heart-wrenching transparency, President Trump revealed the challenges of embracing agape love, by declaring "I’m trying."
For a brief political hiatus, all were prayerful. What a blessing.
My February week of prayer in Washington, D.C. ended at The Museum of The Bible with a delightful and uplifting oasis experience at An Evening to Inspire," an event taking place in the midst of this phenomenal week. Pray for America everyone.
Amidst skipped handshakes and emotional speech rip-ups, America experienced a week of prayer; spearheaded by non-other than our nation's 45th president.
To be honest, while President Trump chose to avoid shaking hands with his adversaries during the week of the impeachment saga, I must admit that I agree with his wisdom.
There is actually scripture covering that:
"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." (1 Timothy 5:22)
King took Trump's "I'm trying" out of context -- he was making meaningless blather pandering to the NPB audience for "the love they show to religion," adding, "They like people. And sometimes they hate people. I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m trying to learn." After that, he immediately ranted, "When they impeach you for nothing, then you’re supposed to like them? It’s not easy, folks." If King thinks Trump is showing "heart-wrenching transparency" or expressing any kind of genuine agape love by pandering to his audience, she is apparently very easily fooled.
King is so in thrall to Trump that not only did she rewrite his words to make him more honest than he is, she found a Bible verse to justify his petulant refusal to shake hands during his State of the Union address.
That's the very definition of a Trump sycophant.
(Oh, and Newsmax is still letting Trump call herself "Dr." even though her doctoral degree is honorary.)
MRC Embraces Roger Stone Conspiracy Theory Topic: Media Research Center
For an operation that tends to pride itself on being in the respectable part of the conservative spectrum, the Media Research Center sure felt the need to glom onto a conspiracy theory involving a friend of President Trump. Nicholas Fondacaro rants to set the scene in a Feb. 13 post:
Tameka Hart, the forewoman in the federal trial against Roger Stone, was exposed on Wednesday by Daily Caller investigative reporter Chuck Ross for once being a Democratic candidate for Congress, on top of being a staunch anti-Trump opponent. While the story continued to spread online, the liberal broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) tried to hide the revelation from their viewers.
On Thursday, the networks continued to insist (via obsession) that the only controversy with the case was Attorney General William Barr requesting a shorter incarceration period than what prosecutors were demanding.
A simple review of Hart’s Twitter account proves how politically motivated she was by far-left politics.
Jeffrey Lord followed two days later complaining that Hart is "a far left wing activist" and whining: "A biased, left-wing activist, anti-Trump, anti-Stone juror on the Stone jury? Ho-hum. Nothing to report here, move along." Fondacaro then repeated his complaint that "the lead juror in the Stone trial had a long history of anti-Trump statements and had once run for Congress as a Democrat."
Needless to say, Fondacaro and Lord will never concede that the Hart story isn't really a story at all. Why? Because Hart did not hide her history during jury selecction. As an actual news organization reported:
[T]he juror’s identity was always known to both Stone’s defense and prosecutors throughout pretrial proceedings, and she disclosed her background, including a Democratic bid for Congress, in public pretrial jury selection proceedings.
Stone’s defense and his trial judge had the opportunity to question Hart directly and challenge her eligibility.
Potential jurors were also asked if they, any close friend or family member had ever run for or held federal, state or local office, and if they had formed any opinion about Trump or Clinton, or if their possible connection in the case “would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial to both sides?”
It is not known how Hart answered the social media question, or whether she had commented publicly on Stone. But Hart, in jury screening observed by the public, said she had not formed an opinion about Stone, and was seated after both sides had a chance to press her. Hart’s identity was apparent to observers, but court rules forbid naming jurors publicly.
The Supreme Court standard for juror qualification is that they need not “be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved … It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
According to a court ruling released Wednesday, Stone’s defense did move, unsuccessfully, to seek a new trial alleging bias by another juror, but not Hart.
And Fondacaro and Lord are certainly not going ot tell you that another juror in the Stone case -- defended Hart as "perhaps the strongest advocate in the room for a rigorous process, for the rights of the defendant and for making sure that we took it seriously and looked at each charge," adding: ""Without her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly and without looking as deeply into the evidence. ... I'm firmly convinced of that."
