CNS Also Unhappy About McCorvey Film That Makes Anti-Abortion Movement Look Bad Topic: CNSNews.com
Like its Media Research Center parent, CNSNews.com has problems with the new documentary on Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" in the Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion -- namely, her claim that she flipped to being an anti-abortion activist because she was paid to do so.
A May 21 column by Alveda King (also published at Newsmax), which came out before the film was released, rehashed anti-abortion talking points and added a little self-promotion to attack the film and perpetuate the anti-abortion movement's narrative on McCorvey:
Shameful fake news would have us believe that Norma McCorvey was a mercenary. Nothing could be further from the truth. For those of us who knew and loved Norma, we know that at the end, Norma loved God, and Norma loved life.
Never believe fake news. Fake news baited and switched on Norma just before her death. According to Rev. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, Norma wrote to him saying that she’d been booked for an interview for AKA Jane Roe. Norma was so excited; they promised to let her tell her story and told her they would pay her for it. From my personal perspective, they interviewed Norma and took her words out of context.
Norma McCorvey’s conversion to Christianity in 1995 led her to become one of the most devoted pro-life advocates of our times. Her pro-life testimony is truly a gift of love.
As a Christian evangelist, and executive director of the upcoming film – Roe v. Wade – I am praying and thanking God for the pro-life legacy of my friend Norma McCorvey. God bless America and God bless the pro-life legacy of Norma McCorvey; she gave her all for God. She gave her love for life.
The next day, CNS published a column by Penny Nance of the right-wing, anti-abortion Concerned Women for America. Nance also apparently hadn't seen the film, choosing instead to attack director Nick Sweeney because his "body of work informs his agenda." but she too was more interested in perpetuating the anti-abortion agenda that the film undermines:
But the abortion deception demands more and more lies in order to keep its house of cards alive. From their standpoint, the public must never discover that pro-life is pro-woman. And with this new documentary, the web of lies and deception continues.
Thankfully, the majority of Americans are not falling for this. They are waking up to the many abortion lies, like those the Sweeney documentary alleges, that keep Roe alive and are now rejecting these lies. Are Americans to believe the 1970s McCorvey? The 2005 McCorvey? Or the 2017 deathbed McCorvey? Regardless of what she said in her 2017 deathbed confession, we in the Christian conservative movement loved and welcomed her and thank her for her courage to bring to light the deception of Roe v. Wade.
Finally, CNS published a June 1 column by someone who may have actually seen the film, Rev. Shenan Boquet of anti-abortion group Human Life International.He served up the usual attack on the film's director, snarking that Sweeney's "other film credits include such illuminating films as The Sex Robots are Coming and Transgender Kids Camp" -- telling us how little he thinks of transgender kids -- but he did concede that McCorvey's claim could "deliver a major blow to the pro-life cause."
Which, of course, is why he devoted a lot of space to downplay and undermine it. As far as the money, Boquet huffed: "McCorvey worked for& two and a half decades in the pro-life movement. Like any spokesperson for any cause, she was paid for her speeches and other work. Viewed as a lump sum, the total dollar amount seems shocking; considered as payment for many years of work, it’s a non-event."
He then declared that "perhaps the best reason to question the film’s narrative is the testimony of the many pro-life leaders who spend endless hours with her, considered her a close friend, and who were in regular contact with her up to – and, indeed, on – the day she died," adding that "various pro-life leaders, many of whom spent countless hours with McCorvey, and with whom she even lived at various times, have reminisced fondly about the woman they knew. And regardless of any complexities of her feelings captured in the documentary, they strenuously dispute the notion that her pro-life conversion or activism was just an 'act.'"
Boquet finally declared that "In AKA Jane Roe, Sweeny [sic] tried to paint a sordid tale of a movement exploiting a woman, plying her with money to play a part for political gain. In reality, it was he who was exploiting her: releasing an ambiguous documentary designed to undermine her pro-life legacy, after her death, when she is unable to defend herself or clarify her words." Of course, Boquet very much has an incentive to attack Sweeney and his film and insist McCorvey's words couldn't possibly be her own.
NEW ARTICLE: Beyond The Benghazi Bungle Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center gave Lara Logan a pass after she botched her "60 Minutes" story on a fake Benghazi witness. Now Logan is back, falling for Antifa hoaxes -- and the MRC is totally cool with that as well. Read more >>
CNS Doesn't Like Alan Dershowitz Anymore Topic: CNSNews.com
Remember several months ago, when attorney Alan Dershowitz was the toast of CNSNews.com for his legal opinions on the impeachment of President Trump that just happened to fit CNS' pro-Trump narrative? Well, that's apparently over with, now that Dersh has expressed an opinion that no longer aligns with CNS' views.
