MRC's Double Standard On Sleazy Sex Scandals Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center spent a lot of time over the past few years Heathering the Lincoln Project for being never-Trump conservatives and looks for any opportunity to write negatively about it. Well, it was handed a plum opportunity when it was revealed that Lincoln Project co-founder John Weaver had sent unsolicited and sexually provoctive messages to teenage males. Unsurprisingly, the MRC launched into its usual blitz of complaining that the alleged scandal wasn't getting attention outside its media bubble and that other Lincoln Project representatives were somehow still allowed to appear on TV:
Meanwhile, the MRC was studiously ignoring a creepy sex scandal involving a conservative who wasn't anti-Trump. Take it away, Law & Crime:
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) on Friday announced that a former aide to President Donald Trump was arrested in Washington, D.C. and charged with receiving, possessing, and distributing child pornography.
Ruben Verastigui, 27, who worked on Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign, was previously employed as a senior digital strategist for the Senate Republican Conference and Republican National Committee. He was also the digital media coordinator for the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America. He left the Republican Conference in July of 2020 to become the communications manager for the nonprofit group Citizens For Responsible Energy Solutions.
The details are graphic.
According to that public document, Verastigui allegedly told another person in April of 2020 that he was “into” sexually assaulting babies.
The MRC has censored any mention of Verastigui and his crime. Meanwhile, his former employer, Students for Life, has been given a lot of play at the MRC; The group's leaders have been been signatories to twoletters issued by the MRC pushing its dubious narrative that "Big Tech:" is solely muzzling conservatives, and a January post by Gabriel Hays cited Students for Life among the groups cheering a Supreme Court ruling making it harder to obtain medication to induce an abortion.
If the Lincoln Project is tainted by Weaver's sleazy sex scandal, why isn't Students for Life tained by Verastigui's even sleazier sex scandal?
You'd think that the MRC would be outraged at all sex scandal perpetrators. Apparently, those who are sufficiently loyal to the right-wing cause and the organizations that employed them get a pass.
WND's Lively: U.S. No Longer A Republic Because Biden Was Elected Topic: WorldNetDaily
It was Benjamin Franklin who famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it," when a group of citizens asked him what form of government the founders had created for them. Few remember that he also said, "[This republic] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other," adding, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Notice that he said "when," not "if."
Franklin's prophecy has come true: The putative Biden "presidency" is proof that our republic has been replaced by despotism – the consequence of our loss of virtue as a people. Sure, we can blame the Marxists for usurping our institutions and indoctrinating generations of Americans in atheism, hedonism and the victim/plunder mentality, but we nevertheless remain responsible for our own choices. "The devil made me do it" defense can't save you in this life or the next.
If Donald Trump was America's judge, as I believe, he fits the mold of Samson (complete with iconic hair) – who furiously fought the corrupt Philistines and in the end (Jan. 6) pulled down their temple on all of their heads. What followed Samson in Israel (under Eli and Samuel) was the transition to a monarchy led by Saul, who transformed into an Antichrist figure during his reign, who was followed by David, the Christ figure.
This pattern also fits the last-days timeline of prophecy. If so, it could be that Biden is the Eli figure – famous for the criminality of his sons – and Trump could even return in 2024 for a second term as the transitional Samuel figure, but either way there was not in Israel, nor would there be in America, any restoration of the republic, just a possible continuation of the reprieve, consistent with God's longsuffering nature.
It all comes down to the hearts of the people ourselves, and, just as was true under the final judges of Israel, there is today no apparent hunger for a return to national godliness that would manifest in repentance.
With apologies to the patriot prophet Benjamin Franklin, it must now be said that he was right, and due to our own collective loss of virtue, America was the republic we couldn't keep.
CNS Frets Biden Will Allow More Non-Christian Refugees Into U.S. Than Trump Did Topic: CNSNews.com
We'vedocumented how CNSNews.com, mainly reporter Patrick Goodenough, fretted that the U.S. let into the country too many Muslim refugees and not enough Christian ones under President Obama -- although there were almost always more Christians than Muslims -- and cheered when President Trump not only drastically cut the number of overall refugees but dramatically increased the percentage of those that were Christian. With a new administration and likely changes in refugee policies, CNS is ready to skew the issue again.
An anonymously written article published in December complained about a Biden campaign policy statement stating that "Prohibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong, and there is no intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure." Another anonymous article in january groused that "President-elect Joe Biden has promised to terminate policies followed under President Donald Trump that Biden says limited 'the ability of members of the LGBTQ community' to claim asylum in the United States." Goodenough fretted in a Feb. 4 article:
President Joe Biden signaled on Thursday that the United States will in the next fiscal year aim to admit the largest number of refugees in almost three decades.