Yes, there is that inconvenient fact that all 12 jurors agreed to convict Stone of the charges against him.
But then, neither Fondacaro nor Lord actually want impartiality here -- they want bias, just not the kind they're accusing Hart of. Because Stone is a friend of Trump, and the MRC exists today has a Trump protector, that means Stone must similarly not be held accountable for his behavior, and that everyone else, not them, has a biased agenda.
The duped, historic majority of the U.S. will willingly cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional safeguards – for the abstractions – offered by democracy. This, Democrats know only too well.
Moreover, being pushover-passive on matters domestic, Caucasian America is generally pro-immigration, the more exotic and culturally incongruent, the better. It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling about The Self. But while Americans don't see race; the people they're importing see nothing but race.
Take Indian Americans. They're a relatively new addition to the United States' top-down, state-planned, multicultural mess of pottage. Most Indian Americans have "arrived in America over the past two decades." But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat.
As many in the corporate world know all too well – once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power, he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion, talent be damned. Meek Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. Honky just doesn't have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with the Other's flinty duplicity.
This mercenary, extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a furious rate by the immigration-industrial complex. Asians, aforementioned, are especially primed to seek, and aggressively extract, advantage from positions of power.
In the context of democracy and its discontents, Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise. No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities.
Mercer then attacked Kamala Harris' Indian heritage, adding: "Angry, anti-white and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world – Kamala and her kind cannot be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a complete commitment to a constitutional design, in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit."
Mercer went on to depict strife currently happening in Western democracies as being the cause of "non-Western people" being allowed to live in those countries:
Because flooding Western democracies with non-Western people has created societies without social capital, societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political process.
Western nation-states are now imperiled entities. Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within, and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities.
By using their police powers to swamp their already fructuous populations with alien nations – where are the referenda on mass immigration? – governments have undermined ethnic balance in Western democracies and, with it, the fellow feeling so essential to democracy's endurance.
Consider: Before Comrade Ted Kennedy's coup of 1965, America was, by and large, a biracial nation. To quote author Ann Coulter, "From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable. … The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10 percent to 15 percent African American." In other words, America was largely a biracial compact; never a multicultural "nation of immigrants."
Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared, painful past.
Arguably, by opening the floodgates to mass, Third World immigrants, the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America.
Mercer has previously waxed nostalgic over pre-1965 immigration policies in the U.S., which largely blocked anyone who was not of northern European desent from moving to the U.S. and were largely driven by racism and eugenics. Yes, Mercer thinks diversity is a "coup."
MRC Can't Stop Being Triggered by Greta Thunberg, Then Bullying Her Topic: Media Research Center
The reaction from the Media Research Center to teen climate activist Greta Thunberg when she emerged last year consisted largely of insulting and bullying her for her activism. The insults and bullying haven't really stopped.
Gabriel Hays seems to be emerging as the MRC's chief Thunberg bully. In a November post mocking her for a magazine recognizner her as among those who, in his words, "are contributing to the delusion and hysteria of the next female generation,: Hays sneered that Thunberg was a "tantrum-throwing, Swedish Climate Change child, adding: "She’s definitely a nice caricature of the left, that’s for sure. Her anger and resentful 'How dare you?!' speech has become the greatest internet meme depicting the left’s tolerance."
In December, Hays ranted about the idea of someone making a documentary about Thunberg:
Oh, great, another super lefty is getting the fawning documentary treatment from Hulu in the near future. It was reported on Wednesday that everyone’s favorite diminutive doomsday cult leader Greta Thunberg will be immortalized via documentary by the streaming platform. Ugh, no more, please! Ahem, we mean, Yay! Greta Thunberg’s getting a movie everybody! She’s so awesome (because saying otherwise means we’re guilty of child abuse.)
Hays' Thunberg Deranghement Syndrome flared up again in a Feb. 12 post incensed that another documentary about Thunberg was coming:
“Dora the Extorter?” “Exploited Development?” “How I Nagged Your Mother?” Whatever the eventual title, be afraid. Greta Thunberg is headed for TV.
