Obama's New Book Makes The MRC Melt Down Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center haslongbeenenvious of Barack and Michelle Obama's success after leaving the White House and tried to tear them down whenever possible -- hence it took time out in the middle of runup to the presidential election to do a commercial for a "comedic play" by right-wing filmmaker Phelim McAleer called "ObamaGate" (which isn't actually a thing) that featured "the embarrassing and conspiratorial text messages of “FBI Lovebirds” Peter Strzok and Lisa Page." So when the publicity machine for Barack Obama's new presidential memoir got fired up, the MRC melted down.
On Nov. 12, Kristine Marsh huffed that "CNN journalists let former President Obama take a turn at spewing hate towards President Trump and the millions of Americans who voted for him ... he bashes Trump voters as racists and praises his former Vice President, Joe Biden."
Rich Noyes whined that "CBS News will roll out their red carpet for the former President on Sunday, helping him sell the first volume of his memoirs on Sunday Morning and 60 Minutes. The rest of the media will surely follow." He then rehashed how the media liked to say nice things about Obama.
Scott Whitlock ranted that it was "COLLUSION" that "Gayle King, who vacationed with the Obamas and is a Democratic donor, will score the first interview with Barack Obama as he promotes his new book." He later complained of the then-upcoming interview that "The early indications are not positive if you care at all about objectivity. The co-host encouraged Obama to lash out at Donald Trump."
Getting past the prebuttals to the actual interview, Nicholas Fondacaro grumbled that King "conducted a gooey interview" and proclaimed that "CBS’s insistence on letting King (someone who also donated to Democrats) shows they’re not a serious news organization."
Under the headline "GAG," Marsh returned to huff: CBS’s 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley gave Gayle King a run for her money in who could be the most obnoxious, sycophantic journalist interviewing Barack Obama for his new book on Sunday. After Pelley prompted the former president to compare President Trump to a dictator who had weakened our country before our adversaries, he buttered up Obama as actually too nice to Trump and claimed Americans wanted Obama to be nastier to the sitting president."
Whitlock came back to whine: "Who needs a PR machine when you have CBS News? That’s certainly the case when it comes to Barack Obama and his new book. In less than 24 hours, CBS promoted the Democrat’s new book for 48 minutes over multiple programs."
Marsh found another network to attack over Obama: "Like the obedient lap dogs they are, MSNBC immediately took up Barack Obama’s call for the mainstream media to fight conservative media misinformation when Joe Biden is in the White House." She disingenously added regarding former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' appearance on the channel: "Gibbs immediately went to low-hanging fruit by bringing up birther conspiracies about President Obama from the fringe as if to suggest this was the kind of news being spread by most conservative media outlets, (when actually Hillary Clinton supporters actually started these conspiracies about Obama in 2008.)" In fact, the MRC passively endorsed Obama birtherism and only spoke out against it in 2016 when the eligibility of Ted Cruz -- MRC chief Brent Bozell's preferred Republican presidential candidate that year before doing the big Trump flip -- was questioned.
Joseph Norris chimed in with a claim that "In two separate segments on Monday morning’s New Day, CNN hosts Alisyn Camerota and John Berman gushed over former President Obama being invited to trash President Trump during a pair of softball CBS interviews on Sunday" and "continued to swoon over Obama’s upcoming book and media appearances," going on to grouse, "While the words of a former President should be reported on, they should not be treated with the weight and deference the partisan network provided, especially given the blatant partisan motivation behind the remarks."
Whitlock returned to whine again, this time about Gayle King having "cheered the “powerful message” of Mrs. Obama going after Donald Trump again."
And Tim Graham -- who expressed much of the envious jealousy over the Obamas' post-presidency success -- devoted a column to huffing about "the media's incessant and aerobic adoration of former President Barack Obama" and rehashing the complaints his MRC underlings were paid to issue about the interviews:
After four years of reflection (and a reported $65 million his and hers book advance), the Almighty Barack Obama has come forward to bless the media with a 768-page memoir — and it's only volume one, with another one expected to follow. This takes the Obama-loving reader through the victorious takedown of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
[...]
These are only the interviews granted before this doorstop of a book is available in stores. But we can already see that, as Bernard Goldberg memorably described in his book title, this "slobbering love affair" never ends.
Graham added: "Obviously, conservatives believe that the job of holding the news media accountable is ineluctably connected to the media's alleged watchdog role." Of course, the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, is exempt from the MRC's scrutiny, having embarsssed itself as a pro-Trump sycophant with no interest whatsoever on serving as a watchdog on its fellow conservatives.
UPDATE: Marsh had yet another Obama meltdown, sneering "Gross" in the headine and ranting that "Late Show host Stephen Colbert practically bowed down before Barack Obama during a sit-down interview with the former President on his Tuesday night CBS show," while denouncing the interview as filled with "liberal smugness."
WND's Klayman Rants Against Jews While Denying He's Anti-Semitic Topic: WorldNetDaily
When you feel you have to explain you're not anti-Semitic before going on an anti-Jewish tirade, you're losing. And that's what Larry Klayman -- who once accused a judge of being biased against him because she's a Jew and not, you know, because of his own terrible lawyering -- does in his Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily column:
Let me get this up front! I am a proud Jew and a Zionist who believes in our Savior Jesus Christ, Yeshua, the truest Jew there ever was! Let me also make this clear: The overwhelming majority of Jews in this nation, Israel and spread throughout the world are not followers of self-hating Jews such as the inventors and later disciples of communism Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Saul Alinsky, Bernie Sanders, George Soros or anyone else of the Jewish left. Among all peoples, Jews – as the most persecuted minority in world history, losing over 6 million good souls at the hands of Hitler who many think also had self-hating Jewish roots by way of one of his grandfathers – understand what an oppressive centralized government stranglehold on the populace means in terms of one's life expectancy.
