MRC Writer Pushes Biased Economists To Attck 'Liberal' Claims About Economy Topic: Media Research Center
You know you've ticked off the Media Research Center in making a logical point when it essentyially does duplicate posts to attack you.
Back in February, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt made the logical observation that the econom, as judged by GDP growth and job creation, does better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones, adding that "the pattern is so strong and long-lasting that coincidence alone is unlikely to be the only explanation." Enter MRC writer Joseph Vazquez, who huffed in a Feb. 4 post:
Three economists lambasted a New York Times op-ed claiming that the Democratic Party is better for the economy than the GOP.
Times senior writer David Leonhardt’s main argument was that “The American economy has performed much better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones, over both the last few decades and the last century.” Economists ripped apart the op-ed as “nonsense,” “intellectually sloppy,” and filled with “numerous false claims.”
The piece further argued that Democrats have been more “pragmatic” by being “willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation.”
But Leonhardt wildly missed the mark. Economists Daniel Mitchell, Chris Edwards and Brian Riedl all hammered the op-ed for arbitrarily zeroing in on party affiliation, while dubiously brushing aside more important economic factors. Mitchell stated in a tweet that Leonhardt’s article was “intellectually sloppy for one obvious reason (failure to properly account for business cycles) and one completely overlooked reason (policy direction matters, not partisan affiliation).”
Vazquez, however, failed to disclose (beyond embedded links on their names) that these economists are not objective but, rather, quite biased. Mitchell is co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a conservative think tank that loves flat taxes and offshore tax havens; Edwards is with the libertarian Cato Institute; and Riedl works for another right-wing think tank, the Manhattan Institute. In other words, these are exactly the positions anyone would expect them to take.
For some reason, Vazquez was so annoyed by Leonhardt's op-ed that he attacked it again a month later in a March 11 post, apparently because he scored an "exclusive interview" with Riedl, one of the (biased) economists he had previously cited:
An economist ripped the media for pushing the false idea that Democratic administrations are better for the U.S. economy than GOP administrations.
New York Times senior writer David Leonhardt had written that Democratic administrations have been more “pragmatic” by being “willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation.”
Economist and Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Brian Riedl rebuked Leonhardt and the media for living in an “ideological cocoon” and pushing talking points on behalf of Democrats. “This is just partisan nonsense,” Riedl said of Leonhardt in an exclusive interview with the Media Research Center.
While Vazquez did identify Riedl's employer, he did not explain its political slant and, thus, Riedl could just as easily be described as living in his own ideological cocoon.
Vazquez concluded by whining that "Leonhardt has not been the only one to advocate on behalf of the Democrats, however," citing other assessment reaching the same conclusion. Of course, Vazquez would never describe himself or Riedl as "advocating on behalf of the Republicans," even though that's exactly what they're doing.
This wasn't the only time Vazquez called on biased economists to attack a viewpoint deemed "liberal." In January, he trotted out Mitchell to help him rant against Washington Post article he ripped as "propaganda that former President Donald Trump’s economy was terrible for minorities." In a March 3 post, he called on Cato's Edwards to bash Times columnist Paul Krugman for having "attacked capitalism for promoting 'too much choice' for American consumers,'" touting how "Edwards ripped Krugman for blaming American capitalism while ignoring that government deserves much of the blame for making life more complicated for American consumers." As before, Vazquez didn't explain the bias from which Edwards and Mitchell are operating.
CNS Continues To Hide Pro-Trump Columnist's Links As Trump Adviser Topic: CNSNews.com
We'vedocumented how CNSNews.com has allowed Ken Blackwell to advocate on behalf of President Trump while rarely disclosing that he was an official Trump surrogate and adviser to his re-electrion campaign. Trump may be gone, but Blackwell is still defending him -- and CNS is still not disclosing his ties to Trump.