Dershowitz has opined that the government could, if it wanted to, force people to get a coronavirus vaccine because protecting Americans falls under governmental power and "I don't believe you have a right to be Typhoid Mary and spread" coronavirus. That clearly did not go over well at CNS, which published a May 22 op-ed in response by Wesley Smith of the right-wing creationist Discovery Institute:
Government cannot just pass any law it wants because there is a health emergency. So, here’s a question that must be answered in assessing Dershowitz’s claim of a broad power of the government in the current circumstance: Is the COVID-19 pandemic such a “great danger” that it would be “reasonable” to secure “the safety of the general public” for the government to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated?
It seems to me that the answer must be no.
Smith then complained that 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that Dershowitz was invoking in defense of his decision -- fringe-right anti-vaxxer doc Jane Orient has also cited the case in arguing against complusory vaccination against a measles outbreak -- focused on smallpox, not coronavirus:
Context matters. The Jacobson case dealt with smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases known to man, with a 30 percent mortality rate and scarring afflicting the majority of survivors. COVID-19 comes nowhere close to being that deadly. Those at material risk of death from COVID-19—still a lower risk than smallpox—are the elderly and people with serious comorbidities. Children and healthy adults do not face a dire peril. Almost all recover from the illness and some don’t experience serious symptoms of any kind.
Third, since we can identify the minority most at risk from COVID-19, is it reasonable to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated? Absolutely not. The government can deploy far less intrusive means to shield such people with limited quarantine orders and locking down nursing homes, as two examples.
Our leaders are, of course, free to use persuasive means to convince us to be inoculated should a vaccine be perfected. But in this particular circumstance and given the exigencies of this specific disease, it can’t force us. And the government, Dershowitz’s opinion notwithstanding, certainly doesn’t have “the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Interestingly, CNS did not report on Dershowitz's original comments.
Scott Lively's Obama Derangement (Among Other Things) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Isn't it interesting that Black Lives Matter and Antifa anarchists launched a national campaign of mayhem and rioting at the start of the weekly news cycle in which the fully exculpatory Michael Flynn transcripts were finally released to the public? The trigger, was, of course, the outrageous and possibly deliberate George Floyd killing, conveniently carried out in full public view and captured on video for instantaneous social media virality. I predicted on April 22 that the elites would orchestrate a new crisis as soon as it looked like America would regain her equilibrium, and it seems this may be it, or at least the first salvo in a new campaign of chaos.
The main purpose of the rioting, as was true of the now-waning COVID-19 Plandemic, is to spread fear. Fear is what keeps a sizable portion of the American people "sheltered-in-place," and that phenomenon of social destabilization is the key to preventing economic recovery. An orchestrated economic depression is, of course, the cornerstone of the elites' plan for taking down President Trump (which I again predict will fail).
That's what this season of Psy-Ops, with all its disinformation, propaganda and political intrigue, has always been about from its very beginning, when Barack Obama first began to realize that Trump could actually beat Hillary, thanks to the sabotage of the HRC campaign and the DNC by Bernie zealot Seth Rich, the Wikileaker whistleblower who was (I opine) murdered in broad daylight for that act of treachery.
The timing of the rioting, and his immediate, highly inflammatory public statement, betrays the hand of Barack Obama behind it all. I predicted that also in my WND column of Jan. 3, 2017. I compared Obama's actions between the Trump election and inauguration to Hitler's sabotage of France's Cherbourg harbor just after D-Day in WWII. I then noted that Obama had taken the highly irregular step of setting up his own post-presidency political base in Washington, D.C. I closed with this prediction: "I have no doubt that Obama is planning his own Battle of Bloody Gulch [Hitler's Cherbourg counter-offensive after the Americans had taken the city and began pushing east toward Germany] but one which he assumes he will win. Megalomaniacs cannot surrender graciously. Backed by armies of social justice warriors on the streets and in the hardened leftist bunkers of media, academia and big-money foundations, Obama will fight like a cornered rat to protect his legacy and it's underlying ideology. Be certain of it, and never stop fighting until freedom has been restored."