Ever since I founded Judicial Watch on July 29, 1994, conceived to be a conservative-oriented public interest watchdog meant to fight against corruption in government and the legal system, I have been attacked primarily by leftist Jews in the media. Among these hateful hacks and followers if not apologists of and for socialism and communism are people such as Jeffrey Toobin, the now disgraced legal analyst of CNN and recently fired reporter of The New Yorker Magazine. Today, I sent out a tweet and Parler message, tongue in cheek, that at least we now know that Toobin has a private part, since I have never seen any evidence that the Jewish left is so endowed.
[...]
Indeed, the Jewish left is sick and as destructive of Jews and all they stand for as the vile felonious Muslims Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who now infest our Congress and are given a huge megaphone by the Jewish left. The Jewish left, which not only dominates if not controls Hollywood – the beautiful people of Tinseltown – but also the mainstream media as a whole, will, if left unchecked, generate a wave of increased anti-Semitism by those who do not understand that they do not represent the Jewish people. That is sure to happen if conservatives and other Jews, the majority of whom are conservative or libertarian, do not strongly oppose them!
As a further example, just look at the makeup of the "Communist News Network," also known as CNN. From the head of the network on down, Jeff Zucker, to Jake Tapper, to Wolf Blitzer and a host of others, the network is effectively dominated by the Jewish left, spewing forth hate against President Trump, not coincidentally the biggest supporter of Israel the Jewish state has ever seen in an American president, and a supporter of conservatives, libertarians and people of faith in general. It is no coincidence that Chris Wallace, the leftist face of Fox News, is a card-carrying member of the Jewish left.
To make matters even worse, the Jewish left, not just in the United States, but also in Israel, is bent on taking down the Jewish state. If you want proof, just Google the daily articles of not just the New York Times in this country but also its equivalent leftist rag in Israel, El Haaretz.
And, then there are the Jewish leftist so-called professors in our universities, who teach Jewish students to hate their own heritage, brain washing innocent students with trash that Israel is an "apartheid state," effectively extolling the virtues of Palestinian terrorism over our God's land of Zion.
[...]
I am writing this column shortly after I had to sue another hack on the Jewish left, Josh Gerstein of Politico, for a dishonest hit piece he recently did on me. Go to www.larryklayman.com to view the complaint. Let it be said that I will not turn the other cheek as my own so-called people, now with their "champion" self-hating Jew Bernie Sanders wanting to be secretary of labor in the incoming Biden-Harris administration, work to steer the nation into a socialist/communist state the likes of which would make Karl Marx proud.
There it is! A proud Jew has said it, and it's not the first time I have done so in a WND column. Indeed, in my very first article for this fine publication that allows the truth to be told, even if unpleasant, was "The ethical decline of liberal Jewish intelligentsia."
It is time for real Jews to speak up before the Jewish left inflicts more harm on the Jewish people, Israel, the United States and the world. In so doing, we must make it clear that they do not represent us, the overwhelming majority of Jews who believe in freedom, liberty, capitalism, religious liberty and free speech, untainted by Marxism and other self-hating strains of tyranny.
Yeah, pretty much what you'd expect from Larry Klayman.
CNS' Stenography of Lindsey Graham Doesn't Hold Up Topic: CNSNews.com
Stenography done by a "news" operation tends not to age well. But that didn't stop Melanie Arter, CNSNews.com's chief pro-Trump stenographer, for uncritically transcribing a Fox Business appearance by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in a Nov. 10 article:
When asked to react to the media declaring former Vice President Joe Biden the next president, Graham said, “Well number one, this is a contested election. The media doesn't decide who becomes president. If they did you'd never have a Republican president forever, so we're discounting them.
“So, what happened? The Trump team has canvassed all early voters and absentee mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, and they've found over 100 people they think were dead, but 15 people that we verified that have been dead who voted, but here’s the one that gets me. Six people registered after they died and voted. In Pennsylvania, I guess you're never out of it," he said.
But as others have pointedout, that 15, even if proven to be fraud, falls far less than the thousands of votes that Trump was behind in the state. And it turns out that at least one case was not fraud: one woman listed as having voted but died before the election had filled out a mail-in ballot two days before her death, according to her daughter. And who did she vote for? Trump.
Arter went on to transcribe:
Host Maria Bartiromo asked Graham about a postal worker who has a sworn affidavit saying that supervisors were back-dating ballots.
[...]
Graham sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray saying that he received the affidavit from Richard Hopkins, the postal worker in Erie, Pa.
It turns out that after the Graham interview, Hopkins disavowed the affidavit, which he says was written by Project Veritas, the discredited right-wing activist group. Project Veritas then claimed that Hopkins recanted his recantation claiming he was coerced by Postal Service investigators, but the released audio doesn't demonstrate that.
Needless to say, neither Arter nor anyone else at CNS has reported on these developments, leaving Graham's discredited claim to stand uncorrected and not updated. It's just another piece of CNS' highly biased pro-Trump coverage after the election.
MRC Tries To Lecture Biden On Being Catholic Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted how the Media Research Center's "news" division, CNSNews.com, loves to lecture even Pope Francis on how to be Catholic. That tendency has spilled over to the MRC proper, where Gabriel Hays spent a Nov. 12 post whining about how Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic, isn't Catholic enough because he doesn't hate gay people like Hays does and won't make abortion illegal:
One of the left’s grossest tricks is to convince weak-minded Catholics that Biden is a good Catholic man. One outlet’s latest attempt at getting readers duped into believing in Biden’s piety is saying that he’s a “Pope Francis Catholic,” whatever that means.
On Thursday, The Huffington Post tried to sell apparent President-elect Joe Biden’s saintliness by praising his Catholic faith and talking about its similarities to that of Pope Francis. Though anyone who has had any serious Catholic upbringing knows this is complete BS, mainly for the fact that Joe Biden needs to actually give a damn about Catholic teaching in order to be in line with anything the pope believes.