In a Feb. 8 column, Blackwell attacked "Democrat Sen. [sic] Pat Leahy" for presiding over Trump's second impeachment trial, declaring that "Leahy’s usurpation of [Chief Justice John] Roberts’ role in the second impeachment trial of Trump highlights how this whole affair is unconstitutional." The end-of-column bio described him as "a Distinguished Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission."
In a column the next day, headlined "Election Integrity: The Case For Trump's Acquittal," Blackwell did actually admit he was a Trump adviser, if only because he was complaining that Trump didn't take his advice not to use the term "law and order" because it turned off black voters and "suburban white voters" and hoping Trump takes his advice on how to argue that the presiential election may have been stolen from Trump by focusing on "massive irregularities" and not "wide-eyed conspiracy theories."
Blackwell spent his March 16 column huffing that the New York Times was using "its hatred of all things Trump" to fight against Republican-led "election integrity" efforts:
In the wake of a presidential election marred by widespread lawlessness that produced unprecedented levels of public distrust, the Times struggles to conceive of efforts to rectify the problem as anything other than acts of obeisance to Donald Trump. In the minds of most leftists, it seems, the term “election integrity” — when used by Republicans — is merely code for “voter suppression.” Bad faith on the part of GOP legislators is simply assumed.
In reality, conservative voters and lawmakers have many legitimate reasons to question the security of our electoral process after watching leftist officials participate in an extra-legal public-private partnership with Big Tech billionaires and progressive activists that involved casually disregarding duly-enacted laws that had been put in place for the express purpose of ensuring free and fair elections.
CNS returned to not mentioning Blackwell's Trump ties, with the end-of-column bio stating only that he "is a senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council" and "former Secretary of State of Ohio."
Newsmax Columnist Has Fauci Derangement Syndrome Topic: Newsmax
You know you're in for a doozy when Newsmax feels compelled (as it has before) to top a column with the disclaimer "The following is authored by a non-clinician." And indeed, Bill Robinson's March 9 column is little more than a screed against Anthony Fauci:
I never liked Dr. Fauci, his diminutive stature, gravelly voice or Napoleonic, tough guy attitude. He seemed to me the consummate phony. His actions have all but confirmed this to be true.
When the pandemic first began in earnest, Fauci was packaged up and sold to the president and worried American populace as "the foremost epidemiologist in America" and innumerable other permutations of this outright falsehood.
Based on the past year, Anthony Fauci is nothing of the sort; he’s not even close to the "foremost," "most prominent" or "most respected" epidemiologist this country has.
Those titles would go to Dr. Ian Lipkin at Columbia University, who traveled to China to investigate the Wuhan virus in February of 2019 when Dr. Fauci was still calling cable media outlets scheduling his countless appearances.
Or, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, whose been questioning and shattering Fauci’s flip-flopping and dangerous advice to Americans from the beginning. Dr. Bhattacharya is also a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration which is a foundational document laying out precisely how the cure was worse than the virus and why we have been taken to the cleaners in listening to those only wanting to keep us inside, masked up and economically decimated.
Ah, yes, the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued against lockdowns and in favor of promoting herd immunity against coronavirus -- even though nobody can predict exactly who would die from what would essentially be a global chicken pox party.
But Robinson has more anti-Fauci hate to spew:
Whether intentional or not, Fauci has been a willing and intentional pawn of the Marxist Left in this country. Regardless of his intent, he’s been a failure in every respect.
And of course, he still had false adulation ladled on him by our mainstream media like a well-basted Thanksgiving turkey throughout all his decades of quiet fiascoes.
Yet, in spite of it all, Fauci is the highest paid government employee in the country—more than the president—and his lightning-quick conversion to "chief medical advisor to President Biden," shows not only his utter lack of any loyalty but that his previous decrees were highly suspect.
As Fauci’s reign of blundering and misinformation comes to an end, there’s little doubt that all Americans have a tough lesson to be learned from all this chicanery.
Don’t automatically trust or assign any credibility whatsoever to a doctor or politician. Is this case, Fauci was both.