MRC Uses Trump's Crappy Pollster For A Poll Reaffirming Its Agenda Topic: Media Research Center
How closely is the Media Research Center working with President Trump's re-election campaign? It's now using Trump's pollster. From an anonymously written June 9 post:
The Media Research Center (MRC) in coordination with McLaughlin & Associates on Tuesday released the findings of a new poll examining likely voters’ attitudes toward media coverage of the coronavirus shutdown and President Trump.
The poll found that 60% of likely voters, both liberal and conservative, believed some members of the media would like to see the shutdown drag on so that it hurts President Trump's chances of reelection in November. Of those polled, 85% of self-identified conservatives and 41% of self-identified liberals agreed with the above statement.
“This is just more evidence of how at odds the American liberal media are with the American public,” said MRC President Brent Bozell.
All the MRC is doing here is confirming how its messaging -- in this case, the narrative that the non-Fox News media hate Trump -- is holding up. Given that 85 percent of conservatives buy this, the MRC is doing a fine job of preaching to the converted.
As it happens, the day before this press release was posted, McLaughlin & Associates issued a memo on behalf of the Trump campaign claiming that polls showing Trump losing are "skewed," adding, "Let’s prove them wrong again." This was followed by a letter from Trump's campaign demanding that CNN retract a poll it didn't like. CNN responded by noting that "this is the first time in its 40-year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN's polling results."
The MRC is certainly not going to tell you that McLaughlin is considered to be among the worst political pollsters. Most notoriously, in 2014 a McLaughlin poll for then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor showed him up by 34 points two weeks before a Republican primary against his opponent Dave Brat; Brat ended up defeating Cantor by 11 points.
This is who the MRC and Trump are partnering with to advance their agenda. No wonder they seem a bit jittery about things.
As it did the previous month, CNSNews.com did what it could to prepare readers for even worse unemployment numbers. A May 18 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman highlighted a prediction that the unemployment rate could reach 25 percent, near Great Depression rates. So when the actual May numbers were released, even Susan Jones was surprised that the rate actually dropped from the previous month:
The jobs/employment report issued today by the Labor Department reflects what was happening in mid-May, and while it remains a grim picture, there are signs of improvement in every category as Americans straggle back to work.
The number of employed Americans increased by 3,839,000 in May to 137,242,000 -- far short of the record 158,803,000 set in December, but a move in the right direction.
The last time this number hovered at the 137M level was in 2000-2003.
At the same time, the number of unemployed Americans dropped by 2,093,000 to 20,985,000 in May, resulting in a lower unemployment rate than last month -- 13.3 percent in May versus 14.7 percent in April.
Even with those numbers, Jones still felt the need to distort numbers. Note the weasel words here: "The jobless rates for teenagers (29.9 percent), Blacks (16.8 percent), and Asians (15.0 percent) showed little change over the month." In fact, the rates for blacks and Asians rose.
CNS also hasn't told its readers about a statistical aberration that should have made the rate even higher. Due to a misclassification error, the May rate should actually be about three points higher. Buyt that would make things look even worse for President Trump, and CNS is not in the business of making things look worse for Trump.
MRC Tries To Keep CNN Conspiracy Theory Alive Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck began his June 9 Media Research Center post this way:
Try not to laugh or feel the urge to destroy your electronic devices after reading these quotes. On Tuesday, the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) announced their 2020 award winners, which included the insanely partisan Yamiche Alcindor of taxpayer-funded PBS, the liberal hacks at CNN, and The New York Times.
That's right -- it's yet another MRC meltdown over journalists getting awards (though the only electronic devices in danger of getting destroyed are the ones in arm's length of Houck). Thus, we have the usual pained, unhinged exclamations from Houck like "What were the judges smoking?" But the really unhinged thing Houck wrote was this:
In the “Merriman Smith Memorial Award for Excellence in Presidential News Coverage under Deadline Pressure for Broadcast” category, WHCA handed first place to Jeffrey Zucker’s CNN for being parked outside Roger Stone’s Florida home on January 25, 2019 as FBI agents arrived before dawn to arrest him.
CNN has long denied being tipped off and insisted it came from a pure hunch. But no matter what they’ve said and will continue to say, the episode will always leave people skeptical.
That, of course, is the conspiracy theory -- promoted heavily by the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com -- that CNN happened to be on hand to film Stone's arrest because it was tipped off, possibly by special counsel Robert Mueller himself. Houck himself pushed it back in the day, refusing to believe CNN's claim it followed the story closely enough that it could prepare for an arrest.