The piece ceremoniously touted Biden as the “second Roman Catholic politician” in the nation’s highest office. That’s such an achievement, right? Not if Biden is Catholic in name only. Still, we were waterboarded with the fact that Biden carries a rosary and how his faith keeps him going. The piece gushed, “Biden, an Irish Catholic who carries a rosary in his pocket, spoke often on the campaign trail about how his faith has led him through periods of suffering in his life.”
Considering Biden is a radical pro-abort, pro-LGBTQ politician who has helped target religious groups like the Catholic “Little Sisters of the Poor” during the Obama administration, for example, he’s completely at odds with Catholic teaching and Pope Francis, but of course, in the media’s eyes, both men bring a nice and more “humble” approach to the faith.
So, if anything, Huffington Post was just reinforcing the fact that Biden is a hypocrite.
Actually, Gabe, nobody "targeted" the Little Sisters of the Poor; it refused to abide by the religious acommodation provided in the Affordable Care Act regarding coverage of contraceptives for its lay employees -- it did not qualify for a religious exemption because it employs non-religious people -- and was the instigator in filing a lawsuit to insist that checking a box on a firm infringed upon their religious rights (with apparently no concern for the rights of their lay employees).
Hays' tirade continued:
The media also love to make it look like prominent Catholics approve of un-Catholic practices. They love that a “Catholic” president is cool with officiating a gay wedding, for example, and they love it when the pope gives an unwieldy, taken-out-of-context quote< about homosexual "civil unions" as if that's a sign of a future evolution of church teaching.
Spoiler alert, Huffington Post: No matter what Joe Biden does, and no matter what the pope gives as his personal opinion, Catholic teaching maintains that it stays the same forever.
He finally concluded by sneering that "Joe Biden is a fake Catholic." Hays did not explain what expertise in Catholicism he has to determine who is a "fake Catholic."
But Hays is not the only uber-Catholic at the MRC in Heathering mode. Sergie Daez spent a Nov. 12 post having a fit that the Jesuits -- a Catholic order nobody can crediibly accuse of being "fake Catholic" -- committing the apparent sin of not hating Biden for not being Catholic enough:
Jesuits used to be known as the shock troops of the Counter Reformation. Nowadays in America, these Catholic priests and brothers of the Society of Jesus are little more than sycophants to liberal Catholic politicians.
The Jesuit magazine America recently published an article that touted presidential candidate Joe Biden as a practicing Catholic whose faith was a “gift.” Many of his supporters say that “Nothing was more sacred to [Mr. Biden] than his church,” among other things. Proof of Biden’s piety includes his Mass attendance and carrying a Rosary.
That may all be true, but Biden’s political and private life has seen him endorse enough anti-Catholic behavior to make a Muslim shake his head. This includes support for abortion, same sex-marriage, Obamacare in all its anti-religious freedom hideousness, and prosecution of nuns for following their religious beliefs. He even officiated a gay wedding.
But liberal Catholics believe that Biden is the greatest thing to happen to the Church and America since Dorothy Day.
Daez further complained that "Biden isn’t willing to spread Catholicism to others, even though God said to “go and make disciples of all nations” in the bible," even though that's not Biden's job as president; he has to serve all Americans, not just Catholics.
Daez attacked the Jesuits again in a Nov. 18 post because its magazine argued that Catholic bishops shouldn't "alieniate" Biden by freaking out over his abortion stance the way Daez is:
Are the Jesuits interested in saving souls, which is their principal duty as priests and brothers, or running for political office? They seem to be heavily invested in government issues. Since when have these problems, like climate change for example, become equal in importance to ending infanticide? They need to get their priorities straight.
America not only wanted the bishops to tolerate Biden’s stances toward abortion, they also maintain the laughable lie that Biden is a good Catholic. America resented the idea of preventing Biden from receiving Holy Communion. Labeling such tactics as a “political weapon,” they then asked, “If Mr. Biden is denied Communion, should the same happen to the millions of Catholics who voted for him?”
[...]
The U.S. bishops and the Catholic community are supposed to love God above all else and then love others. If Biden’s social justice comes at the cost of more infant lives, then it won’t matter how much racial justice is achieved or global peace is obtained.
Apparently, the only good Catholics are those to the right of the dishonest and hateful Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (on whose board Daez's boss, Brent Bozell, sits).
If smirky Newsmax columnist James Hirsen was complaining about "moral projection" before the presidential election, it's fair to say that the pro-Trump writer was clearly engaging in amoral projection afterwards.
Hirsen went all-in on election fraud conspiracy theories in his Nov. 9 column, falsely declaring that "Last minute rule changes, software glitches, count halts, ballot dumps, and statistical anomalies made their ugly appearances this election-go-round, all to the benefit of one party only" (italics in original). As a purported example of this, he claimed: "In Michigan, Democratic presidential candidate Biden at one point received a block of 138,000 votes. Nearly all of the votes added to his tally. This is a statistical impossibility." In fact, that was a typo that was quickly fixed.
Hirsen also asserted:
Dominion Democracy Suite software was used for tabulating ballots in Michigan’s Antrim County. A reported "glitch" caused at least 6,000 Republican votes to be counted as Democrat votes, according to Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox.
When corrected, the miscalculation, which was first reported by a county clerk, changed the results of the county from candidate Biden to President Trump.
Forty-seven other counties in Michigan may also have suffered a similar glitch, due to the same software. If each of these counties, when corrected, were to have a switch-over of 6,000 votes, it would result in President Trump receiving 282,000 additional votes, likely changing Michigan’s election results.
In fact, the "glitch" was a human error, not a problem with the Dominion software, and nothing similar happened in the 65 other Michigan counties (not 47, as Hirsen claimed) that used Dominion software.
Hirsen was still in conspiracy-theory mode in his Nov. 16 column, demanding that states override the popular vote and get Trump re-elected:
Despite repetitive denials emanating from a multitude of Democratic and media sources, it's clear that there has been unprecedented and widespread voter fraud as it relates to the all-important 2020 presidential election.