Not sure what coronavirus has to do with the "Marxist left," but then, we've never spent any time with Robinson to find out.
WND's Farah Is Trying To Whitewash The Capitol Riot Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has tried to whitewash the Capitol riot before, throwing his daughter under the bus in the process. He's still at it. In a Feb. 28 column, he complained about what the riot was being called:
"The Capitol Insurrection," "the Siege," "the armed insurrection in Washington, D.C." It's also been described as a "military-style formation" of "anti-government right-wing fringe organizations," "the storming of the Capitol," "the Capitol riot," "armed" protests, and even "a medieval battle."
And now it's been called "the Capitol bombing." A bombing! By no less an authority than the next attorney general, Merrick Garland.
This is getting ridiculous.
It was bad enough when someone decided to call it the "Capitol Insurrection." It was not a good choice. I don't know who it was – maybe Nancy Pelosi. But it was not appropriate to call it an "Insurrection." It never rose to the meaning of that word, which conjures up dire synonyms like "Insurgence," "Revolt" and "Rebellion."
Do any of those words sound like a conflict that took just one life – a woman who was gunned down by an as-yet-unnamed Capitol policeman? I hardly think so. Do any of those synonyms suggest a conflict that lasted only a few hours? No.
It was a bad name and we all knew it the first time it was used. It was designed to inflame, to divide, to confuse. And indeed, it has inflamed and confused people to the point that Biden's AG pick rachets up the rhetoric to "bombing."
Oddly, Farah did not offer a word he thinks accurately describes the event.
In his March 17 column, Farah tried to push the idea that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick really didn't die as a result of the riot because the initial reported cause -- that he was hit by a fire extinguisher -- may not be true. Farah ranted that this was a "lie" promulgated by the New York Times, though he offered no evidence to support his suggestion that the Times or anyone else knowingly "lied" about Sicknick's death.
He then complained that two people charged with assaulting Sicknick with chemical spray -- and, thus, perhaps contributing to his death -- may be innocent:
It remains to be seen if Officer Sicknick was exposed to tear gas, widely used Jan. 6 by police that day – as was pepper spray.
Once again, what is the Justice Department doing here? We know they are attempting with their charges to promulgate a "domestic terrorism" case or cases. Will they make a victim of "domestic terrorism" out of a man who was "in good spirits" the night after his "attack"? Has he become the only "convenient" death of a police officer? Death by pepper spray – hardly a deadly weapon when employed elsewhere by civilians or cops?
Officer Sicknick was a good man. He was a supporter of President Trump. He was well-liked by one and all. It's bad enough his death was used in a lie – once – and maybe a second time.
Are they deliberately stacking the deck against [George] Tanios and [Julian] Khater, a couple of fast-food managers? Are these two desperadoes a threat to Americans everywhere?
The next day, Farah tried to whitewash Ashli Babbitt, shot and killed by Capitol Police during the riot:
Babbitt was a 14-year Air Force veteran, an unarmed woman who attended the protest of the inexplicable election snafu. Over two months after her death at the hands of a Capitol police officer, no information or details have been released.
Maybe there is an explanation of the only shooting death – for that matter, the only shooting incident – in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
It comes from the unnamed officer who shot Babbitt, by way of his attorney, Mark Schamel. It's not much of an explanation given there were hundreds of people at the Capitol, perhaps as many as 1 million for the rally.
Apparently, Babbitt's backpack raised alarms. They compounded the fears of the officers. There were three other officers closer to Babbitt.
But Officer X, we'll call him, decided that his most prudent course of action was to fire a shot at Ashli Babbitt in a crowded room because she wore a backpack. In the off chance it contained a bomb or weapon, Officer X would take her out.
What did Ashli have in the backpack?
It was a wool sweater and a scarf.
We continue to hear horrific tales from Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Gen. Russel L. Honoré about that day at the Capitol. We've heard about the "insurrectionists." We've heard about the "domestic terrorists." We've heard about the "white supremacists."