The refugee admission ceiling for fiscal year 2022, which begins on October 1 this year, will be 125,000, Biden said at the State Department.
That number is 15,000 more than the highest cap set during the Obama-Biden administration (Its proposal of 110,000, for FY 2017, would have been the highest since FY 1995. It did not survive, however, as President Trump, days after his inauguration, signed an executive order lowering it to 50,000 admissions.)
Goodenough did offer some sort of balance, noting that "Refugee resettlement agencies applauded the move." while "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) criticized Biden’s announcement,"though he didn't explain what significance Cotton's remarks have to the debate beyond being a random Republican would happened to issue a statement on the issue.
Goodenough rehashed what we already knew about the Trump administration's refugee policy in a Feb. 11 article:
The Trump administration’s refugee policies led to an increased proportion of Christians among those resettled in the United States – but because overall refugee numbers were reduced so significantly, far fewer followers of the world’s most persecuted religious faith were resettled during the Trump years than previously, advocates told the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on Wednesday.
Between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2020, the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. from the 50 countries on the Open Doors USA annual list of the world’s worst persecutors of Christians dropped by 83 percent – from 16,714 to 2,811 – Jenny Yang, senior vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, told a USCIRF hearing on “Refugees Fleeing Religious Persecution.”
Goodenough's assertion that Christianity is "the world’s most persecuted religious faith" is dubious at best, though he did graciously concede that "Adherents of faiths other than Christianity face persecution too." He also conceded a fact he obscured in his original reporting at the time, that Christian refugees almost always outnumbered Muslim ones under Obama:
During most of the Obama administration, Christians outnumbered Muslims – although not by large margins – among the refugee admissions.
That changed in the last full fiscal year of the Obama administration, when 44.5 percent of the 84,994 refugees resettled in the U.S. were Christians and 45.7 percent were Muslims.
Goodenough also complained that "President Biden is expected to increase the admission ceiling for the current fiscal year," though he had to admit that the move was applauded by not only resettlement agencies but also the USCIRF, "a bipartisan statutory body that advises the executive and legislative branches."
NEW ARTICLE -- Fake News At WND: Election Fraud Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily unsurprisingly embraced Donald Trump's bogus claims that voter fraud cost him the election -- but, surprisingly, some claims were so egregiously false that WND actually felt compelled to correct the record. Read more >>
Again: Aside from the above-noted Jay Maxson example, none of this posts offer any sort of defense of Limbaugh -- they simply whine that Limbaugh was criticized -- accurately, one could say -- upon his death. (Also, note that the MRC so loved the word "despicable" to describe the non-right-wing media's response to Limbaugh's death that it appears in the headlines of three of these items.)
One post, however, did attempt to defend the arguably indefensible. Tim Graham devoted a Feb. 18 post to responding to an Associated Press obituary of Limbaugh that noted "As the AIDS epidemic raged in the 1980s, he made the dying a punchline," that "When actor Michael J. Fox, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, appeared in a Democratic campaign commercial, Limbaugh mocked his tremors" and that "when a Georgetown University law student supported expanded contraceptive coverage, he dismissed her as a 'slut.'"Graham's response: There's context! And Rush (allegely) apologized!
Each one of these could be dissected and put into context -- for example, he apologized for making light of AIDS patients. But reporters skip over the apologizes where he apologized. He also apologized for suggesting law student Sandra Fluke was a "slut." He also apologized to Michael J. Fox, but Brent Baker has fuller context.
Adding context would crimp the "cruelty" and "malice" charges, but Sedensky left that out. There's also no sense of timeline -- the "AIDS Updates" and jokes about D.C. homeless advocate Mitch Snyder are from 1990, before Limbaugh's show became a widely distributed national show.
Graham linked to no evidence that Limbaugh ever apologized for his "making light of AIDS patients." And Limbaugh didn't merely "suggest" Fluke was a "slut" -- he out-and-out called her one, the MRC gave him a pass for doing so, and Limbsugh's so-called apology wasn't much of one and it came only after advertisers threatened to quit the show.
Graham's post, by the way, was the only one of the Limbaugh defense posts in which Fluke was mentioned by name.
The MRC had the same hates as Limbaugh did, so it couldn't understand why his targets -- or anyone who's not in their right-wing media bubble -- might object to the offensive things he said. Because to Graham and the rest of the MRC crew, they weren't offensive.