Although several lawsuits have been filed and are in the process of being adjudicated, the ultimate antidote for the toxin that has infected our electoral system does not rest in a state or federal judiciary.
Instead it rests in the state legislature.
[...]
President Trump’s supporters need to keep the faith — in the Constitution, in the truth, and in him.
Hirsen got all emo in his Nov. 23 column by couching his conspiracy theories in what he insisted was a "dark night of the soul" for America:
In essence, half the population is now being told to reject what they have seen with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, and know in their own hearts; that on election night, the vote counting of several states was halted, with no explanation given.
When it once again commenced, suddenly there were massive quantities of votes that came in for the Democratic presidential candidate.
In congressional, state, and local races, voters turned away from Democratic candidates, yet they still managed to vote for the Democratic candidate for president.
In record numbers, Black Americans chose the Republican candidate.
Nevertheless, the Democratic presidential candidate somehow received 11 million more votes than former President Barack Obama did in 2008.
[...]
And the same people who spread false information about Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate are now urging folks to move on, claiming that there is nothing to investigate and that the American people should graciously accept their candidate of choice.
First: Those "record numbers" of Black voters for Trump still meant that only 8 percent of Black voters voted for him. 92 percent did not.
Second: there are more Americans than there were in 2008 and 2012, and many of them were motivated to vote against Trump, so it makes sense that Biden got more votes than Obama.
Hirsen tried to end on an optimistic note: "What follows the lowest of low points is an unexpected breakthrough that enables the protagonist to overcome seemingly impossible odds and secure victory. I like to think of it as 'The Bright Light of the Spirit.'" The problem, of course, is that he believes that the dishonest, amoral, reality-denying Trump is the protagonist.
WND Touts Bogus Election Fraud Conspiracy Theory Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has done a lot of conspiracy-mongering over the presidential election results. Let's look at one specific conspiracy. Steve Baldwin wrote in a Nov. 16 column pushing various election conspiracies:
Finally, we've all heard stories about the "Hammer" software, which has the ability to change voting totals during a data transfer. Credible people such as attorney Sydney Powell, Judicial Watch Chairman Tom Fitton and retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, believe it may have been used in the key swing states. The source for this allegation is a CIA whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, who testified before Congress about how Obama and Biden used this software to win Florida in the 2012 presidential election.
While President Donald Trump's legal team pursues numerous lawsuits against states caught up in purported fraud, the primary legal argument rests on proving massive fraud. It will be shown this occurred courtesy of a tool for hacking vote-counting computers, developed by the CIA to monitor and influence foreign enemies. With the assistance of a CIA whistleblower who developed it in 2003 and a true patriot, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who understands the tool better than anyone else, the ugly truth is emerging. Despite CIA's charter banning domestic operations, this technology was applied domestically to ensure a political party's gain.
The technology, known as "Hammer and Scorecard" ("Hammer" is the supercomputer and "Scorecard" the software) steals elections by tampering with computers at state election computer-system transfer points and outside third-party election data vaults as votes transfer, using a prismatic scoring algorithm created to achieve the desired result. Barack Obama, upon learning of its existence in 2009, shared it with the Democrat [sic] National Committee. Recognizing its potential as a political weapon, he illegally commandeered and transferred it to Fort Washington, Maryland, where his White House, via an encrypted Virtual Private Network, could access it at will.
[...]
Gen. McInerney, 83, first learned about Hammer and Scorecard in 2018 – its existence and danger to American democracy revealed to him by close friend and fellow patriot, Adm. James A. "Ace" Lyons, as he lay dying. Lyons, who had been investigating it, left McInerney with a chilling warning: Obama's administration had stolen a super surveillance tool designed for foreign surveillance, turning it against the American people.
[...]
Hammer and Scorecard apparently work best in close elections as significant vote shifts might trigger suspicions. But smaller shifts, perhaps no more than 3%, would slide under the radar unnoticed. This might explain why it was not used on Hillary Clinton's behalf in 2016 as polls projected her win with 95% certainty. Only an enormous 2016 pro-Trump silent majority destroyed plans for back-to-back Democratic administrations.
This technological tool could well have sealed Democrats control of the Oval Office ad nauseam – one administration handing off Hammer to another. However, Trump's election temporarily disrupted the plot. Unfortunately, Trump failed to rid the deep state of all its bad players involved in the false Trump/Russia collusion claim. Thus, some, possibly even the current CIA and FBI directors, were left in positions to hammer Trump.
In fact, election security officials havesaid there's no evidence that Hammer and Scorecard even exist. And that "CIA whistleblower," Dennis Montgomery, is a fraud artist and hoaxster who has made something of a career of making fanciful claims about technology that turn out to be quite fraudulent. He was also allegedly involved with then-sheriff Joe Arpaio the scenes to try and advance Obama birther conspiracy theories and got paid $100,000 in tax money by Arpaio to provide information in another case that proved to be unreliable.
As for the former military men who are also pushing this, both McInerney and Lyons were members of Accuracy in Media's "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi" kangaroo court, McInerney is a Obama birther, and Lyons got the Washington Times sued for defamation after he wrote a column advancing Seth Rich conspiracy theories and falsely claiming that Rich's brother helped him download Democratic emails and give them to Wikileaks, forcing the Times to issue a public retraction. So maybe these are guys whose word can't be trusted.
MRC Again Upset That Right-Wingers Mispronouncing Kamala Harris' Name Get Busted Topic: Media Research Center
It's not enough for the Media Research Center to disagree with their political enemies; it must belittle them as well whenever possible. Thus, we have an Oct. 30 post by Tim Graham complaining about how Kamala Harris was asked about people who "mockingly mispronounce" her first name.