The truth is, at the end of the day, it apparently was a backpack that defined the story for Ashli Babbitt – that took her life.
Malicious: MRC Cheers Tent Falling On Reporter Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center not only criticizes any journalist who fails to spout its right-wing dogma -- it actively hates them and wishes them harm. So much so, in fact, that it cheers when they get hurt. Brad Wilmouth demonstrated how in a March 5 item:
On Thursday, MSNBC correspondent Jacob Soboroff was presenting clips of his interview with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about Trump immigration policy separating illegal immigrant parents and children when his report was apparently so full of hot air that the tent his production team was using blew over on live television, forcing him to catch it with his hands.
The live TV blooper occurred after a clip was shown of Soboroff badgering Mayorkas about the "potential criminality of the Trump administration."
After running a clip of the Mayorkas interview, Soboroff was seen live on air at 11:03 a.m.. Before he could say anything, his tent fell on him, leading him to catch it and comment on the goof-up and again talk up prosecution of Trump officials:
The MRC's glee that Soboroff could have been injured during this incident was more cleari n the Twitter post promoting Wilmouth's item, which chortled: "INTENSE HOT AIR! Tent falls on MSNBC reporter live after he pushes prosecuting Trump and underlings for separating illegal immigrant families."
The MRC doesn't do "media research" -- it promotes hatred of journalists (that aren't employed by Fox News).
In his March 2 WorldNetDaily column, Larry Tomczak touted how "a significant leadership gathering takes place at what was once Heritage Village USA to discern what God is saying so that we as the people of God can stay strong and on the right track." He then served up what he considered to be key "nuggets" from the confab, which included a lot of the usual right-wing Christian posturing. Tomczak's final point was this:
10. About 98% of the time I was an avid listener but added some comments better encapsulated by the words of another leader who fearlessly addressed the threat of Hitler's democratic socialism. It cost him his life. May none of us shrink back in the time of testing but may we all look to the Lord with renewed devotion, meditate on His Word, share the gospel and engage culturally in a winsome and courageous way.
Here's the deal: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Just one problem with that quote: there's no evidence Bonhoeffer ever said or wrote it. As Warren Throckmorton has documented, the quote appears in none of Bonhoeffer's works, despite Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas uncritically promoting the quote.
Will there be a correction? Probably not -- the fake quote serves both Tomczak and WND.
AIM Misleads In Attack Biden Over Texas Energy Issues Topic: Accuracy in Media
Stephanie H. Freedman got one thing right in a Feb. 24 Accuracy in Media post examining the Texas cold snap and resulting failure of energy sources there: she wasn't trying to blame wind and solar and ignoring that failure to winterize power sources of all kinds was a major contributing factor. But she tried to put the blame on the Biden administration for its initial response:
While there is no denying there is a hybrid policy conversation to address this crisis, there is a very important fact that is missing from the major media analyses.
On Feb. 12, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott “declared a state of disaster threat of widespread damage due to prolonged freezing temperatures.”
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which is responsible for 90% of Texas’s energy, reported they needed an “increase in energy supplies” to help counter the negative effects of the storm. ERCOT also reported that “numerous energy generation units will be unable to operate at full capacity without violating federal air quality or other permit limitations.”
These issues were listed in a request submitted to the Department of Energy on Feb. 14 regarding discretion for “using their energy generators and relief from exceeding state emissions requirements during emergency conditions”.
The Department of Energy responded that while it would allow a certain increase in energy output, it would not “provide relief from obligations to purchase energy allowances for emissions that occur during the emergency condition.” They also specified their priority to “minimize adverse environmental impacts, by limiting operation of dispatched energy units.”
The order from the Department of Energy also hiked the price of power credits being sold to the state at a price “no lower than $1,500/MWh,” a significant increase over the $18.20 that Texans typically pay for the same amount of energy.