During the BBC Showcase on Feb. 10, the network announced production of a docu-series on the life and and propaganda of the Swedish Scold. In a statement the BBC said, “The series will follow Greta’s international crusade, which takes her to the front line of climate change in some of the most extraordinary places on earth as she explores what actions could be taken to limit climate change and the damage it causes.”
So we’ll see Thunberg (which definitely does not rhyme with “Funberg") yelling at hapless politicians and hobnobbing with concerned celebrities, interspersed with classic tearjerker shots of supposedly starving polar bears, and footage of the burning Amazon Rainforest. (Context-free footage that is, since many of the fires are necessary for the environment and global incidence of fires has been on the decline in general since 2003. But we digress.)
The statement continued: “as she travels Greta meets not only leading scientists but political leaders and business heavyweights, exploring the scientific evidence with them and challenging them to change.” Oh gee, more viral ‘How dare you?!’ moments. That should be a ratings bonanza.
"The films will also chart her own journey into adulthood as she continues to be confronted by the real world consequences of inaction,” said the Beeb. Sounds like a compelling case on borderline child abuse.
Never mind that Hays is the one talking like an abuser here, with his incessant, immature mockery and abject hatred of Thunberg.
Hays wasn't the only MRC writer to be triggered by Thunberg, though. Kyle Drennen complained that "radical teenage climate crusader" Thunberg was named Time magazine's person of the year with no mention fo "Thunberg's extreme beliefs." Kristine Marsh dismissed Thunberg as a "radical Swedish teen climate change activist," whining that "The media has spent months propping up the "climate crusader"with dozens of fawning reports that skip over her extreme beliefs.
Looks like a few someones got a memo to push a narrative that Thunberg is "radical" and "extreme."
In January, Marsh defended vicious right-wing attacks on Thunberg by playing whataboutism:
It seems only liberal kids are "off-limits" to the media. The media had no issues smearing a group of Catholic teens as racists for smiling while a liberal activist beat a drum in their faces. Several outlets had no problem attacking President Trump's teenage son for doing...absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, a Swedish teen radical who thrust herself into the global spotlight, lecturing world leaders for "stealing her dreams and childhood" gets the royalty treatment by the media and even Hollywood.
As much as Marsh would like to believe otherwise, making a mild pun on Barron Trump's name in congressional testimony is not an "attack" on him, though the MRC has had no problem with actual attacks on the minor children of Democratic presidents.
In a Jan. 28 post, Sadi Martin called Thunberg a "fanatic," huffing: "The leftist media loves to try and push the idea that those who are "fighting" for whatever cause is most popular to them are heroic, but trying to compare a 16-year-old girl who is known for screaming at world leaders for "ruining the planet" while doing basically nothing to actually solve what she sees to be a problem is a pretty big stretch, to say the least.
Even the most benign action by Thunberg triggers the MRC, In a Feb. 9 post, Rachel Peterson grumbled: "Hollywood’s favorite 17-year-old climate change expert Greta Thunberg kicked off the documentary mash-up during the Oscars on Sunday night. In a montage, she thanked David Attenborough for getting her interested in the environment through his documentaries." Yes, the MRC attacked Thumberg for saying something nice about a filmmaker.
Saying nice things about Thunberg also puts you in the crosshairs. In a Feb. 8 post, Tim Graham was apoplectic that actor Harrison Ford praised her, insulting his (and Thunberg's) intellectual capabilities in the process:
It's fascinating that a movie star with no science degree is hailing the "wisdom" and "disclipline" of science in the same breath as he hails a 17-year-old high school dropout with no science degree. The "young people" Ford is touting have no scientific degrees. In that "ideological campground," as long as you're on the "right side of History," so you don't need to know all the science.
Funny how education and expertise suddenly become important when it suits the MRC's conservative agenda. A few years ago, the MRC demanded coverage of a right-wing petition criticizing climate change even though few of the petition's signatories had any relevant education or expertise in climatology.