Graham complains seems to be that the question was asked at all, but he's also annoyed that People magazine referenced Tucker Carlson as among those deliberately mangling her name in an edited version of the interview when his name wasn't originally mentioned. Graham is playing dumb here, since the MRC got upset when Carlson was called out on his deliberate mispronunciation of her name back in August. But then the belittling came in, with an assist from the sainted Carlson:
We don't know who threw Tucker Carlson in there, but they would NOT like all the mockery Tucker dished out on Wednesday night. He played video of Harris recently calling herself "Camel-a," and then feigned outrage: "That was racism and sexism combined in a repulsive little Reese's peanut butter cup of hate!" Classic.
Yes, Graham really thought this was an issue that deserved a blog post -- which tells you about the nasty, petty nature of the MRC and how "media research" isn't really what they do.
CNS Is Angry Catholic Bishops Congratulated Catholic Biden Topic: CNSNews.com
Catholic officials are acknowledging that Joe Biden, a Catholic, won the presidential election, and the pro-Trump CNSNews.com is not having it.
When the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops congratulated Biden, CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey went on a lengthy Nov. 9 diatribe under the needlessly long headline "Top Catholic Bishop Acknowledges Pro-Abort, Pro-Gay-Marriage Biden as Second ‘President to Profess Catholic Faith’":
Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles, who currently serves as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has issued a statement describing Joe Biden—who supports legalized abortion, taxpayer funding of abortion, same-sex marriage, and allowing biological males to play on girls’ sports teams and use girls’ locker rooms—as “the second United States president to profess the Catholic faith.”
“We thank God for the blessings of liberty. The American people have spoken in this election,” said Archbishop Gomez in his statement--which is posted on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“Now is the time for our leaders to come together in a spirit of national unity and to commit themselves to dialogue and compromise for the common good,” said Gomez.
Jeffrey further ranted that "During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden staked out a number of positions that directly contradict Catholic moral teachings laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," such as supporting gay marriage when "The Catholic Catechism, by contrast, holds that marriage is between a man and a women and that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity” that “are contrary to the natural law.”, and that "Biden also supports letting biological males who are “transgender” claim to be females on government identity documents—and to play on girls’ sports teams and use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms" when "The Catholic Catechism cites Genesis 5:2 in stating: “Male and female he created them.”
The same day, an anonymously written article complained that the Vatican News website "has posted a headline today that says: US Bishops welcome Biden: ‘It’s time for unity,’” adding that "In his campaign—as noted by materials posted on his campaign website—former Vice President Biden supported legalized abortion, taxpayer funding of abortion and same-sex marriage. These things all violate Catholic moral teachings."
On Nov. 10, managing editor Michael W. Chapman gave space for an anti-abortion group to go on a hateful tirade against the bishops for the sin of congratulating Biden:
In response to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issuing a statement that congratulates Joe Biden and claims he is the second U.S. "president to profess the Catholic faith," leaders at the American Life League said this proves that the organization is "a feckless, spineless, conglomerate of dead souls."
[...]
Joe Biden is a Catholic who supports abortion, gay "marriage," gay adoption, and allowing biological males (transgender "women") to play on real women's sports teams and use their locker rooms, all of which is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
American Life League President Judie Brown said, "The USCCB has affirmed what many of us have suspected for many years, and that is that most Catholic bishops have no problem with a Catholic politician spitting at the face of Christ by supporting the vile murder of the preborn."
"Joe Biden is such a man; he claims to be Catholic, yet he gives 100 percent support for abortion every day of the week and in every manner of brutality against the innocent," said Brown. "The Catholic bishops have erred, and as a Catholic, I am ashamed of them."
ALL Executive Vice President Hugh Brown said, "The reality of the USCCB issuing a statement of congratulations to Joe Biden should not be a surprise to anyone. The USCCB is a feckless spineless conglomerate of dead souls. They are not the descendants of the Apostles."
Chapman and Jeffrey never explained why the simple, polite act of congratulating a newly elected president must be retaliated against with such ridiculous partisan venom.
MRC's Double Standard On Disclosing Conflicts of Interest Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck got all worked up in a Nov. 9 post:
In a revelation announced The New York Times, former Newsweek editor, liberal historian, and MSNBC/NBC contributor Jon Meacham has been writing speeches for former Vice President Joe Biden, including his Saturday night “victory speech.” Of course, Meacham and the Comcast-owned networks never disclosed this fact.
The lack of ethics wasn’t entirely surprising, given how Meacham both endorsed Biden during the campaign and spoke August 20 at the Democratic National Convention, and neither network seemed to care.
[...]
It would be nice if Meacham, MSNBC, and NBC would admit to their major failure to uphold basic journalistic ethics, but don’t hold your breath waiting. And as we all know, if this had happened on Fox News, both CNN and MSNBC would be calling for heads to roll.
Two days later, Tim Graham called the Meacham situation a "scandalette," huffing that "MSNBC keeps having to let its contributors go....off to the Biden transition team. It's a natural migration pattern, MSNBC analysts headed back to Democratic government work." (Funny, we don't recall Graham saying a word about all the Fox News contributors who went to work in the Trump administration.) That was followed by Kyle Drennen huffing that "Shortly after being fired from MSNBC as a paid contributor after he failed to disclose that he had been writing speeches for Joe Biden, on Thursday, ex-Newsweek editor and left-wing 'historian' Jon Meacham turned to the pages of Time to boost his Democratic Party boss."
While the MRC has been fretting about Meacham, it has acted in a similarly unethical manner by promoting the right-wing Twitter alternative Parler without disclosing that Parler funder Rebekah Mercer is also a major funder of the MRC and sits on the MRC's board of directors.
That zero-ethics stance by the MRC has continued. A Nov. 20 post by Alec Schemmel attacked Bill Gates for (accurately) noting that Parler has become a haven for "Holocaust denial" and other far-right conspiracy theories. Schemmel huffed that "Gates glossed over the free speech concerns that led to Parler’s creation. Gates also suggested that Parler isn’t truly a viable alternative to the already established social media giants," further declaring that "many conservative voices have urged their audiences to transition to Big Tech alternatives like Parler." But Schemmel didn't disclose the Mercer link between Parler and the MRC.