But neither of those things are true. Both the Department of Energy and ERCOT confirmed to the Associated Press that the claim that DOE enforced emissions limits on power sources was false, and the DOE order actually approved what ERCOT requested. And ERCOT, not DOE, set the minimum $1,500/MWh price to ensure that its request to DOE would be used as a last resort, according to an ERCOT spokesperson. The DOE ultimately defers to the applicants and the market on how prices are determined.
CNS Gives Space To Conspiracy Theorist Doc To Attack Masks Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com gave Dr. Jim Meehan space for a column on March 10 (bolding in original):
A response to people who use the classic fallacious argument, “Well, if masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them?”
I’m a surgeon who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn’t really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal.
I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, I’ve read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence.
CNS describes Meehan as "a physician, entrepreneur, and accomplished leader who provides novel science and solutions that conform to honest, open, transparent, and patient-centered principles." It also noted that Meehan's column "originally appeared on Principia Scientific International."
CNS is not going to tell you that Principia Scientific International is filled with conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. And it's definitely not going to tell you that this description also fits Meehan himself, as a report on a hearing he testified at in his native Oklahoma details:
Meehan is a licensed medical doctor who operates in Tulsa. His Oklahoma Medical Board profile lists his specialties as general preventive medicine, nutrition and addiction medicine. He often preaches against vaccines on and wearing face masks on Twitter.
In his Twitter bio, Meehan lists hashtags for “Medical Freedom,” a popular tag for the anti-vaccine movement, and for QAnon, a far-right fringe conspiracy that believes a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles runs a child sex-trafficking ring across the world that also schemes against President Donald Trump. Some members of QAnon believe Trump is secretly sending them coded messages on various websites to update them.
In 2019, the FBI described QAnon as a domestic terror threat.
At one point in the hearing, Meehan said that an overabundance of skin pigment prevents the sun from killing the coronavirus inside the bodies of people of color and they should take more vitamins to keep from getting sick. There is no scientific evidence for that claim.
Further, a judge ruled that Meehan was not qualifed to speak as an "expert witness" in a Connecticut lawsuit fighting agaist a mask mandage because he lacks specific expertise and holds anti-science views, adding that "while Meehan is an expert ophthalmologist, he was not credible to testify on the subject at hand since he has not done any work related to COVID-19."
So CNS published an eye doctor who has no expertise in treating coronavirus to opine on wearing masks. The creeping WND-ization of CNS continues.
Has The MRC Stopped Defending Steven Crowder? Topic: Media Research Center
Has right-wing video person Steven Crowder finally become too offensive for the Media Research Center to defend?
In 2019, you'll recall, the MRC rushed to Crowder's defense, complaining that YouTube de-monetized him for making alleged jokes about gay journalist Carlos Maza that were, in reality, barely disguised homophobia. When Crowder was fully reinstated at YouTube a few months later, the MRC again portrayed Crowder as a comedian who was unfairly targeted and hid the full extent of his homophobia.
On Feb. 25, Heather Moon complained that "comedian Steven Crowder" was listed by an Anti-Defamation League study as among right-wingers who serve as "gateways" to exremist content. The MRC rushed to again help Crowder play victim in a March 10 item by Alexander Hall:
Conservative commentator Steven Crowder said he has been silenced on Twitter for unknown reasons, and proclaimed to TheBlaze: “Behold, the modern 'public square!’"
"Twitter has suspended the account of popular BlazeTV host Steven Crowder for at least one week without explanation,” TheBlaze reported March 9. Louder with Crowder host Steven Crowder reportedly explained: "No idea why Twitter locked me out, as in the allotted category (wherein they would include said information) was left blank."
Crowder “confirmed” to the MRC what TheBlaze reported, and explained, “As far as I understand it, I’ve been suspended THREE times as the countdown has kept getting longer. And they have yet to send ANY reason for the suspension. At all.”