CNS Hides Jewish Activist's Extremism In Order To Attack Tlaib As Extreme Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman complained in a Feb. 11 blog post:
When former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a conservative Democrat and a Jew, challenged Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) about her alleged anti-Semitism at a Muslims for Peace event on Sunday at Rutgers University, several police officers surrounded him and then forcibly removed him from the event.
Chapman's benign description of Hikind seriously undersells his actual behavior. The very idea of his being a "conservative Democrat" is dubious because he believes the Democratic Party is too far left for him. Indeed, he's actually pretty far right: we've reported that he was once a follower of the terrorist Meir Kahane and a reliable voice for far-right WorldNetDaily Jerusalem-based reporter Aaron Klein to attack the liberal-leaning Israeli government under Ehud Olmert. We also caught Hikind doing a weird blackface stunt.
But Chapman isn't interested in telling the full truth. He must hide Hikind's extremism because his mandate is to portray Tlaib -- who has been a CNS target ever since she was elected in 2018 -- as an extremist.
Tim Graham's War on Fact-Checkers Expands To People Who Like Them Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham hates fact-checkers so much, he's even attacking someone simply for liking them. No, really: Graham devoted a Feb. 11 post to attacking comedian Sarah Silverman -- whom he made sure to also identify as a "Bernie Sanders-endorsing activist" -- for saying that people should be reading newspapers and that factc-checking operations like Snopes and PolitiFact are "helpful."
Graham hufed in response: "When the socialists are touting PolitiFact and Snopes as “helpful,” it underlines why conservatives are right to suspect these websites are deeply biased against them." Or, you know, that conservatives like Graham can't deal with the fact that his favorite president lies so often and so blatantly that it's all fact-checkers can do to keep up.
Graham, meanwhile, wasn't done whining, adding: "Sarah Silverman can recommend these 'fact-checking' sites because they've been kind to her. PolitiFact offered only two fact-checks on Silverman, a 'Half True' in 2014, and a 'True' in 2015." Graham seems to have overlooked the relevant fact that Silverman is a comedian, not a politician, and so maybe fact-checking her isn't exactly a high priority.
Graham closed with a bit of trademark MRC hypocrisy: After grousing that "It's fascinating that Snopes would wage war on the Babylon Bee and other satirical sites for slanting the truth," he complained that "No one will do a fact check on her genius tweets." Graham deliberately ignores the fact that the reason Snopes does fact-checks on the Babylon Bee is that too many people mistake its satire for real news, while nobody is doing that with the Silverman tweet he cites as an example of her "genius."
Pelosi Derangement Syndrome At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
I urge all women not to follow the example of the pettiest, rudest, lowest female in public America: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The utterly disgraceful display of lack of manners as President Donald Trump held his State of the Union address Tuesday, makes me ashamed to be a woman.
What happened to America when such women are its proudest display of female power? Is it not the very core of political work to make sure that the population prospers? Not for Pelosi. She saw no reason to clap for the end of American economic decline.
This is why we need men. They have the ability to rise above personal sentiments, division, quarrels based on slander and allegations, the ability not to care about petty rumors, but stand firm and perform in the office they hold. Why do women so often seem susceptible to the low-life urge to speak evil of others? They just can't get over their own inner ocean of ramped-up, cluttered personal feelings.
Whether or not Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was born a pernicious pathological liar or transmogrified into one as a result of being born the daughter of a mobbed-up Baltimore, Maryland, shiny-suit gangster wannabe politician is open to debate. But it's not open to debate that's what she is. That said, we've heard more believable lies from Elizabeth "Faux-ka-haunt-us" Warren.
Watching Pelosi making hand gestures and facial contortions while seated behind President Trump during the State of the Union address (SOTU) couldn't have been more nauseating. She's a hideously unattractive woman with demeanor to match.
Pelosi can throw temper tantrums, rip up speeches and call President Trump a liar all she wants, but that behavior is not going to slow the juggernaut that is Donald J. Trump.