WND's Election Conspiracy-Mongering, Part 3 Topic: WorldNetDaily
As loyal pro-Trump foot soldiers who put sycophancy before facts, WorldNetDaily's columnists have enthusiasticallypromoted Trump's never-proven claims that the election was stolen from him. They have continued to do so over the past week, even as the whole story has descended into yet another WND-style conspiracy theory. Let's review.
Maybe the swamp runs a lot deeper than any of us imagined. Maybe the swamp has tributaries that run out into the blue states, where carefully crafted election fraud has controlled our presidential elections for generations.
What if Trump in 2019 was already setting the stage for the largest sting operation in history? What if a few blue-state governors in battleground states have been coordinating their efforts in election fraud with fake ballots, fake voters and fake elections for generations – at least since the election of President John F. Kennedy, which was paid for by unionizing the federal government.
Most of the state elections could be real and the votes honestly counted. But a handful of coordinating blue-state governors and their election chiefs could control the outcome of the entire nation's election, with only smallish amounts of targeted fraud.
This year's general election could have been the first one with widespread media collusion for a single party, however. Internal polling for both campaigns had to show that it was setting up for a big Trump victory. The media-sponsored public polls were as fake as the rest of the news, meant to suppress the Republican turnout vote.
Trump won the election. Anyone who watched what happened in the middle of election night knows that. Trump won. Five states that are run by Democrats simultaneously stopped reporting on their election totals for three hours and then mysteriously came back with new totals that showed Biden ahead. Those five states are in different time zones. Trump was ahead significantly in all five before the simultaneous "pause" in reporting. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan. All battleground states run by Democratic governors.
Democrats demanded a special prosecutor to investigate the bogus accusation of Trump colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Liberals refuse to accept the results, that Mueller found no evidence to support that accusation. So who is going to investigate what happened with the elections in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Nevada? Where is the special prosecutor/investigator who is outside of the control of Congress or the president who will investigate this, as Mueller did the Russia hoax?
There was no "attempted" voter fraud nor was there any "attempt" to steal the election from President Trump, because there was voter fraud and the election was stolen. That is the factual reality. If there were an "attempt" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
That which I have just said is of paramount importance to understand, because it happened in America, not some Third World banana republic with a GDP lower than the value of the shoes in my wife's closet.
This took place in America. It was perpetrated by Americans, and it was perpetrated against the duly elected occupant of the highest office in America and the most powerful office in the world. Let the gravity of that sink in for a moment.
[...]
The magnitude of what has happened should enrage you; it should also make you assess where we send our children to school and what we involve them in. It should make Americans realize if this can be done with impunity here, is there anything they won't or cannot do wherever they please?
America needs a man like President Trump. Let's join him in fighting to take what the thieves have stolen. It's ours, and we have the right to claim what is ours.
And yes, there is some evidence that a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election actually occurred. Indeed, a statistical analysis of the election data show Republicans performing incredibly well in some swing states down ticket, but, strangely, the vote count for Trump plummets. The idea the Republicans would have the highest voter turnout in history and vote for everyone from dog catcher to Congress, but then not cast a vote for Trump, flies in the face of everything we know about elections, not to mention Trump's popularity with Republicans. This, I believe, is evidence that someone hacked into the system in key swing states and moved votes from the Trump to the Biden column, but didn't bother altering the down ticket races.
If this can be proven, it will go down in history as the largest election fraud ever, and people will be sent to prison. However, the Trump team needs to bring in cyber-hacking experts and gain access to some state datebases in order to prove this occurred. They may have to convince a judge to grant them such access.
And that's one of the dilemmas we now face. Most courts, and certainly not the Supreme Court, will not entertain cases unless there is concrete evidence of fraud. While I'm convinced the Trump team has solid evidence proving that thousands of dead and out-of-state voters voting illegally, that may not be enough to change the election results. The fraud may be much more extensive than that, but to prove the existence of a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election via a sophisticated software program, the court will demand evidence that will be difficult to obtain without a court order giving the Trump team access to state voter databases. It's difficult to prove fraud unless the court first acts, but they won't act until you prove fraud. It's a big circle.
If that occurs and the judicial branch does not cooperate with uncovering this massive fraud, and the various state recounts and audits fail to uncover the bulk of the fraud, then the Trump grassroots movement needs to switch gears and create a massive pressure campaign to persuade state legislators to intervene. Indeed, state legislators actually have the constitutional right to reject electors chosen in fraudulent elections. The liberals claim electors must vote for Biden if the popular vote for that state favors him, but they're wrong; the Constitution clearly gives the legislators the power to seat a different group of electors who will vote for Trump. This should be done in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia at a minimum, all of which have legislatures controlled by the GOP.
"I never say anything I can't prove." Sidney Powell was cool, calm, collected and fierce in her on-air interview with Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last Sunday where she laid out the case purporting massive voting fraud in this year's presidential election. Powell, a former federal prosecutor, has a storied career and is most prominently known for rallying conservatives across the nation as she came to Gen. Michael Flynn's defense earlier this year. Stepping in to replace what turned out to be a grossly incompetent, if not willfully negligent, defense team, Powell, working deftly and diligently, completely turned the tables on the government prosecution exposing their legal malpractice and duplicitous actions in their case against the three-star general. Now, Powell is on the forefront of the Trump campaign's legal battle fighting for a free and fair election.
This is not the first time a patriotic woman rose up to fight against powerful forces to save her country and change the course of history. France was in dire straits and its troops were demoralized and desolate when Joan of Arc, a poor young peasant woman, emerged on the scene in 1429. Inspired by visions of saints and angels, Joan took up the sword and the banner of France to fight the ostensibly invincible English forces, reclaiming French territories. Joan led the French army to victory over the English at Orléans, which historians today recognize as "a momentous victory … that repulsed an English attempt to conquer France during the Hundred Years' War."
[...]