CNS Keeps Disrespecting LGBT Politicians Topic: CNSNews.com
It's no secret that CNSNews.com hates LGBT people in general and LGBT politicians even more -- just look at the treatment it gave to Pete Buttigieg. Even when Buttigieg was nominated by President Biden as transportation secretary, CNS continued to obsess over his sexual orientation, illustrating articles about the nomination with photos of him kissing his husband in an apparent attempt to squick out its right-wing, homophobic readership.
CNS pulled that disrespectful trick once again in a Feb. 22 article in which an anonymous CNS reporter noted that Buttigieg "has tweeted out a video of himself having an exchange with a person about the basic philosophy he brings to transportation in the United States." The original headline rad "Trans Secretary Pete Explains: ‘What About Bikes, Scooters, Wheelchairs...Roads Aren’t Only for Vehicles’" -- seemingly suggesting that Buttigieg was somehow transgender, whcih CNS hates even more than being gay -- and accompanied the article with, yes, a photo of Buttigieg and his husband kissing:
CNS later changed the headline, swapping out "Trans Secretary Pete" for the more conventional "Transportation Secretary Buttigieg" and replaced the irrelevant kissing photo with a more normal stock shot of Buttigieg.
But that's not the only recent example of CNS disrespecting an LGBT politician. An anonymously written March 1 article focused on Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney defending the Equity Act, asserting that the law "would force schools in the United States to let biological males play on girls’ sports teams and use their locker rooms, restrooms and dressing rooms" as if it was the only thing the llaw would do, and also pointing out out that Maloney "is in a same-sex marriage." The headline CNS put on his article? "Congressman Married to Other Man on Equality Act Opponents: ‘They Believe LGBT People Are Morally Inferior’."
Yes, that's a picture of Maloney with his husband.
CNS is apparently proud enough of this slight that it remains the article. CNS also doesn't dispute Malone's contention that Equality Act opponents belive that LGBT people are "morally inferior" and that "their beliefs demand existing discrimination against LGBT people be allowed" -- perhaps because it's indisputably true.
MRC Writer Misunderstands The Lessons Of The Chicago 7 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kyle Drennen complained in a Feb. 12 post:
In just another example of blatant media hypocrisy, on NBC’s 3rd Hour Today show Friday, co-host Al Roker enthusiastically talked to the cast of the Netflix film The Trial of the Chicago 7, which lionizes the far-left radicals who incited the violent 1968 riot at the Democratic National Convention. Amazingly, the deadly January 6 Capitol Hill riot never came up in the discussion, even as the ’68 Chicago rioters were given glowing labels like “iconic” and “hero.”
Apparently NBC failed to see the irony of promoting a movie celebrating the inciters of a violent riot in between it’s coverage of a Senate impeachment trial accusing former President Trump of inciting a violent riot.
Drennen clearly doesn't know his history. Otherwise, he would be aware that none of the Chicago 7 were ultimately convicted of inciting a riot. The protesters had planned a nonviolent protest against the Vietnam War, but the violence outside the convention was actually instigated by the police determined to make a show of force by violently cracking down on them, and the arrests of the leaders and the resulting trial were pushed by federal prosecutors under Richard Nixon determined to make an example of anti-war protesters.
In 1968, it was the police who created the riot and authorities tried to railroad protesters who would have been peaceful if not for the brutal police crackdown. On Jan. 6, it was the MRC's preferred president, Donald Trump, who incited thousands of protesters to storm and desecrate the Capitol. So, no, not the same at all. No irony here.
WND Columnists Still Pushing Election Fraud Narratives Topic: WorldNetDaily
So, then, there is one question I have never heard posed that trumps all other considerations: Would moral considerations prevent Democrats from cheating to oust Trump? Or, to put the question in the positive: Would Democrats deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Joe Biden?
The answer to the first question is no: Moral considerations would not prevent decent Democrats from cheating to prevent Trump's reelection. The answer to the second question is yes: Decent Democrats would deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Biden.
For four years, the media and their party, the Democrats, told us every day that Trump is a fascist, a dictator, a racist and a white supremacist; that he was an agent of the Russian government – a real-life Manchurian candidate. We were also repeatedly told by the lying media (Trump's accurate description of the mainstream media) that in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there are "very fine" Nazis (see the PragerU video, "The Charlottesville Lie"). Yes, the media told us with a straight face that a man with a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren said there are fine Nazis. Biden said he decided to run for president because of this lie.