America sees Pelosi and her Democrats for what they are: a bunch of lowlife anti-American, elitist, jihadi-loving, open-borders, government-dependence-loving, do as we tell you to do authoritarians who have had 60 years to do what President Trump has done in three.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acts more like Cruella de Ville in Disney's "101 Dalmatians" than she does a woman at the apex of the nation that is the most prosperous and generous in the world. Cartoonist Gary Varvel was genius in his recent illustration of Mrs. Pelosi as the evil Cruella throwing a vitriolic temper tantrum.
What Mrs. Pelosi fails to realize in choosing to emulate the children's cartoon character is that the purpose of the villain is to teach that being treacherous is not something to which one should aspire. Yet Mrs. Pelosi seems to relish it.
Doesn't she care that our daughters are watching?
Mrs. Pelosi and her coven don't seem to care that they do not have the right to be considered role models. With their selfish, sophomoric behavior, they have revealed the truth: Feminists don't seek to inspire and lift women up; they seek to destroy any cultural memory of what it means to be a lady.
MRC Attacks Google Again Over YouTube Funding Journalism Projects Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has previously attacked the Google News Initiative by tarring all the recipients of its grants as irredeemably liberal, even though several recipients were actually mainstream operations and the vast majority of the projects being funded are not ideologically driven. Now the MRC is taking another shot now that it has an unambiguously liberal target to bash.
Alexander Hall complained in a Feb. 11 post that the Young Turks -- which he branded as a "far-left media outlet" -- "launched a new project to train a new generation of liberals to dominate local media -- all funded by Big Tech giant YouTube and its owner, Google" as a part of the News Initiative. After repeating a Young Turks statement that its educational program to teach people how to use digital media to report on local issues, TYT Academy, is not designed to push any particular viewpoint, Hall huffed: "Based on The Young Turks’ track record as an outlet, that statement may be difficult for some to believe."
Hall seems to be assuming that the Young Turks operate the way programs that train conservative journalists, where viewpoint bias is demanded and you're branded a "Benedict Arnold" if you exercise editorial independence.
Hall then rehashed some of the MRC's previous lame hit jobs on Google. First, he claimed, "Google has a history of leaning to the far-left. Google fired engineer James Damore in 2017 after he wrote a memo criticizing political correctness and identity politics." As we documented, Damore's memo claimed that that women were psychologically and biologically unsuited to work as engineers and cited as a source the website Quillette, which dabbles in "alleged links between genetics and IQ, and Damore himself went on far-right and white nationalist talks shows and podcasts to promote his memo.
Hall also name-checked Google-hating professor Robert Epstein, who "testified at a state hearing in July of 2019 that Google had helped influence no less than 2.6 million votes in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election." As we also documented, Epstein's conclusions were based on a tiny pool of 21 undecided voters and didn't explain how he determined whether a given website exhibited "pro-Hillary bias."
True to form, Hall censored the inconvenient facts from the examples he cited, instead choosing to rant that "With Google/YouTube’s generous funding, this project alone may have power to swing future elections." He then repeated the two tracks the educational series would take: “Journalism tactics and responsibilities” and “Best practices for online video production.”
MRC's West Trashes Vindman For Telling The Truth Topic: CNSNews.com
Media Research Center senior fellow Allen West spent his Feb. 10 CNSNews.com column mostly raging at Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for telling the truth. First, he complained that the "progressive socialist left" was making Vindman into a hero. After needless diversions into the cases of Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning, West finally got around to his attack:
LTC Vindman is still an active duty soldier, meaning he is held to a higher standard of justice, the UCMJ. The actions of LTC Vindman are not in keeping with the good order and discipline expected of our men and women serving in uniform. It is well known that LTC Vindman acted outside of his chain of command and truthfully, displayed “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”
And yes, that is a charge that could be levied against him under the UCMJ. Of course, the progressive socialist left sees LTC Vindman as a “hero” because he did their bidding. If any military officer had conducted themselves as LTC Vindman did during the reign of Barack Obama as commander in chief, he would have been declared treacherous, traitorous, and treasonous.