Powell's fierce determination, unwavering resolve and uncanny ability to achieve success against powerful, deep-seated, corrupt government forces sparks a glimmer of hope in the hearts of American patriots as she takes the reins in Trump's fight against election fraud. Sidney Powell's battle for democratic freedom in the United States today mirrors the battle Joan of Arc fought on behalf of her country so many years ago. If there's any person who can prevail against these seemingly indomitable forces, it might just be Sidney Powell, and she has an army of truth-loving American patriots cheering her to victory.
MRC Misleads Again About Twitter Political Donations Topic: Media Research Center
We've previously caught the Media Research Center making false headline claims about Facebook and Twitter purportedly dedication a vast majority of corporate political donations when the fine print showed that it was individual employees making those donations. Well, they did it again.
Under the headline "Shhh: Twitter Donations to Dems Now Exceed 99 Percent," Joseph Vazquez began a Nov. 5 post by hyperventilating, "The harbingers about Twitter’s Orwellian censorship of President Donald Trump and conservatives during the election have already come true. Donation records may help explain the reason."
That sounds like corporate donations, right? But it's not, as Vazquez quickly concedes:
A recent study found that Facebook employees/PACs and Twitter employees contributed over 90% of their contributions of $200 or more to Democrats. Twitter employees, in particular, have since increased their donation disparity in favor of Democrats to almost 100 percent.
[...]
Oh, but the donation records don’t stop there. For “congressional candidates” alone, Twitter employees donated $352,016 to Democrats and a laughable $624 to Republicans, or 0.15 percent of the total Twitter employee donations to congressional candidates.
Despite establishing no emperical connection between Twitter employees' individual and private political donations and Twitter corporate policies,Vazquez continued to whine:
It appears that the platform will do anything to help Democrats attain victory. A recent MRC study found that Twitter had censored the president (including his campaign accounts) 64 times since he was elected, while Biden (including his campaign accounts) wasn’t censored at all.
A report from yesterday also found that Twitter was censoring at least six top conservative verified accounts while the election was underway, including the president and his campaign. Others that were censored included The Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh, actor James Woods, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.
But as we pointed out, Twitter enforcing its terms of service on those who violate them is not "censorship," and the MRC offered no evidence backing up its suggestion that Biden violated those terms to the extent that Trump has. Further, the MRC admitted in most instances all that happened was that a filter was placed over the offending tweet and comments were turned off -- which is not "censorship" by any normal definition of the word.
CNSNews' Susan Jones does her best to put a positive pro-Trump spin on last month's employment numbers under the headline "Post-Election Gains":
October marked the sixth straight month of post-pandemic employment gains, as the economy added 638,000 jobs and the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 6.9 percent, a point below September's 7.9 percent and far lower than the record-shattering, COVID-induced 14.7 percent in April.
The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 149,806,000 people as employed in October, which is 2,243,000 more than September's number, but 8,997,000 below the record 158,803,000 people employed in December 2019, just before the pandemic erupted.
Interesting that Jones is touting December 2019 as the relevantpre-pandemic high, given that the pandemic didn't affect employment numbers until March.
Jones also noted the low laboe force participation rate, but was quick to explain it away, something she rarely did when Barack Obama was president: "BLS notes that this "not in the labor force" number has been steadily increasing in recent years as more baby boomers retire, and certainly the COVID-related business closures have accelerated the increase as more people drop out of the workforce."
CNS also served up the usual sidebars. Craig Bannister tried for pro-Trump rah-rah by claiming that "The unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos improved for the sixth consecutive month in October as the nation’s businesses continued reopening from the coronavirus-prompted shutdown." Government-hating CNS editor Terry Jeffrey, meanwhile, gloated that "The number of people working for government in the United States declined by 268,000 in October even as overall employment in nation increased," then had to admit, "The decline of government workers occurred as temporary Census workers were let go and employment dropped in government schools."
MRC Still Portraying Twitter Enforcing Terms Of Service Against Trump As 'Censorship' Topic: Media Research Center
The last time we checked on the Media Research Center whining that social media companies enforcing their terms of service on President Trump was "censorship," it was featuring both Twitter and Facebook. Perhaps because portraying Facebook as uniquely biased against conservatives is utterly divorced from reality, the MRC has now decided to focus solely on Twitter (despite accompanying graphics still blaming plural "tech companies"). Corinne Weaver complained on Nov. 9:
Through its rampant censorship, Twitter has done its best to silence President Donald Trump. However, neither former Vice President Joe Biden nor his campaign have received any labels or filters of any kind.
Election Day brought with it a huge spike in Twitter’s censorship. The company’s arsenal used against Team Trump included labels, filters, blocking URLs and preventing users from commenting on certain tweets. This same treatment was also handed to the Trump campaign Twitter account. Since Nov. 3, Trump’s personal Twitter account was censored 35 times as he tweeted about ballots and election counts. Overall, Twitter has censored Trump since May 31, 2018, a grand total of 111 times. In contrast, Biden and his campaign have received no forms of censorship or suppression.
Twitter has gone off the rails when it comes to censoring President Donald Trump and his campaign account. But meanwhile, Joe Biden and his campaign accounts remain untouched.
The president’s account and the account of Team Trump received 83 labels on their tweets between Nov. 9 and Nov. 16, as of the time of this piece’s publication. These tweets included retweets of statements from figures like X Strategies CEO Alexander Bruesewitz, Fox political analyst Gregg Jarrett, and actors Kevin Sorbo and Jon Voight. Overall, since May 31, 2018, Trump and his campaign have been censored 194 times.
Between Nov. 2 and Nov. 9, Trump’s personal Twitter had been censored 36 times. Between Nov. 9 and Nov. 16, Trump’s personal account received 64 labels. This marks a 77 percent increase in censorship over the previous week. By contrast, none of Joe Biden’s tweets have been given any sort of label.