Despite the fact that absolutely no evidence whatsoever has surfaced to contradict CNN's explanation, Houck is still embracing the conspiracy theory and insisting there's reason for people to be "skeptical." Of course, "people" in this case means unhinged, irrational CNN-haters like Houck who are paid to hate CNN.
The headline on Houck's piece indicates that he believes any journalist who's not a right-wingher to be a "liberal hack." But his insistence on clinging to a never-proven conspiracy solely because he hates CNN that much demonstrates what a right-wing hack he is.
CNS Presents Discredited Criminal Adulterer As An Expert on Antifa Topic: CNSNews.com
Dinesh D'Souza is an convicted criminal (albeit a pardoned one) and adulterer who gets beaten down regularly on Twitter for the numerous false claims he makes about American history. No, naturally, CNSNews.com has decided to present him as an expert.
In a June 2 item, CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman did just that:
While discussing Antifa's role in the riots and looting in U.S. cities, conservative scholar and best selling author Dinesh D'Souza said the organization is the "true descendant" of radical left socialist paramilitary groups, such as Mussolini's Black Shirts and Hitler's Brown Shirts.
He added that Antifa has melded its Marxism with "identity politics," such as "racial" or "gender" grievance, and this has produced a "kind of identity socialism."
When asked about Antifa on The Ingraham Angle on Monday night, D'Souza said, "I think Antifa is the true descendant of the socialist regimes of 100 years ago – Mussolini’s Black Shirts, Hitler’s Brown Shirts. These are paramilitary that these socialist leaders needed in order to achieve political objectives that couldn't be achieved any other way."
Note the error in that last paragraph, in which D'Souza described Hitler and Mussolini as "socialist leaders." In fact, Hitler was not a socialist, and neither was Mussolini's fascist regime. Note that Chapman gave a pass to D'Souza's falsehood.
Further, as has since been proven, Antifa has had only a very small role in the "riots and looting" in the wake of the death of George Floyd, and at least some of that violence is actually the work of right-wing extremists.
Also note that Chapman made no mention of D'Souza's history of criminality, adultery and getting stuff wrong. Instead, he laughably described D'Souza as a "conservative scholar" and touting him as "the author of numerous books."
What we are witnessing is a resurrection of the Vietnam War era media practice of broadcasting body counts on a daily basis. But now it's being done with a few twists designed to drive a radical left-wing agenda. During the Vietnam War, the media broadcast daily body counts to terrorize the enemy. Today they broadcast daily body counts in order to terrorize Americans.
While the typical American seeks solid information concerning the safety of reopening our businesses and schools, the liberal media feed us unqualified raw body counts. They are fully aware that raw body counts with absolutely no qualifying information terrorizes the American populace, which is exactly why they are doing it. They see that trafficking in fear porn has worked.
The same day, Jim Breslo contributed a column in which he accuses federal scientists Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield of "exaggerating the seriousness of COVID-19," citing "Michael Fumento, author of 'The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS' and former AIDS analyst for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights." Fumento's book was dismissed by actual scientists when it came out in 1990as being ignorant of AIDS research. In it, Fumento dismissed the impact of coronavirus, decalring that it "clearly is one that almost exclusively kills the elderly."
Meanwhile, WND was pushing conspiracy theories in its sparsely read Whistleblower magazine. Its April issue complained that America's response to the coronavirus pandemic was threatened by "the de facto alliance between an increasingly far-left Democratic Party and establishment news media both pathologically obsessed with destroying the elected president of the United States by any means possible – including weaponizing a genuine mega-crisis." WND seems to have forgotten it was pathologically obsessed with destroying an elected president of the United States by any means possible, including spreading lies and conspiracy theories.
In the May issue, titled "DRUNK WITH POWER," WND asserted that "more and more politicians across the nation are suddenly acting like full-blown dictators" in trying to stop or slow the spread of coronavirus -- though it doesn't mention the word "coronavirus" until the ninth paragraph of its preview.WND also ranted:
There appears to be no limit to either the dictatorial tendencies of many Democrat politicians – or to their hypocrisy. Former President Barack Obama was photographed golfing on a Virginia golf course 40 miles from his Washington, D.C. home, while his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama, was busy recording a robocall sternly urging all D.C. residents “to stay home except if you need essential healthcare, essential food or supplies, or to go to your essential job.”