So, then, here is the question: Why would anyone who sincerely believed Trump is a white-supremacist fascist dictator not cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming or remaining president of the United States?
Let me sharpen this question: Isn't someone who could prevent a fascist, white-supremacist, Nazi-defending dictator morally obligated to cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming president?
I certainly would. If I were in a position to cheat in order to prevent a fascist from becoming president, why would I not cheat?
To repeat, I have never said Biden did not win the election. And even if there was considerable fraud, that doesn't mean the election result would have been different.
But there are consequences to beliefs. Unless Democrats knew they were lying for four years when they labeled Trump a fascist, racist, Nazi, dictator, etc., were they not duty-bound to cheat on Biden's behalf? So, then, when you have circumstantial evidence (not proof), combined with opportunity, desire, motive and, most important, no moral argument against cheating and a strong moral argument for cheating, it isn't a "lie," and it isn't a crackpot conspiracy theory, to wonder about the integrity of America's 2020 presidential election.
As we are now three months out from the elections and almost one month removed from the storming of the Capitol, we can step back, catch our breath and reassess where we stand. Emotions are calming down, the news cycle is less intense, and fanatical voices are being separated from reasonable voices. Yet one thing remains constant: Millions of fair-minded Americans still believe there was serious election fraud. This is an issue that simply will not disappear.
These people are not wild-eyed white supremacists (or even non-wild-eyed white supremacists). To the contrary, they are as mortified as anyone over the events of Jan. 6.
Nor can they be written off as unhinged conspiracy theorists, as many of them (most of them?) have never read a QAnon post in their lives.
Yet they still have serious concerns about the trustworthiness of our electoral process, and the more the mainstream media state that there is zero evidence of voter fraud, the more determined they become.
Now that the dust has settled and almost all Americans are not expecting Biden (or Harris) to be removed from office as a result of the election results being overturned, is there a way for these questions to be answered? Or, if it is too late to properly examine the details of the 2020 elections, what can be done to regain voter confidence for 2022 and 2024?
To repeat: these are questions that will not easily go away.
Yet, despite nearly half of all voters believing massive voter fraud occurred in the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, no effort has been undertaken to investigate the matter. Instead, we are falsely told by a liberal media no basis exists to support such a claim. But evidence offered by independent experts refutes this media narrative. If voter trust in the election process is to be restored, a fair and independent investigation is needed.
As the article of impeachment had accused Trump of making "false claims" of voter fraud, one had hoped the issue might be raised during the Senate impeachment trial. That hope came close to reality after the Senate voted to call witnesses. However, once Democrats learned Trump's defense counsel intended to call Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a witness, Democrats reversed their decision so she would not be put on the hot seat about security related matters for which she was responsible. Thus, no witnesses were called, leaving the fraud issue unresolved.
The disinterest in an investigation leaves American voters wondering whether Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has so affected Congress that it has opted to take an ostrich-like approach to the voter fraud issue, burying its collective head in the sand.
While numerous lawsuits raising this issue have been dismissed on procedural grounds, others have been working their way up the judicial ladder. On Feb. 19, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hold a conference to consider whether to accept some of these cases. They include lawsuits filed by attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell as well as others. The lawsuits allege that unlawful conduct occurred in several battleground states, such as state election officials instituting mail-in voting changes in violation of the U.S. Constitution requiring this only be done by state legislatures, failing to enforce mail-in ballot security measures, denying Republican poll watchers meaningful access, etc. Hopefully, one or more of these cases, if accepted by SCOTUS, will necessitate review of voter fraud evidence.
During a time when many Republican officials have been unwilling to do anything to battle election fraud, a few are holding firm. Last year, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich got involved with six election lawsuits, including successfully suing the Democratic county recorder when he tried to send out mail-in ballots to everyone in Maricopa County. Brnovich wrote to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors a few days after the election urging them to more than double the hand audit. He also filed an amicus brief in support of the Arizona State Senate demanding that the supervisors turn over the Dominion voting machines for inspection.
Now, he's taking on the Democratic National Committee in a case at the Supreme Court that is going to determine whether states can take measures to combat election fraud. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. This will likely determine whether the election fraud we saw in the presidential race can continue or whether states will be able to stop it.
We may not have been able to defeat election fraud in the 2020 election in time; they broadsided us. But it is imperative to stop it or Republicans may never hold significant offices again. It is the single most important issue we must focus on right now. The future of our country hinges on this decision.
Establishing election integrity should be the top priority in every state legislature, after the fiasco of the recent presidential election. Polls continue to show that most Republicans think the election was unfairly conducted for a number of unprecedented reasons, and that Joe Biden did not legitimately win.
A presidential election that half the voters regard as illegitimate cannot be salvaged by barbed wire that now blights the history, grandeur and beauty of Washington, D.C. An American presidency needs to be based on election integrity, not thousands of troops stationed at our Capitol.
Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures the full authority to govern elections for the presidential electors who ultimately choose the president. Courts, which are dominated by liberals at the state level and in most federal venues, have no role in that process.
President Trump had to spend precious time campaigning in Florida in the crucial final weeks of the last election. If Florida adopts election integrity, then Trump could safely count on carrying that state next time, to free up time to campaign in other battleground states.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has made election integrity a priority for the biennial legislative session there, and curtailing fraudulent mail-in voting is high on his agenda. Stuffing the ballot box with mail-in votes has caused the Republican margins there to dwindle, as Democrats become more adept at milking votes from election shenanigans.
MRC's Double Standard On Attacking Reporters Topic: Media Research Center
Last month, the Media Research Center got a bit of clickbait mileage out of a controversy involving a deputy press secretary in the White House press office, TJ Ducklo. It actually began with some manufactured outrage about how a reporter ended up having a romatic relationship with Ducklo, even though the reporter responsibly asked to be reassigned after the relationship began; Kristine Marsh sneered that a People magazine article on the relationship read "more like a PR piece for the reporter and her Team Biden boyfriend" (as if anyone expects hard-hitting journalism from People) and whined that the reassignment allegedly didn't happen soon enough.
Then there was an actual (though still relatively minor) controversy to address: Ducklo had objected to the story, and he tried to intimidate the female reporter working on it by using derogatory and misogynistic language. Since the MRC does not miss an opportunity to attack a Democratic president and his administration for even the slightest offense, it was quick to pounce.
First, Curtis Houck complained that the one-week suspension he originally received was a "slap on the wrist." He later whined that this story wasn't getting wall-to-wall impeachment-level coverage on the (non-Fox) evening news. When Ducklo ultimately left his job over the incident, Houck was still whining that it deserved wall-to-wall coverage:
When it comes to circling the wagons, the liberal media did just that for the Trump era, defending colleagues whenever they were called out by President Trump or a White House aide and framed such condemnations as dangerous attacks on our democracy. But when it came to light on Friday that Biden White House Deputy Press Secretary T.J. Ducklo threatened Politico’s Tara Palmeri, the broadcast networks were largely nowhere to be found.
Between late Friday morning and Monday morning, ABC’s flagship morning and evening newscasts ignored Ducklo mocking her love life and threatening to “destroy” one of their former White House correspondents. Over on CBS and NBC, they combined for a paltry one minute and 19 seconds with none since Saturday morning.
Worse yet, not a single network newscast has acknowledged the fact that Ducklo resigned on Saturday night.
All of this is quite hypocritical, because the MRC has sown itself to be quite cool with not just offensive language but actual physical assualt of a reporter by a conservative.
In 2017, Greg Gianforte, then a Republican candidate for a congressional seat in Idaho, body-slammed and hit a reporter who apparently asked him something he didn't like. He later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. And MRC management was OK with that. As we documented, MRC chief Brent Bozell delcared that the reporter was "an obnoxious, dishonest first class jerk. I'm not surprised he got smacked," and executive Tim Graham huffed that the reporter had been working for a British newspaper (though is an American), whining, "Let's ask why on Earth a House candidate in Montana should have to answer questions from a reporter for a BRITISH newspaper????"
As we also noted, their disdain for the reporter was personal -- he exposed the MRC's legally questionable purchase of a house in Pennsylvania from MRC vice president David Martin and was also among the reporters who highlighted the revelation that Graham ghost-wrote Bozell's syndicated columns.
The MRC has condoned behavior less egregious than Ducklo's, which makes all this hyperventilating less the expression of legitimate outrage and more a partisan political exercise.
I'm very curious about a phenomenon practically inexplicable to me.
"Christians" who hate Trump.
I’m not referring to people who don't approve of President Donald J. Trump. I’m taking about all-out hatred that finds him "morally depraved" and insists his supporters must repent after "turning a blind eye to his evil."
I will use as Exhibit A one Martin Griffith, a contributor to the Sacramento Bee, a retired journalist and founding member of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association.
He begins his Jan. 31 treatise: "Like many Americans, I'm mystified by how so many evangelical Christians turned a blind eye to former President Donald Trump’s moral depravity and constant attacks on civility and democracy over the last four years.