West is simply parroting President Trump's attack on Vindman in his justification for firing the lieutenant colonel from the National Security Council. He's also repeating a claim from Timothy Morrison, a supervisor who claimed that Vindman didn't follow the chain of command when reporting issues with Trump's phone call with Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky; in fact, Morrison had been Vindman's superior for just a week at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, and his predecessor had a different view of chain of command than he did.
Further, since the NSC is a civilian operation, not a military one, it seems highly unlikely that Vindman could be punished under the UCMJ for his purported chain-of-command violation.
West then went on to rant:
The actions of LTC Vindman, if done under the Obama administration would have been termed “rogue” and the demands would have been for his firing.
LTC Vindman may have served admirably on the battlefield and even earned a Purple Heart. Then again, Benedict Arnold was a revered military leader until he was angered and turned against the cause for which he had fought.
LTC Vindman served in the National Security Council at the behest of the President. LTC Vindman has proven that he no longer has the trust and confidence of the commander in chief, and therefore was released from his duties at the NSC. LTC Vindman has not been kicked out of the Army. He has not been charged with anything. He has simply been removed from his assignment.
West couldn't come up with anything more serious against Vindman than having "acted outside of his chain of command," and suddenly he's a Benedict Arnold-level traitor?
West concluded by ranting:
How interesting that the left is all up in arms over LTC Vindman, yet they could not celebrate a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman who flew combat missions in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The left celebrates a deserter like Bowe Bergdahl yet criticizes the release of Army 1LT Clint Lorance who was imprisoned for six years because he killed the enemy in Afghanistan…even the Army withheld exculpatory evidence in his case.
Weird that West is turning against the UCMJ that convicted Lorance of murder, while demanding that Vindman face the UCMJ for his actions. It's also far from clear that Lorance "killed the enemy in Afghanistan"; he was convicted of ordering his troops to shoot at a group of unarmed civilians, killing two, and even his own soldiers testified against him, describing him as ignorant and overzealous. Lowrance was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men were killed.
All of which seems much more serious than making a report outside the chain of command. But for a guy who violated the UCMJ by torturing an enemy combatant, that's apparently a more honorable way to behave.
MRC, CNS Paper Over Kobe Bryant's Rape Allegation Topic: Media Research Center
Basketball star Kobe Bryant's death in a helicopter crash prompted tributes even inside the ConWeb -- while downplaying a sertain something that would otherwise be the lead story.
At the Media Research Center, mysterious sports blogger Jay Maxson paid tribute to Bryant's "devotion to faith and family" while burying the thing that would seem to disprove that notion. Maxson eventually conceded that "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault in Colorado, but the charges were dropped when his accuser refused to testify in a civil court and settled out of court" -- but then he touted how "With his wife by his side in a press conference, Bryant admitted he had committed adultery," then quoted Bryant's denial of assault charges, which Maxson framed as an "apology" because he claimed to understand how the accuser thought that their sexual encounter wasn't consensual. Though Maxson claimed Bryant made this claim in court, it was actually issued through his attorney, not from the lips of Bryant himself.
Maxson then gushed: "How many celebrities will own up to sin in the 21st century? He tried to redeem himself through devotion to family -- his wife and four daughters. There were rocky times ahead for Bryant with his wife and family, but they appeared to weather those storms." Maxson invoked Bryant's professed Catholicism for allegedly having "helped him through the difficult times in his life, especially the sexual assault charge," then closed by reiterating: "Kobe Bryant's life was an imperfect life, but he finished strong and devoted himself to faith and family."
(Of course, Maxson would never give, say, Colin Kaepernick the consideration of being "imperfect.")
At the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Craig Bannister similarly gushed how "Pro basketball legend Kobe Bryant, who died Sunday in helicopter crash in Southern California, was a practicing Catholic who credited his Catholic faith for helping him through the toughest times in his life." He too took a while before admitting that the "toughest time" was the sexual assault charge:
Bryant relied on his Catholic faith as he dealt with, and sought to find peace after having been accused of sexual assault in 2003 – an accusation he denied, though he eventually issued an apology and agreed to a civil lawsuit settlement.
Bannister finished by noting a tribute Bryant by the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles.