MRC Complains That Media Treated Trump's Candidacy As A Joke, Censors That It Did Too Topic: Media Research Center
A June 16 Media Research Center post by Rich Noyes carried the headline "Five Years Ago, Media Mocked Trump’s Announcement as a Joke" and complained: "Five years ago today, when billionaire businessman Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign on June 16, 2015, the savants in the news media weren’t just skeptical — they were openly disdainful of the man who would go on to win the Republican nomination and the presidency."
You know who else was openly disdainful of Trump's presidential run? The MRC.
As we documented, the MRC so dismissed Trump's chances that it ignored Trump's complaints of media bias against him (though they were against Fox News, which is a sacred cow at the MRC). MRC chief Brent Bozell so opposed Trump's candidacy -- his preferred candidate was Ted Cruz -- that he penned an article for National Review declaring that Trump does not "walk with" conservatives, and his MRC was complaining that media coverage of Trump insufficiently covered his Trump University scam.
But Trump kept winning, and the MRC eventually flip-flopped to become an aggressive Trump defender, excusing his every action no matter how offensive.
This happened even as Trump apparently lied about Bozell himself. In his 2019 book with Tim Graham, "Unmasked," he claimed that a Trump tweet after the Bozell piece came out said that Bozell had previously "came to my office begging for money like a dog" when he did not ask for money during the visit (though Trump had donated to the MRC anyway). But it's also a sign of how Trump has co-opted Bozell that he handwaved the lie as "just another day at the office for Trump."
Bozell also admitted the transactional nature of his (and the MRC's) relationship with by stating of his National Review denunciation: "I stand by what I wrote, without apologies. It was true. It is also true that since taking the oath of office President Trump has walked with conservativces as well as Ronald Reagan and in some respects even more than the Gipper did."
More importantly, though, Trump and the MRC share the same anti-media agenda; Bozell proclaimed how "Donald J. Trump understood that the news media were his most powerful enemy , hell-bent on preventing his election and, when that failed, destroying his presidency."
Trump has effectively bought the loyalty of Bozell and the MRC -- which results in posts like this one that censors the MRC's own early history of opposing and disdaining Trump's candidacy.
WND Dredges Up Dense, Old Antifa-Bashing Report To Promote Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is inserting this linked boilerplate copy into some of its articles:
FREE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON ANTIFA! What exactly is ANTIFA and what are its real goals? Why does it viciously attack America at every opportunity, prompting President Trump to label it a "domestic terror group"? WND is offering an original, in-depth investigative report on ANTIFA – absolutely FREE! Sign-up here for your copy of this powerful 22,000-word e-book exposing ANTIFA, which will be delivered to you immediately!
The link goes to a page promising, "In-Depth Investigation Reveals Shocking Truth About ANTIFA – FREE!" adding, "WND is offering its readers, FREE, an in-depth, 22,000-word original investigative report on "Antifa." All yo have to do is give WND your email address -- which makes this little more than an email harvesting operation.
If this sounds familiar, it should. This appears to be the same "investigative report" on Antifa that WND first peddled in 2017. And you can read it here without the risk of finding yourself on WND's mailing list.
As we documented at the time, this report carries no author's name, despite it being densely written perhaps to the point of being above the reading level of the typical WND reader. It's largely an exercise in Antifa fearmongering, which comes across as more than a bit hollow given that, as we've noted, there's little evidence that any Antifa activists have been involved in the unrest following the police-custody death of George Floyd.
But, hey, the book has been paid for, it costs virtually nothing for WND to promote it again, and Antifa fearmongering is a WND staple, however detatched from reality it may be. So, win-win?
MRC Defends Right-Wing Channel Its Employees Appear On Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Matt Philbin got all huffy in a June 16 post:
The left’s fit of insensate rage keeps turning this way and that, smashing whatever comes to hand -- a statue here, a corporate exec there. Professional sports have been thoroughly politicized, and now the destruction is coming to big-time college football. Because somebody doesn’t like a T-shirt.
According to Sports Illustrated, somebody at a website covering Oklahoma State University sports posted a picture of Cowboys head football coach Mike Gundy on a fishing trip “wearing a t-shirt promoting the conservative news network One America News. Shortly after that, the Cowboys All-American running back Chuba Hubbard came out,” and mau-maued the program.
"I will not stand for this," wrote Hubbard on Twitter. "This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society, and it is unacceptable. I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE."
NCAA players are apparently just like other coddled college kids, only more so. As we all know, until things change means until any political opinion I don’t like has been purged from OSU football -- maybe OSU Athletics. And why not a 100-square-mile zone around the campus?
And, of course, Hubbard is getting support from the millionaire malcontents in the NFL.
But Philbin waited until the second-to-last paragraph of his 12-paragraph item to fully disclose why he was running to OAN's (and Gundy's) defense:
OAN’s opinion shows have, you know, opinion (several Media Research Center staffers, including the author, regularly appear on them). But it’s a news network. Hubbard and his supporters care nothing for the facts. They’re feeding their outrage.
Philbin certainly didn't care enough about the fact to tell readers exactly how far-right OAN is.
Jonas Wells further the MRC's defense of OAN the next day, again underselling its far-right agenda: "OAN does tend to emphasize the 'straight news reporting' that much of the mainstream media, on both sides of the aisle, tend to forget about. In an interview done with [OAN anchor Liz] Wheeler, she addressed the format of OAN, and how there are merely three hours of commentary, versus 21 hours of straight news."
Wells offered no proof of this. He also -- in an item describing someone's "mistakes" in criticizing Gundy and OAN -- made the mistake of failing to disclose the MRC's conflict of interest in defending OAN.
Then, in a June 19 post, mysterious sports blogger Jay Maxson called on right-leaning sports pundit Jason Whitlock trying to play whataboutism to handwave OAN's extremism:
Whitlock said he had gotten tweets accusing OAN of peddling "dangerous, irresponsible and racially divisive conspiracy theories." He turns it around on the left-stream media and asks, "Isn’t that what cable news networks do?"
Whitlock looked up the definitions of "conspiracy theory" to make sure he understood it correctly and found this explanation: "A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event."
Maxson then gave Whitlock free rein to rant that the non-right-wing-media portrayals of Colin Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter are based on conspiracy theories. Whitlock then huffed: "Are we sure OAN is the lone media outlet propagating dangerous, irresponsible and racially divisive conspiracy theories? Or are these theories the lifeblood of the modern mainstream media?"
It seems Whitlock has joined Maxson as being so far right that right-wing conspiracy theories are normal and mainstream media are the purveyors of conspiracy theories. (Oh, and Maxson failed to disclose that MRC employees regularly appear on OAN.)
CNS Returns To the Weekend-Shooting Distraction Again Topic: CNSNews.com
We'vedocumentedhow CNSNews.com managing editor likes to distract from bad news for conservatives by randomly bringing up the number of weekend shootings in Chicago. With unrest over police brutality in the news, Chapman went for the same distraction but a different city in a June 10 article:
The Los Angeles Police Department Headquarters tweeted on Tuesday that during last week (May 31 - June 6), homicides went up 250% and the number of victims shot increased 56% when compared to the previous week.
"The week of 5/31 to 6/6, homicides went up 250% and victims shot went up 56% compared to the previous week," said the tweet from the LAPD HQ.
"The past 24 hrs has seen 4 shootings, one of those resulting in a homicide," the tweet added. "Detectives are following leads to ID & arrest the suspects -- but we’re also asking for your help."
Chapman made sure to add that "Black Lives Matter, which has participated in many of the protests across the United States over the last two weeks, demands 'a national defunding of the police.'"
Craig Bannister joined the sudden, agenda-driven concern in a June 29 article invoking yet another city: "More than five hundred people have been shot in New York City so far this year, but the city is considering cutting the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) budget by as much as $1 billion."