As we pointed out when CNSNews.com brought this up, it's nothing more than a cheap, lazy gotcha -- golf courses in Virginia were open at the time. In other words, WND remains as pathologically obsessed with Obama as ever.
MRC Loses It Over The Fact That Opening Economy Means More People Die of Coronavirus Topic: Media Research Center
Back when the coronavirus pandemic got into full swing, the Media Research Center had meltdowns over people wanting to protect abortion rights -- even though it defended a man who advocated letting elderly people die of coronavirus in order to save the economy. Since then, the MRC has been pushing another argument under in the same neighborhood.
For months, the MRC has been whining about people who claim that Trump allies who demand that lockdowns and stay-at-home orders end immediately in order to save the economy are putting people's lives in danger. It was so obsessed over this, in fact, that it devoted an April 21 post to compiling 16 examples, with Geoffrey Dickens huffing, "Liberal journalists and hosts exhibited little sympathy for protestors wanting to go back to work as they belittled them as zombies and a 'doomsday cult.' The President and conservatives that shared their concerns were derided as 'reckless and “dangerous.'" Nicholas Fondacaro ranted with his usual hateful bile and unprofessional name-calling in a May 12 post:
In arguably his most toxic diatribe to date, CNN host Chris “Fredo” Cuomo ended Tuesday’s Cuomo PrimeTime by lashing out at Fox News in the vilest of ways: Falsely declaring that they were totally fine with 10,000 more Americans dying from the coronavirus.
“But right now, the American family is in a period of dysfunction, we're estranged and acting strangely. 10,000 more Americans could die by August because so many places are relaxing social distancing? What happened to no man left behind? Now it's 10,000 is okay,” Cuomo asked, in a “closing argument” he draped under the veil of Mother’s Day.
Joseph Vazquez similarly grumbled in a May 21 post that New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman was issuing "disgusting shots at President Donald Trump, Republicans, and ordinary Americans for wanting to reopen the economy: by claiming that "thousands of Americans may be about to die for the Dow," further complaining that "Krugman encouraged readers to speculate about the potential 'blowback — especially, by the way, among senior citizens — if an attempt to restart the economy leads to a new wave of infections.'"
MRC official Tim Graham, meanwhile, served up his own take on this in a May 18 post complaining that writer Molly Jong-Fast wrote an item about Fox News host advocating the roemoval of lockdowns under the headline "Laura Ingraham Wants Your Grandmother to Die." Graham huffed in response: "This has all the nuance and finesse an article headlined “Molly Jong-Fast Wants You to Commit Suicide From Sheltering in Place.” Or "Molly Jong-Fast Wants You to Be Unemployed for the Rest of Your Life." When Jong-Fast pointed out that conservatives advocating the ending of lockdowns are going against science, Graham declared: "That's not right. The conservative media is saying Democrats are claiming to be Science, but what happens when their favorite models and projections do not come true? They haven't been humble about admitting a hypothestis failed -- like science lovers should."
But Graham and the rest of his science-questioning MRC minions don't want to question the possibility that the lockdowns saved lives and stopped out-of-control spreading of the virus. One study found that lockdowns slowed the infection rate in the U.S. and saved millions of lives worldwide. And it's indisputable that opening up business to restart the economy while there's still a significant risk of coronavirus spread will, indeed, needlessly cost lives if precautions aren't being taken. And, indeed, that's what's happening worldwide.
It's difficult to enjoy economic freedom if you're dead from something that could otherwise be avoidable. The MRC doesn't seem to understand that.
CNS Touted Geraldo's False Claim That Impeachment Distracted Trump From Coronavirus Topic: CNSNews.com
There was so much pro-Trump stenography and so many bogus claims in CNSNews.com's coverage of the coronavirus pandemic that a couple slipped though the cracks and are worth backing up a bit to note. Like this, in which Craig Bannister wrote in an April 1 post:
Democrats, like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who distracted the nation from the coronavirus outbreak threat by leading a media-hyped “faux quest” to remove President Donald Trump from office via impeachment, must ask themselves if the harm they caused was worth their political gain, pundit and commentator Geraldo Rivera said Wednesday.
River tweeted that impeachment-crazed Democrats must eventually face up to how their impeachment media circus distracted the country from preparing for and combating the deadly coronavirus outbreak:
On Tuesday, Rivera tweeted a timeline of how Democrats’ impeachment efforts coincided with the coronavirus outbreak:
“House Dems led by @RepAdamSchiff Impeached @realDonaldTrump on Dec18-as #coronavirus got #Wuhan foothold.”