Had Hall bothered to do even a modicum of research instead of accepting Crowder's claimed victimhood at face value -- letting him prattle on at length about how "video content of his from previous years was rapidly gaining notoriety among liberal Twitter users" and how his "core concern was that Big Tech platforms will purge users on what they posted in the past, rather than in the present" -- he might have learned that a more proximate issue might have been responsible for Crowder's Twitter outage: On the same day he claimed his Twitter account was suspended, his YouTube show (which he presumably promotes on his Twitter feed) featured him using a racial slur to describe Meghan Markle.
That's the last instance of Crowder-defending we've seen at the MRC. That's good -- if unusual, given how thge MRC loves to double down in defense of extremists -- because Crowder became even more offensive after that:
His March 16 show used offensive racial stereotypes to portray black farmers to mock relief they were receiving from President Biden's coronavirus relief plan after decades of discrimination.It was offensive enough that YouTube pulled the video. His co-hosts cranked up the racism the next day.
Apparently homophobia was cool with the MRC, but blatant racism is its line in the sand. Congratulations, MRC, for finally demonstrating you have at least some standards. However, we expect it to flip-flop and defend Crowder again once returns to homophobia, a la Marjorie Taylor Greene.
NEW ARTICLE -- Fake News At WND: Coronavirus Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has gotten busted promoting bogus claims regarding the coronavirus pandemic -- only some of which it has properly corrected. Read more >>
CNS' Attacks on Garland's AG Nomination Were Lame Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center had a hard time finding ways to attack Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland the way it has done to otherBidenCabinetnominees. It didn't go after him at all when he was first nominated, and its articles cherry-picking responses to questions during his confirmation hearing were lame at best.
A Feb. 22 article by Susan Jones appeared to compalin that Garland said he would prioritize the prosecution of "white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government." Jones complained the next day that Garland said, in response to questions from mostly Republican senators, that he didn't have an opinion on the Second Amendment -- despite the fact that, because it is his job to enforce the law and not make law, he's not supposed to have an opinion on it. Another article by Jones merely summarized his views on "racism, disparate justice, and implicit bias."
It wasn't until March 4 that CNS came up with a plausible line of attack. Terry Jeffrey's column bashed Garland for, while serving as a judge, allowed a 17-year-old "illegal alien" arrested at the Mexican border to receive an abortion. "So, what was Garland thinking, if anything, when a pregnant alien teenager — caught trying to illegally enter the United States — came before his court, seeking his blessing to terminate her child?" Jeffrey huffed -- even though he repeatedly denied the humanity of the teen by repeatedly referring to her as an "alien."
And it wasn't until two days after Garland was confirmed by the full Senate on March 10 that CNS published an article by Emma Riley recounting how conservatives opposed Garland in a letter. "The letter cited Garland’s ambiguity over the law on whether attacking a federal court house at night or during the day constitutes 'domestic terrorism'; his unwillingness to condemn remarks that 'black people are genetically superior to white people'; and his unwillingness to denounce the comment that 'any pro-life advocate is unfit for office,'" Riley wrote -- again, ignoring the fact that the attorney general is not supposed to have an opinion on such things.
The fact that even the highly biased "journalists" at CNS couldn't findmuch to attack Garland tells us that he likely won't be as bad as they think.
WND Is Still Pushing Book It Published From White Nationalist Author Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented WorldNetDaily's penchant for embracing white nationalism -- one example of which was Scott Greer, who wrote a WND-published book, "No Campus for White Men," which complained about "diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses." At the same time Greer was writing that book, he was also penning anti-Semitic and white nationalist articles under a pseudonym for the Radix Journal, published by white supremacist leader Richard Spencer. WND has never told its readers about that.
Either WND needs the money or has a bunch of Greer books gathering dust, because it has spent the past several months pushing the book at a deep discount.
In September, WND started sending out messages to its mailing list promoting "No Campus for White Men" for just $4.95. The first came out on Sept. 20, and it's done so about once a month since then. It's a recycled pitch; the ad copy still describes him as "an editor and columnist at the Daily Caller" though he resigned that job when his white nationalist proclivities became public in 2018. Needless to say, there's no mention of any of that in the ad copy.