Bannister apparently didn't consider the idea that the extra billion didn't keep those 500 people from being shot, so perhaps that money could be better used elsewhere.
MRC Learns To Love 'Harry Potter' Series Author After They Share Hatred For Transgenders Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center stopping hating Ricky Gervais once he starting mocking transgender people. Now the MRC has flip-flopped on another pop-culture figure -- ironically, for similarly going anti-trans.
The MRC has generally tried to find ways to hate J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, for seemingly as long as she's been writing the books.
A 2007 post by Mark Finkelstein melted down over Rowling's revelation that series character Dumbledore is gay, adding, "Somewhere, Jerry Falwell is smiling." Robert Knight huffed that Rowling "has to succumb to political correctness and 'out' Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore," adding that "my guess is that she made her shocking revelation in order to pander to the cultural elites who regard celebration of homosexuality as a mark of sophistication."
A 2016 MRC post groused: "When busy Tweeters compared Trump to Voldemort, J.K. Rowling defended the racist, mass-murdering villain of the Harry Potter series, saying, 'How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad.'" Another post complained that Rowling opposed Brexit and also "took the opportunity to slam U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as a “fascist in all but name,” for saying Britain should exit the EU." Yet another post complained that Rowling expressed an opinion on Brexit.
In 2017, Corinne Weaver grumbled that Rowling "is still accusing Trump of ignoring a disabled child and calling the POTUS 'stunning and horrible'" though a full video allegedly proved a "deceptively edited video" false.
The MRC was evenangry that actors in Harry Potter projects expressed political opinions.
The MRC did offer up one early defense, though: a 2016 post by Matt Philbin stated in his usual jerkish fashion that Rowling "is in heap-big trouble for not being sufficiently sensitive to the diversity within the 'Native American wizarding community,'" concluding: "So Rowling has played fast and loose with American Indian stuff, in the same way she played fast and loose with dozens of other traditions in the name of entertaining children and making some money. Some crime. You’d think she played for the Red Skins or something."
But what really turned the MRC into a group of Rowling fanboys was her dismissal of transgender community. Gabriel Hays sneered in a Dec. 19 post:
Turns out Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling might not be as progressive as she thought. Recently, the fantasy writer angered radical LGBTQ folks on social media for tweeting a defense of a person fired for believing that there are only two genders. The author has since been called a “transphobe,” or more specifically a “TERF” (trans exclusive radical feminist.)
For a woman who was once so woke that she officially altered the sexuality of one of her series main characters to appease lefty fans, this is a bit jarring.
But such is the scourge of social justice. The ruling [upholding the firing of a British official for anti-trans views] was so disgusting that even the woman who retroactively turned Dumbledore gay to appease her LGBTQ fans found limits in her PC code of ethics. And the internet let her have it.
Clay Waters asserted that a New York Times reporters "joined the mob against Harry Potterauthor J.K. Rowling for transgender wrong-think" by "merely affirming there are in fact two sexes."
Christian Toto cheered how Rowling "refused to apologize for comments deemed “transphobic.” and " refused to go on a GLAAD-orchestrated Apology Tour,' cheering that "Rowling hasn’t been officially canceled in any discernible way."
When Rowling said in June that only women menstrate, the MRC rushed to her defense again. Waters lamented that Rowlinbg has been "long targeted by radical transgender activists on Twitter for her stubborn adherence to the biological reality that men are men and women are women" and complained that a New York Times article on the controversy "actually contained the slur 'terf,' a derogatory and decidedly un-journalistic acronym employed by trans activists to smear their feminist opponents."
Hays proclaimed that Rowling "appealed to a more concrete view of human anatomy" with her statement and huffed that "Several blue checks accused the author of being “transphobic” and an “asshole” because Rowling affirmed that no matter what they call themselves or how they “identify,” only women have periods, period." Hays concluded: "This pseudoscience adds to the confusion, which is undoubtedly the real reason as to why trans folks have such difficult lives. Stay with it, J.K.!"
That's how you get the MRC to like you: share a common enemy, prefereably transgenders.
Allen West's Empty Attack on the Great Society Topic: CNSNews.com
Allen West wrote in his June 15 CNSNews.com column:
The bottom line is simple: The Great Society – the grand endeavor of the progressive, racist President Lyndon Baines Johnson, has failed. Fifty-five years later, we are witnessing the -- shall I say it --“chickens coming home to roost.”
The Great Society, also known as the infamous War on Poverty was launched as every other government top-down solution is, with great promise and “noble” intention. It was an updated version of Roosevelt’s “chicken in every pot” solution.
What Johnson and his ilk believed was that they could manipulate the outcomes in the lives of individuals and create equality. They embraced the notion that the government could “level the playing field,” and with a plethora of government subsistence programs, all would be well.
In reflection, we should all agree, and stop whistling past the graveyard, that this was a program intended to do one thing -- create economic enslavement, dependency.
The Great Society blunder has resulted in the modern-day 21st century economic plantation in which American inner-cities have absolutely cratered.
Strangely, at no point did West cite any specific program that purportedly created the failure he depicts. In fact, there's a solid argument that Great Society programs like Medicare and Head Start have been quite successful, as well as the fact that they weren't nearly as radical or extreme as West suggests they were.
Nevertheless, West insisted that "It does not take a PhD level study to grasp this," despite his freshman-level error of failing to back up his claims.
That, however, didn't stop WorldNetDaily columnist and ranter Mychal Massie from embracing West's claims in his own June 15 column:
The Great Society Initiatives were harmful to all, but no group was harmed more than blacks. Johnson's not so-veiled government dependency agenda cemented the decline of American civilization, specifically for blacks.
Within the Great Society construct came the abolishment of the nuclear family, accompanied by the reinvention of same to elevate and accommodate sexual sin. This now includes debaucherous sexual deviancy masquerading as a family unit.
The Great Society Initiative construct empowered government to define the needs of the people. Through the late 1960s and early/mid 1970s, women and specifically those who were black and Puerto Rican were rewarded for having children out-of-wedlock. Government provided subsidized housing, food stamps, health care and spending money. All they had to do was continue to have illegitimate children. The caveat was that in order to receive the financial government provisions there couldn't be a man in the house – this included the father of the children. I personally know women who were evicted from their apartment in the Projects because the night watchman caught the father in the apartment.
Like West, Massie fails to identify the specific programs he claims caused this, let along prove they were Great Society initiatives.
NEW ARTICLE: Narrative Over Truth, Abortion Edition Topic: The ConWeb
After a new documentary revealed that Roe v. Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey said she became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid to do so, the ConWeb's anti-abortion activists sought to discredit the film. Read more >>
WND's Mercer Has A Soft Spot For the Confederacy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ilana Mercer, in addition to having a soft spot for apartheid, apparently has a similar soft spot for the Confederacy as well. She wrote in her June 18 WorldNetDailiy column:
Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.
Mr. Hilton made the following feeble, snowflake's case for the removal of the nation's historically offensive statues:
It's offensive to our Africa American neighbors to maintain statues in public places that cause not only offense, but real distress. And it is disrespectful to our Native American neighbors to glorify a man who they see as having committed genocide against their ancestors. None of this is to erase history. Put it all in a museum. Let's remember it and learn from it.
"What's wrong with Camp Ulysses Grant," Hilton further intoned sanctimoniously. He was, presumably, plumping for the renaming of army installations like Fort Bragg, called after a Confederate major general, Braxton Bragg.
Sons of the South – men and women, young and old – see their forebear as having died "in defense of the soil," and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.
Not so much -- the Civil War really was about slavery. Her claim that Southerners died in the Civil War "in defense of the soil" is linked to an anonymously written column that proclaimed Confederate generals "heroes" who deserve the statues built in their honor and the "Charlottesville debacle" resulted in "countless right wingers excoriated by their peers and persecuted by the law unjustly."
Mercer went on to cheer a man named Thomas J. DiLorenzo as "the country's chief Lincoln slayer" and dismissing historian Doris Kearns Goodwin as "a pseudo-intellectual." Turns out DiLorenzo is a fan of the Confederacy as well; he tried to disassociate himself from the right-wing, white nationalist League of the South despite admitting to speaking before the group and endorsing its social and political views.
George Will is just another pseudo-conservative pundit at The Washington Post. He’s Jennifer Rubin with shorter hair. His latest column seals this image, explicitly calling for a rout of congressional Republicans, much to the delight of the liberal media. He compares Senate Republicans to Vichy collaborators with the Nazis:
He also compares them to affection-starved dogs:“Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting."
Graham never explains why Trump and his supporters must never be criticized, especially by fellow conservatives. Instead, he throws a tantrum that CNN employees -- another MRC enemy -- liked Will's column. But Graham wasn't done with his anti-Will tantrum:
This column absolutely demonstrates Will is not a conservative. Demanding a “rout” of the Republican Party is enabling Democrats making noises about a radical agenda of “Medicare for All,” a “Green New Deal,” government-funded abortion, ending border enforcement, taking tax-exempt status away from churches and organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage…and so much more.
It should be obvious that Will is supporting this agenda by advocating the removal of any obstacles to it.
Will is so cocky about Trump’s defeat he told [NPR anchor Rachel] Martin that Biden could win just by staying in his basement until November: “It's Biden's to lose. And if he stays in his basement, he won't lose it…. I think he's one of the beneficiaries of the great lockdown. He leaves the national stage to the president, and the president is using it in a way very injurious to himself.”
All of this insulting talk of shedding principles, of sacrificing dignity, of being “soft wax” for powerful men, can just as easily be applied to George Will, pleasing his employers at The Washington Post. He’s melted butter for Bezos.
It’s certainly ludicrous to call him a “conservative”….when making the path straight for a leftist “revolution” is what he’s advocating.
Remember that Graham is so invested in seeing no flaws in Trump that he just blithely handwaves Trump's legacy of lies by ranting that Trump gets fact-checked and weakly claiming that he "has a casual relationship with the truth." Graham is so committed to the lie that he can no longer see the truth.
CNS' Jeffrey Absurdly Tries To Blame Pelosi For Federal Deficits Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey has ramped up his efforts to blame anyone but President Trump for exploding budget deficits.
Jeffrey served up his usual monthy articles on federal spending on June 10 -- the first on how "The federal government set records for both the amount of money it spent and the deficit it ran in the first eight months of fiscal 2020" and the second on how "The debt of the federal government topped $26 trillion for the first time." As usual, the words "Trump" and "Republicans" appear nowhere in the article even though they signed off on all that debt, and the articles are illustrated by stock photos of President Trump with Nancy Pelosi -- once again trying to saddle Pelosi with blame even though she controls only one-half of one branch of government.
But in his June 24 column, however, Jeffrey ridiculously placed all the blame on Pelosi:
In the 2,000 days that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now served as the leader of a division of the federal government that the Constitution gives authority over all appropriations, the federal debt has increased by a record $9,655,515,485,628.06.
That is more than all the debt the federal government accumulated ($8,670,596,242,973.04) under all of the House speakers who served before Pelosi first took that position on Jan. 4, 2007.
The record $9,655,515,485,628.06 in federal debt amassed during Pelosi's first 2,000 days as speaker works out to an average of $4,827,757,742.81 in added debt per day.
None of her predecessors comes close to that mark. She is, indisputably, this nation's Queen of Debt.
It will mark her place in history.
Jeffrey is deliberately leaving out a lot of context. For instance, Pelosi's six years as House speaker coincided with two financial crises -- the 2009 recession and the coronavirus pandemic -- that required large infusions of emergency federal spending to rejuvenate the econony.
Jeffrey also forgot to mention that four of Pelosi's six years as speaker were under Republican presidents, meaning that Republicans also signed off on all that spending for which Jeffrey is solely and absurdly blaming Pelosi for.