It seems that Martin Griffith has lived a somewhat sheltered life, far removed from the stories of biblical heroes like King David, a man after God’s own heart. What was David? He was, at various times, an adulterer, a murderer and the greatest king in the history of Israel.
What God knew was that all men are inclined toward evil but capable of repentance.
That's what counts. It's always what counts. Isn’t that wonderful?
Griffith apparently forgets the mercy of God. It's in every book of the Bible.
Even more to the point, Trump is a great man. Joe Biden is not.
You said: "As Christians, we should be the light of the world, not part of its darkness.
I agree. Trump was light, Biden was darkness. Trump was optimistic. Biden saw only the approaching long dark night.
Why do you hate Donald Trump? Where is your love and tender mercies? Why are you incapable of believing Trump and yet over the moon when it comes to Biden?
Why are you more concerned with "political civility" than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
It’s weird when people lecture us on "light" and "darkness" when there is no light in them.
Almost as if on cue after years of avoiding assigning blame for federal deficits racked up under a Republican president and Republican-controlled Senate, the end of the Trump presidency means new scrutiny of federal spending at CNSNews.com now that Democrats can be blamed for it. but first, CNS editor Terry Jeffrey had a little housekeeping to do under the old blame-avoiding method, declaring in a Feb. 11 article:
The federal government spent a record $1,923,752,000,000 in the first four months of fiscal 2021 (October through January), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
At the same time, the government collected $1,188,021,000,000 in total tax revenues—resulting in a record October-through-January deficit of $735,732,000.
Since Trump was president for nearly all of this time, and Democrat sdid not assume and presidency or take control of the Senate until Jan. 20, Jeffrey is careful not to point out this debt was racked up under a Republican president and Senate -- as usual, the words "Trump" and "Republican" appear nowhere. The accompanying file photo is of Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Mitch McConnell -- as if both parties shared equal blame -- while Trump was nowhere to be founded despite the fact that, again, he was president for all of 11 days of the time period Jeffrey was writing about.
For his next monthly summary on March 10, Jeffrey was starting to shift toward laying blame on Democrats. In complaining that "Federal taxes, federal spending and the federal deficit all set records in the first five months of fiscal 2021 (October through February)," Jeffrey didn't call out Democrats, but he didn't also tell his readers that the presidency and Senate were under Repubican control until Jan. 20, or more than 3 1/2 months of that five-month period.
Nevertheless, the file photo Jeffrey used this time features only Democrats: Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
Look for Jeffrey to get more aggressive in the coming months about blaming Democrats for federal deficits -- and shoving down the memory hole his refusal to hold Republicans accountable by name.
MRC's Lord Knows Who's To Blame For Capitol Riot, And It Is ... Democrats? Topic: Media Research Center
Jeffrey Lord whined in a Feb. 13 Media Research Center post:
As the impeachment week unfolded, Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, the impeachment manager, has made a point of showing videos illustrating in graphic detail the attack on the Capitol.
And no one has been more emphatic in support of Trump’s impeachment for the events of January 6th than Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer, of course, sat front and center in the Senate chamber and watched the video clips Raskin showcased.
But there’s something curious going on with the media coverage of Raskin and Schumer.
Now. What are we not seeing in the media? Let’s start with what we know.
Who runs the Capitol Police? That would be the Architect of the Capitol, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, as well as four committees, two each from both Houses of Congress. The Capitol Police web site identifies those four as one oversight committee from each body, plus, as always with Congress, the appropriating committees from the House and Senate.
In practice, this means the House Administration Committee and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee are the congressional committees in charge of the Capitol Police.
In the aftermath of the attack on the Capitol, the House sergeant at arms, Paul Irving, resigned - and this was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Shortly afterward, Michael C. Stenger, the senate sergeant at arms, resigned. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer had made it clear that upon taking office he intended to fire Stenger.
Hmmm. What is the media not saying?
The number two Democrat on the House Administration Committee is…Congressman Jamie Raskin. And who sits on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee? That would be Senator Chuck Schumer.
But strangely there is no one in the media asking of Raskin and Schumer what was famously asked of Nixon by then-Tennessee Senator Howard Baker of the Senate’s Watergate investigating committee. To wit:
What did Raskin and Schumer know and when did they know it?
And why didn’t they do anything to protect the Capitol, their colleagues and staff from what was coming?
Lord is careful not to note that those two Senate committees were controlled by Republicans on Jan. 6, the day of the riot. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, Democrats who won Senate runoff races on Jan. 5, were not sworn in until Jan. 20. Which tells you that Lord is not going to ask any of his fellow Republicians what they knew and when they knew it and why they didn't do anything to protect the Capitol and their colleagues.
That's an example of bias so ridiculous that it could only come from Jeffrey Lord.
WND Pretends Woman Killed In Capitol Riot Wasn't A Crazy Right-Winger Topic: WorldNetDaily
Brian Sussman complained in his Feb. 16 WorldNetDaily column:
The propagandists in the Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the media continue to insult us with their details of the so-called "insurrection" at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
Their quick summary often includes something like, "during the insurrection a woman was shot and killed inside the Capitol."
Generally, they avoid mentioning the woman's name and especially who shot her.
Their hope is that by eliminating as many details as possible, and repeating their mini-version of the story over and over and over, the public at large will believe the shooter was a wild-eyed Trump supporter who crashed the Capitol and the victim was a congressional staffer or perhaps even a Capitol Police officer.
From my observations, that's exactly what most in the public now think.
Actually, as those who read WND are aware, the deceased woman's name is Ashli Babbitt. She was from Southern California. Ashli was 36 years old. There was a memorial held for her last Saturday. Her friends describe Ashli as having been a loving, passionate, patriotic woman.
Compare that to the media's talking heads. When they occasionally reveal Ashli's identity they make her out to be a conspiracy kook.
Hardly the case.
According to a GoFundMe account set up to fund her memorial:
"Ashli's love for America started early. She joined the United States Air Force in 2003 at age 18 and served for the next 14 years. During that time, Ashli deployed four times. It was during one of those deployments she was injured during an attack. Throughout her challenges, she never lost her unwavering patriotism and love for her country. After active duty, Ashli joined the National Guard and went back to school to earn a degree in business. She used that knowledge to run her own company along with her husband, Aaron."
Ashli was also a proud supporter of President Trump. That's why she was in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6.
Ah, but Babbitt actually was a conspiracy kook. As the Washington Post reported:
Babbitt’s journey — illuminated through her extensive social media activity, court and military records, and interviews with some who knew her — was one of paranoid devotion and enthusiasm that only increased as Trump’s fortunes waned.
She avidly followed the QAnon conspiracy theory, convinced that Trump was destined to vanquish a cabal of child abusers and Satan-worshiping Democrats. She believed Wednesday would be “the storm,” when QAnon mythology holds that Trump would capture and execute his opponents.
Like so many others, she believed Jan. 6 would be not a day of infamy, but an end to her troubles.
“Nothing will stop us,” she tweeted Jan. 5. “They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”
In late December, the incoming vice-president, Kamala Harris, tweeted about her plans for the first hundred days of the Biden administration. She promised “to ensure Americans mask up, distribute 100M shots, and get students safely back to school”.
Among the thousands of responses was an angry tweet from a 35-year-old air force veteran in San Diego.
“No the fuck you will not!” Ashli Babbitt replied to Harris. “No masks, no you, no Biden the kid raper, no vaccines...sit your fraudulent ass down…we the ppl bitch!”
Sussman then tried to heap blame on the officer that killed Babbitt and suggest that she was killed unjustly:
And what do we know about the person who killed Ashli Babbitt?
Only that he or she is a Capitol Police officer. We're told a preliminary investigation did not find enough evidence to criminally charge the officer.
Unlike other killings involving police in the United States, this officer's identity is being withheld. Likewise, the victim's name is not continually being repeated by activists screaming, SAY HER NAME.
But Sussman is olaying dumb about the circumstances that led to Babbitt being shot. As the Post reported:
It is unclear exactly how and when Babbitt entered the Capitol. She undoubtedly understood law enforcement could use deadly force in response to the breach. Airmen in the role Babbitt once occupied in the D.C. Air National Guard’s 113th Air Wing receive riot-control training, and her former unit was mobilized to protect the Capitol on Wednesday.
But it has since become clear what happened inside: The raging crowd that bashed in the windows of a barricaded door to the Speaker’s Lobby, with a short tanned woman in an American backpack at the front of its ranks. Her attempt to climb through one of those windows, leading the way, despite a Capitol Police officer pointing a handgun in her direction. The abrupt way she toppled backward after a single shot resounded.
Babbitt appears to have been part of a violent mob -- something Sussman won't admit.