In neither post did Weaver cite a Biden tweet that should have been "censored," nor did she coherently explain why any of the Trump tweets should not have been. She did sort of try on that last part though, asserting that in one "censored" clip, "Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo discussed with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) the concept of 'dead people voting.' Twitter labeled this video with 'This claim about election fraud is disputed.' Yet, according to 2012 research done by the Pew Center on the States, 1.8 million deceased people were registered as voters. This topic has been discussed broadly by both sides in the past 10 years."
But dead people on the voting rolls is not the same as "dead people voting." Weaver did not note whether Bariromo or Graham offered any verifiable of evidence of "dead people voting," let alone that it has been an significant issue in the presidential campaign.
That's the kind of baseless, factually unsupported ranting Weaver doesn't think should be disciplined by Twitter.
UPDATE: After the election, Kayla Sargent similarly complained that Twitter "censored tweets from at least six conservatives’ verified accounts, including President Donald Trump. In five of the six instances, the platform placed an interstitial, or filter, over the tweets, and in five of the six cases, it turned off comments and likes. Twitter still allowed quote tweets for the posts, however." But if you can still easily see the tweets simply by turning off a filter, it's not "censorship," is it? Sargent didn't explain why it is.
At the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked the speaker, “In 2000, Democrat Al Gore was allowed to press his legal challenge against George W. Bush for 37 days, do you think the same type of patience should be afforded to President Trump in his legal challenges?”
Pelosi said, “In 2000, the delayed ascertainment caused many difficulties, the Bush Administration was outspoken about what was happening in the country. And, as [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] said, this is a completely different situation, we are talking about one state.”
Gore had challenged to [sic] vote count in Florida and the case was eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's an overly simplistic distillation of what happened in 2000, but that's not the issue here. The issue is what appears after that statement: an image of a Washington Times front page proclaiming, "PRESIDENT GORE," described as a screenshot from YouTube. Here's a screenshot of the fake image as it appears in the article:
Just one problem: That image is afake, and it's unclear where the image originated. As the newspaper itself tweeted, "Those photos have been doctored. The Washington Times never ran a 'President Gore' headline."
It's been nearly a week, and CNS has let that image stand uncorrected and without context. That's not how "news" organizations -- which CNS claims to be -- establish credibility.
MRC Promotes Parler, Censors Financial Backer's Tie To The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted the Media Research Center's recent enthusiasm (as well as its "news" division, CNSNews.com) for right-wing Twitter alternative Parler, even as it descends into a conspiracy hub. Turns out there's a reason for that -- one it has yet to tell its readers.
It was revealed this week that conservative financier Rebekah Mercer is a key investor in Parler -- so much so that she's considered a co-founder. If that name sounds familiar, it should: As we documented, not only is Mercer's family donated millions of dollars to the MRC over the years, making it one of its largest benefactors, Rebekah Mercer sits on the MRC's board of directors.
But the MRC has never revealed that conflict of interest to its readers, even as its promotion of Parler has ramped up around election time:
On Nov. 2, Joseph Vaquez gushed over how Parler CEO John Matze "warned Americans on CNBC about Big Tech’s Orwellian censorship against President Donald Trump that will continue right into election night.
Vazquez fawned over Matze and Parler again in a Nov. 11 post: "A conservative exodus to Parler from liberal Big Tech platforms has taken place since the chaotic election. The rising social media platform had skyrocketed to become the top app on the App Store."
The same day, Kayla Sargent cheered how Parler "hasn’t yet bowed to pressure from the left," adding, "With the rampant censorship on Facebook and Twitter, many conservatives have turned to the Parler platform."
On Nov 13, P.J. Gladnick mockingly wrote of "Parler's great sin of acting as a platform, and not a publisher, which engages in neither censorship nor placing warning or advisory labels on posts.
In complaining in a Nov. 17 post about a CNN reporter that platforms like Parler spread misinformation and hate, Alexander Hall even admitted that "Rebekah Mercer, daughter of conservative mega donor Robert Mercer, is among the company’s financial investors" -- but censored the fact that Mercer is also on the MRC's board.
On Nov. 18, Heather Moon argued that "Parler is not as dangerous as experts .... make it out to be, but she too censored the Mercer connection.
This lack of disclosure further affects what little credibility the MRC has.
The Media Research Center has long been envious of Barack and Michelle Obama's success after leaving the White House and tried to tear them down whenever possible -- hence it took time out in the middle of runup to the presidential election to do a commercial for a "comedic play" by right-wing filmmaker Phelim McAleer called "ObamaGate" (which isn't actually a thing) that featured "the embarrassing and conspiratorial text messages of “FBI Lovebirds” Peter Strzok and Lisa Page." So when the publicity machine for Barack Obama's new presidential memoir got fired up, the MRC melted down.
When you feel you have to explain you're not anti-Semitic before going on an anti-Jewish tirade, you're losing. And that's what Larry Klayman -- who once 
Stenography done by a "news" operation tends not to age well. But that didn't stop Melanie Arter, CNSNews.com's chief pro-Trump stenographer, for uncritically transcribing a Fox Business appearance by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in a Nov. 10 
We've noted how the Media Research Center's "news" division, CNSNews.com, loves to lecture even Pope Francis on how to be Catholic. That tendency has spilled over to the MRC proper, where Gabriel Hays spent a Nov. 12 
If smirky Newsmax columnist James Hirsen was complaining about "
WorldNetDaily has done a lot of conspiracy-mongering over the presidential election results. Let's look at one specific conspiracy. Steve Baldwin wrote in a Nov. 16 
It's not enough for the Media Research Center to disagree with their political enemies; it must belittle them as well whenever possible. Thus, we have an Oct. 30 
Catholic officials are acknowledging that Joe Biden, a Catholic, won the presidential election, and the pro-Trump CNSNews.com is not having it.
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck got all worked up in a Nov. 9 
As loyal pro-Trump foot soldiers who put sycophancy before facts, WorldNetDaily's columnists have 
We've 
CNSNews' Susan Jones does her best to put a positive pro-Trump spin on last month's employment numbers under the headline "
The last time 
We've noted