The word "Trump" doesnt appear, of course. The word "Republican" appears only in the final paragraph, when he huffed, "Americans should hope that when Pelosi leaves the speakership, she is not succeeded by someone who shares her ability to borrow and spend — even when serving with Republican presidents." Jeffrey made sure to ignore the fact that Republicans are an equal or greater partner with Pelosi on the spending Jeffrey claims to abhor and could have objected to it or blocked it -- but chose not to.
In addition to censoring inconvenent history, Jeffrey also got some of his numbers wrong; an editor's note buried at the end of the column states that "The debt numbers from the tenure of former Speaker Dennis Hastert were incorrect as initially reported in this column and have been corrected."
Getting facts straight -- especially when they run counter to his narrative -- is not Jeffrey's strong suit, apparently.
MRC Intern Perpetuates Falsehoods About Antifa And Violence Topic: Media Research Center
Intern Duncan Schroeder used a June 19 Media Research Center post to dismiss criticism of the then-upcoming Trump rally as coming from a "local liberal politician," then got mad at CNN host Jim Sciutto for bringing up the possible threat of far-right extremists disrupting the atmosphere surrounding the rally:
Sciutto then blamed white supremacists for the violence that has broken out at recent protests and suggested that this could be a concern in Tulsa: "There has been concern that demonstrations in the wake of George Floyd have attracted extremist groups including white supremacist groups that have deliberately sparked violence. Are you concerned about that in Tulsa this weekend?" Hall-Harper proclaimed: "Absolutely. Absolutely. We know that, that Trump has a pretty large following of, of extremists."
The anchor made such statements despite far-left activists such as Antifa being responsible for much of the violence at recent protests. In fact, since the death of George Floyd, leftist protesters have injured and killed a significant number of police officers.
As proof of his statement that Antifa is "responsible for much of the violence at recent protests," Schroeder linked to a June 1 MRC post by Kristine Marsh that referenced "left wing mobs like Antifa rioting and looting,"but she offered no proof. In fact, there's little evidence that anyone affiliated with Antifa, given how arrest records show virtually no record of Antifa affiliation, and a fact-checker concluded that "There has not yet been a single confirmed case in which someone who self-identifies as antifa led violent acts at any of the protests across the country." It can be argued that more right-wing extremists have been arrested in connection to planned or perpetrated violence than anyone connected to Antifa.
And as proof of his claim that " leftist protesters have injured and killed a significant number of police officers," Schroeder linked to a June 11 post by Bill D'Agostino complaining that the networks were insufficiently covering "the injuries and death inflicted on police officers," which he seemed to suggest were perpetrated by leftists. In fact, as we documented, a man affiliated with the far-right Boogaloo movement was arrested in the deaths of two of the officers he referenced.
Neither Schroeder nor anyone else at the MRC has told their readers that a right-wing extremist is apparently responsible for the deaths of two officers -- after all, that would run counter to their Antifa-fearmongering narrative.
CNS Doesn't Like Court Ruling Barring LGBT Job Discrimination Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reacted to the Supreme Court decision finding that gays and transgenders are protected from job discrimination pretty much the way you'd expect, given its largely anti-LGBT history.
Susan Jones started things out with a surprisingly balanced article on the ruling; she excerpted from both the majority and minority opinions on the ruling, though she let her bias slip at the end by stating that "While a homosexual advocacy group called the ruling a "landmark victory for LGBTQ equality," conservative groups disagree" and then quoting only conservative groups opposing the ruling.
From there, it was a descent into the usual bias. Editor in chief Terry Jeffrey devoted an entire article to the losing minority opinion under the headline "Alito and Thomas Smack Gorsuch." Jeffrey followed that with a bizarre column headlined "Will Joe Biden Become Our First Female President?"
Some Americans were hopeful in 2016 that Hillary Clinton would become our first female president. She did not.
But now Joe Biden may do it.
Excuse me, you might ask, isn't Biden a man?
Well, he is for now — under the Biden gender rules. But he need not be next year.
"Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time," Biden tweeted on Jan. 25.
So, presumably, under Biden's sex identification policy that holds that "every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of changing their gender marker to 'M,' 'F,' or 'X' on government identifications," a biological male who identifies as a woman one year can get government documentation — including a passport — that indicates he is a woman.
The next year, when he identifies as a man again, he can change his documentation to say he is a man.
Six months after that, when he decides he is neither a man nor a woman, he can get government documentation that says he is "X."
If he has only a singular transgender transformation — and is not a non-binary person — all he or she needs to do is change the indication of his or her sex on his or her government documentation once.
This aggressively deliberate misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender led up to Jeffrey's claim that the Supreme Court ruling "just goes to show that Gorsuch and Roberts share Biden's view of what makes a man a woman," adding, "The entire argument here might have been considered a reductio ad absurdum had the original proposition — that a man can become a woman or vice versa — not been absurd in the first place."
The right-wing views opposing the ruling piled up after that:
A "news" article by John Jakubisin featured "Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., president of the pro-family Ruth Institute" hyperbolically attacking the ruling as "erasing womanhood" while relegating a view supporting the ruling by "the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign" to the final two paragraphs of the article.
Hans von Spakovsky and Ryan Anderson -- the latter an anti-LGBT activist CNS has previously promoted -- bashed the ruling as "an act of judicial activism" and an "extreme policy."
Mary Beth Waddell and Peter Sprigg of the right-wing, anti-LGBT Family Research Council, ranted that "Sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws are unjustified in principle, because these characteristics are not inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, or in the U.S. Constitution—unlike race and sex."
CNS' favorite dishonest Catholic, Bill Donohue, fretted that the ruling might mean an anti-LGBT church or religious organizatoin might have to "employ a teacher who is in a homosexual relationship, or no longer identifies with the sex he or she was assigned at birth." In another column, he attacked the "flawed anthropology upon which the ruling rests" and dismissed homosexuality as a "behavioral attribute."
Mychal Massie Meltdown Watch, Black Lives Matter Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
I'm sick of hearing how black lives matter. Black Lives Matter is a Stalinist domestic terrorist group comprised of bigots, racists, anarchists and terrorists with three things in common: 1) They all hate America; 2) they're funded by taxpayer money and Soros money; and 3) they're all going to hell when they die, if they do not confess their sins, repent and turn from them, and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.
The factual truth is that lives do not matter, be they black, white, gray or chartreuse, until a black person dies during a confrontation with white police officers.
If lives mattered, there would be no alcoholism; there would be no drug addiction; there would be no violent assaults; there would be no rape; there would be no pornography and prostitution; there would be no marital infidelity or spousal abuse. Because if lives mattered, the mentality that supports, encourages and applauds the aforementioned reprobate behavior would not be celebrated.
And, if black lives mattered, there wouldn't be over 20 million blacks who have been murdered by the industrialized systematic extermination of black children. If lives mattered, women as a collective wouldn't have had over 60 million children murdered.
If lives mattered, there wouldn't be north of a trillion dollars in property damages across the United States owing to domestic terrorist groups like Antifa and godless immoral opportunists who personify the zeitgeist where looting and stealing is viewed as supporting one's family.
Specifically, if black lives mattered, over 70 percent of homes with black families wouldn't be single-parent households, headed by women with children from multiple men.
If lives mattered, vile self-serving politicians and lucifarian community organizers wouldn't attack America as being racist. They would speak the truth that in America opportunity abounds and that the road to success begins with proper behavior, personal responsibility, and marketable educational and employment skills.
If lives truly mattered, be they black or otherwise, true men and women of God would speak the truthful Word of God, not advocate sinful orthodoxies that promote sexual deviants to the pulpit, women to pastoral positions and the fallacious idea that God is a respecter of persons based upon skin color.
MRC's Graham Is Mad Once Again That Trump Is Fact-Checked Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham is totally cool with President Trump lying all the time -- so much so, in fact, that he and the MRC attack the media for fact-checking him. Graham did this again in his June 10 column, in which he complains that Washington Post fact-checkers have compiled a book of Trump's falsehoods.