“Senate trial Jan16th to 31st-same day @POTUS imposed #ChinaTravelBan.”
“Trump Acquitted Feb 5th”
“Was Trump distracted by Impeachment? Yes! So were you & I & #WaPo #NYTimes et al,” Rivera concluded.
But Bannister failed to tell his readers that the day before, Trump explicitly said that he wasn't distracted by impeachment and would not have reacted any differently to the emerging coronavirus pandemic if he hadn't been impeached.
Then again, fact-checking at CNS isn't important when the goal is to either make Trump look good or his critics look bad.
MRC's Double Standard On Presidential Coloring Books Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Gabriel Hays was in full hateful-snark mode in a May 8 item:
The timing couldn’t be any better for a sexy-themed adult coloring book featuring former vice president and current 2020 Democrat nominee Joe Biden, right? Actually, don’t answer that.
Unfortunately, it’s not a joke.
The real (and very disturbing) news is that there’s a new adult-themed coloring book titled “Hot Cup of Joe” featuring a buff Joe Biden that will be coming out on June 16, 2020.
Sadly, this abomination exists. What might be even more disturbing than the book’s cover illustration, which depicts an “in-shape” Joe Biden wearing a tight T-shirt, aviator sunglasses, and holding a cup of joe (get it?) while standing in an old-school diner, is the book’s creepy tagline.
Conservative reactions were a mix of disgust and humor.
If you thought Joe Biden was a hard candidate to take seriously, this dials it up a notch.
So having a coloring book dedicated to you makes you a less serious presidential candidate? Don't tell Hays about all the creepy coloring books dedicated to President Trump.
Like this one, for instance, which ridiculously portrays an impossibly buff Trump as Superman, among other scenarios. It's describwd this way:
Acclaimed artist Tim Foley offers colorists thirty-one black-and-white illustrations featuring the classic Donald smirk and that unmistakable (albeit magnificent) blonde swoop. Foley has transposed Trump into classic scenes from history. Whether it’s placing his face on George Washington crossing the Delaware or superimposing it on Mount Rushmore, Foley masterfully incorporates the outspoken Republican nominee, Apprentice star, and New York real estate tycoon into a wide array of famous historical scenes and paintings for you to color. Additionally, Foley portrays the magnate at famous events such as the signing of the Constitution, Muhammad Ali knocking out Sonny Liston, and Superman lifting up a car in his initial comic book appearance.
Therearemore.But Hays obviously loves Trump too much to snark about them, making his Biden piece nothing but a mean-spirited cheap shot -- you know, the standard MRC output these days.
WND's Brown Still Pretending He Doesn't Hate Gay People Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown lovestopretend he doesn't hate the LGBT community, even while he's expressing that hate -- then gets mad when said hate gets called out. He's been hypocritally flip-flopping again.
In a May 1 column, he lectured CNN anchor Anderson Cooper for raising his newborn son, born through a surrogate, with his ex-partner and without a mot her: "Anderson, a boy deserves his mother, yet if I understand your plan correctly, your son will not be raised together by her and by you. That's what saddens me the most." As usual, he went into I-really-don't-hate-gay-people mode:
To be clear, I don't believe that you simply chose to be gay one day. I don't believe that any more than I "chose" to be straight.
In many ways, you are private person, and I'm not trying to intrude in your life. And you may simply write me off as a hateful gay basher.
But it is love that compels me to write. What is best for Wyatt Morgan Cooper?
A few days later, Brown was raging against critics who called him a homophobe for that Cooper column and also pointed out his history of linking homosexuality to pedophilia. He denied he was doing so, then tried to justify what was effectively the same comparison:
As for my article, my point was simple. I was comparing "an illogical justification of homosexuality that can just as easily be used to justify pedophilia," namely, that is must be right because someone is born that way.
I also wrote, "What about those who, to the core of their being, struggle with pride? Or anger? Or greed? Or jealousy? What does this prove? It proves that we are a fallen, broken race in need of a Savior. And what about the claims of a violent gene or a selfish gene or an obesity gene?
"Do we therefore celebrate violence, selfishness or obesity, if, in fact, they are genetic? Or, if we have these alleged genetic tendencies, do we work harder to overcome them?"