NEW ARTICLE: Financial Non-Accountability At CNS, Pandemic Edition Topic: CNSNews.com
Throughout 2020, CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey continued to fret about growing federal deficits driven by coronavirus relief -- but he still refused to call out the Republican president and Republican Senate under which they occurred. Read more >>
MRC Has A Fit Over Springsteen's Super Bowl Ad Topic: Media Research Center
As with its corporate subisidiary CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center had a minor meltdown over Bruce Springsteen's Jeep ad during the Super Bowl calling for people to meet in "the middle." First up was professional hater Gabriel Hays, who whined that Springsteen couldn't possibly be a credible advocate for moderation because he had once criticized President Trump:
Melodramatic and patronizing corporate TV ads are as big a part of the SuperBowl as a Tom Brady appearance, though New Jersey music legend Bruce Springsteen’s obnoxious Jeep ad about the “ReUnited of America” took patronizing to a whole new level.
Considering “The Boss” has been slamming Trump and his supporters (which he has called “bums” and a “fucking nightmare”) for the better part of five years, his 2021 Jeep< Super Bowl ad seemed less an appeal to unity, than a call for Trumpers to get on with Democrats' far left ambitions for their country.
The ad, produced by Jeep and starring the “Born to Run” singer, made a heavy appeal for Americans to find common ground with one another after a contentious Donald Trump presidency. The setting of the ad was a chapel in Lebanon, Kansas, the exact geographical middle of the United States of America. The singer elaborated on the obvious metaphor with soulful and somber words: “All are more than welcome to come meet here in the middle. It’s no secret the middle has been a hard place to get to lately, between red and blue, between servant and citizen, between our freedom and our fear.”
At the end of the ad, the words “To the ReUnited States of America” flashed on screen. Oh, back to normal, is it?
Of course, millions of conservatives have seen opportunistic Democrat politicians lie to them for years about Russian collusion, the first impeachment of Donald Trump (and his second). They’ve seen Dems endorse the Black Lives Matter protests which led to $2 billion worth of property damage and dozens of murders and the same conservatives have had the pleasure of being called deplorables, racists and rubes every step of the way.
Springsteen, a proud Dem, has done his fair share of demonizing these conservatives by going after their presidential candidate. Springsteen blistered Trump a few months before the 2020 election. In an interview with Atlantic, Springsteen called Trump a “to democracy,” adding that the then-president was standing in the way of “any kind of reform” that could stem from the Black Lives Matter protests, which were raging at the time.
“I don’t know if our democracy could stand another four years of his custodianship. These are all existential threats to our democracy and our American way of life,” he added in that interview. Of course that means the 74 million who voted for Trump are that threat.
For all his virtiol against Springsteen, Hays offered no evidence that the Boss is wrong about Trump.
After the Super Bowl, Kyle Drennen served up his own little rant, similarly whining about Springsteen's purported divisiveness (read: he's not a conservative):
On Monday, all three network morning shows hailed left-wing, bomb-throwing rocker Bruce Springsteen for a Jeep Super Bowl ad in which he hypocritically preached unity and meeting in the political “middle.” Rather than call out the singer for his history of incendiary partisan rhetoric, hosts all seemed to experience collective amnesia as they pretended he was the perfect messenger to bring people together.
This is the same Springsteen who during a concert on the Today show plaza in September of 2007 launched into a unhinged political tirade accusing the Bush administration of “rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and the people, an attack on the Constitution and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war.”
In 2007, just days after Springsteen’s Today show tantrum, CBS’s 60 Minutes as “an artist in progress” who was “questioning whether America has lost its way at home.”
Just before Barack Obama was sworn into office in January of 2009, Springsteen couldn’t resist the urge to kick the departing Republican president on his way out. He tarred the Bush administration as a “nightmare” in which “thousands and thousands of people died” and “lives were ruined.”
Drennen's rant against Springsteen's anti-Iraq War sentiments are odd, since we thought the MRC was no longer proud of the Iraq War, given how it complained that obituaries for conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer helped lay the right-wing ideological framework for the war.
Drennen also cited another ideological crime Springsteen committed -- he once vacationed with an Obama: "After vacationing with the Obamas on a luxury yacht the following year, Springsteen promptly released an anti-Trump protest song."
Drennen concluded by huffing: "Despite the sycophantic claims from NBC, ABC, and CBS, Bruce Springsteen is the least qualified person to talk of unity or meeting in the middle. Perhaps he should lead by example and apologize for all the disunity he’s fostered." Of course, both Hays and Drennen have proven they won't even broach a discussion of unity with someone they not only clearly despise but need to maintain as a political target as part of their jobs, so that would make them even less "qualified" than Springsteen, no?