Graham served up his usual hand-waving of Trump's falsehoods: "Trump has a casual relationship with the truth. Even MAGA hat-wearing Trump boosters know it." (Graham said the same thing in a 2019 MRC post.) He then complained:
There's a Big Lie at the end of the "fact-checker" book: a passage from page 261, in the concluding chapter, titled "Toward a Resurgence of Truth." It was plucked out and celebrated by CNN host Brian Stelter, since it's a favorite Big Lie on the left. The authors claim Trump is like a dictator: "A hallmark of authoritarian regimes is to call truth into question — except as the regime defines it. Russian president Vladimir Putin offers up a fog of disinformation to maintain power, including denying obvious facts (such as Russian involvement in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17), spouting falsehoods and deflecting attention with nonsensical comparisons (dubbed 'whataboutism')."
Then the authors quote former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul as saying, "A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth."
This "authoritarian" lie was repeated when Kessler appeared on "Morning Joe" on June 2. Co-host Mika Brzezinzki said Trump isn't just assaulting truth. "It's also an assault on our democracy."
Kessler said, "Correct."
This is what Kessler calls a Bottomless Pinocchio, an often-repeated untruth. Donald Trump is not a dictator. Nobody's jailing anyone at The Washington Post for maintaining anti-Trump databases and screaming, "Democracy dies in darkness!" like a panic-stricken teenager on the front page every day.
So a president can't be described as "authoritiarian" if you don't act on those authoritarian impulses? Then perhaps he and the MRC should apologize for portraying President Obama and other Democrats as having gone authoritarian even they know that, by Graham's standards for Trump, they haven't.
For instace, David Limbaugh ranted in a May 2016 column published by the MRC attacking the Obama administration's policy to bring more equality to transgendered people:
The Obama administration obviously cares not a whit for the privacy of students who don't want to be forced to share a restroom with students of the opposite sex. The rights of the many will be subordinated to the rights of the very, very few -- not to protect the rights of those few but to manufacture rights that don't exist to make an authoritarian statement on behalf of Big Brother.
Folks, there has to be a tipping point -- a point at which we'll no longer tolerate this kind of tyranny, even if it means the states' forgoing blood money from the federal leviathan.
In a March 2016 column published by the MRC, Michelle Malkin complained about an "educational SWAT team" then-candidate Hillary Clinton wanted to establish to improve education: "Clinton's SWAT team solution, you should know, is like all her other authoritarian plans: a moldy, recycled oldie."
In an August 2015 post, Matt Philbin complained of director Quentin Tarantino's praise for Obama, asserting that Tarantino is "totally stoked the president’s been ruling by executive fiat" and adding, "Scratch a liberal – or cut his ear off – you find an authoritarian."
In a December 2014 post, Tom Blumer declared Obama's executive action to create a program to protect undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minor children to be an "authoritarian immigration move."The month before, Blumer similarly attacked a provision in the Affordable Care Act: "Auto-defaulting consumers into a lower-cost plan and forcing them to do something about it if they want to keep their current plan's design and provider network is (here we go again) heavy-handed, authoritarian over-reach."
Blumer also complained that a "Like A Boss" T-shirt sold by Democrats "has obvious authoritarian overtones," huffing: "That Democrats can openly sell hate and Dear Leader-admiring authoritarianism at their online store is thus a small indicator of a much, much larger problem."
That's right: According to the MRC, Obama T-shirts are "authoritarian," while Trump is not.
Graham concluded his column by ranting: "We have an election in November. No one has canceled it. But liberal journalists speculate that imaginary tyrant Trump will never leave office if he loses...which is laughable, since they've never accepted he was legitimately elected in the first place." Remember that the MRC effectively condoned Obama birtherism by not criticizing it until it was applied against Brent Bozell's preferred 2016 presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, so it can be argued that Graham and Co. never considered Obama to have been legitimately elected.