My purpose was to illustrate how the "born that way" argument for homosexuality is self-defeating, opening the door to all kinds of counter-arguments, including the argument that pedophiles can claim to be born that way.
Brown then justified his support for conversion therapy as having "simply stated my support for the rights of those with unwanted same-sex attraction to receive professional counseling if they desire. That's it."
As the saying goes: If you're explaining, you're losing.
Needless to say, Brown went on to demonstrate his anti-gauy bona fides once again in a May 27 column attacking Pixar for making an animated short featuring a gay lead character, meaning that Disney, which owns Pixar is coming for your children:
To be sure, this is just a 9-minute film, but there's not much of a leap from 9 minutes to 90 minutes.
You might say, "You need to chill! What's the big deal? This is not some full-length release. Plus you can't expect Pixar to quote the Bible."
Well, if it's so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film? And why is Disney Streaming, where the film was released, touting it so highly?
The fact is that gay activists have long recognized the importance of influencing children, even if they were doing it with (in their minds) the purest of intentions. In other words, they would say they don't want other kids to struggle the way they did when they were growing up. Or they want other kids to be more tolerant and accepting. Or they want to break down the gender binary, since not everyone fits into it.
Whatever the motivation might be, gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now, from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries, and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond.
Yet here we are, almost 10 years later, and many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children. Really?
Brtown never explains why gays must be hated in the way he chooses to do so, or that people must feel that being gay is a bad thing.
MRC Pretends To Care About CBS Topic: Media Research Center
Randy Hall worked up some crocodile tears in a May 29 NewsBusters post:
CBS is in trouble. The network -- including its news and entertainment divisions -- has faced many financial hurdles over the past few years, which eventually led to a merger with the Viacom media conglomerate last December. Even though that combination gave the company access to more resources, the business has still had to deal with financial hardships, which led to a round of restructuring and layoffs on Tuesday.
According to The Wrap, this includes "veteran White House reporter Mark Knoller, Pentagon reporter Cami McCormick and correspondent Dean Reynolds,” among others.
How do we know that Hall's sympathy for one of the MRC's favorite targets is fake? He went on to forward the idea that "other, more highly paid journalists, could have sacrificed for their fellow journalists."
Hall's post might lead you to think that the MRC genuinely cares about the plight of CBS and its employees. It doesn't. Remember that the MRC's goal is to destroy all media that isn't sufficiently right-wing. Remember how gleeful it was when Norah O'Donnell's tenure as CBS Evening News anchor generated low-ish ratings.
The MRC hates CBS so much, it expressed joy over technical difficulties. Nicholas Fondacaro devoted an entire May 19 post to crowing about the "latest embarrassment" in which the Evening News couldn't be broadcastdue to technical issues, going on to mock the technical problem as "painfully ironic" because CBS promotes the newscast as "one voice you can turn to."
This isn't "media research" -- this is a hateful attack for partisan reasons.
CNS Columnist Pushes Bogus Story Of Rolex Store Looting Topic: CNSNews.com
Howard Husock of the right-wing Manhattan Institute began his June 3 CNSNews.com column (originally published at the institute's City Journal) this way:
Monday night, the looting of New York moved on to the luxury-brand flagships of Manhattan’s Soho and Midtown.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo correctly noted that looters were simply taking this moment to steal, to smash, and grab a Rolex. It may seem self-evident why looters prefer luxury, but it’s still worth pondering.
That basic premise, it turns out, isn't true. As GQ documented, there isn't a Rolex store per se in Soho -- there is a store that is an authorized Rolex dealer -- and would-be looters couldn't "smash and grab a Rolex" because the store had been closed for weeks because of the coronavirus pandemic and any inventory that hadn't been removed previously was stored in a safe, not lying around. A New York Post story pushing the narrative that the store had been looted "2.4 million in Rolexes" were taken is simply not true.
Nevertheless, Husock had his hook on which to do a column, however bogus it may be. Thus he used that to condescending lecture about "why looters like Rolexes," in which he claims that "looters understand the intangibles of brand as status because the people they envy are also seduced by such charms" and that "looters have absorbed the message that such baubles can be confused with actual accomplishment, can substitute for a purposeful life built in small steps, a family nurtured, a child looked after."
Bernie Sanders got blamed as well, for pointing out that the "ultra-rich" have built their fortunes in no small part on the backs of those poorer than them, and that "this logic, filtered down to the street, forgives looting as sticking it to the man."