That's not the only place where Greer's book is getting a renewed push. The March issue of WND's sparsely read Whistlelower magazine carries the theme "Brainwashing America's Next Generation," and if you subscribe to the magazine, WND will send you "a very special free gift": a copy of "No Campus for White Men."WND has also sent out several emails promoting the Whistleblower issue and offer, whcih is a carbon copy of the offer on the website.
It repeats much of the previous ad copy, including the ridiculous claim that "College campuses in America today have descended so far into Marxist indoctrination and bizarre political correctness that they are commonly referred to as 'small ivy-covered North Koreas.'" Who says that? Nobody we've ever read.
The article promoting the offer adds, "This special free offer will end without notice and is good in the U.S. only." How long will that offer last after more people are made aware of who Greer is and that WND published him?
Is CNS The MRC's Whore? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to attack the "liberal media" they so despise with childish name-calling. One of the nastiest names they've been tossing around is "whore," whenever news operations promote happenings elsewhere under their corporate umbrella or other reasons:
Under the headline "‘Christmas Comes Early’ as ABC Whores Out News for Disney+ Push," Scott Whitlock complained in Nobember 2019 that ABC's "GHood Morning America" "devoted almost 17 minutes to shilling for the new Disney+ streaming service. Disney, of course, owns ABC and the journalists on the network sounded more like PR talking points come to life.
Under the headline "Disney WHORES: ABC Hawks Lion King Prequel, Ignores 28,000 Layoffs," Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in September 2020 about how "NewsBusters has long documented how ABC “News” has whored itself out to parent company Disney to promote its corporate products, everything from their streaming service Disney+ to films like Mulan."
On March 12, the MRC's NewsBusters Twitter account smeared NPR reporter Scott Horsley as "Whore-sley" for not being negative enough about President Biden's coronavirus relief plan.
On March 18, Fondacaro groused that ABC's "World News Tonight" was "busy suggesting everything was hunky-dory in California by being corporate whores and touting the reopening of Disneyland next month."
This, of course, applies to the MRC as well. If TV networks are "whores" for touting whatever things happening elsewhere, than the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews, is the MRC's whore for promoting MRC initiatives and whatever the Brent Bozell has to say in the form of "news" stories. A few examples since the November presidential election alone:
Also of course, being the MRC, there's a double standard -- nobody is allowed to use such vulgar phrasing to describe right-wingers. In November, Fondacaro ranted that the "insufferably pompous" Tom Friedman claimed that "the Republicans were just a bunch of 'manure' eating racists and whores trying to stir up a Lebanese-style civil war while trying to suppress votes, while President Trump was trying to 'put a bullet into the country.'" Friedman didn't actually use the word as Fondacaro suggested, though he did describe the GOP as "a giant political brothel that basically rents itself out to the night to whoever will energize its base." Fondacaro didn't dispute the accuracy of Friedman's claim, instead content to dismiss him as riding a "crazy train."
Perhaps Fondacaro didn't want to admit that Friedman was correct -- about both the GOP and the MRC.
In January, CNS Set The Stage For Attacking Biden on Immigration Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com, like other right-wing media outlets, has been getting a lot of Biden-bashing mileage out of issues with immigrants at the Mexican border. But CNS primed readers to blame Biden for increased numbers of immigrants trying to cross the border even before he became president.
Back on Jan. 12, Melanie Arter touted how "President Donald [Trump] warned Tuesday that caravans of illegal immigrants are forming on the southern border, in anticipation of Joe Biden’s presidency and what’s in it for them, but the Trump administration is able to stop it."More examples from January:
On Jan. 18, Arter wrote that "Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan told Fox Business’s 'Mornings with Maria Bartiromo' on Monday that the prediction he made six months ago is coming true that if Joe Biden won the presidency, there will be a surge in illegal immigration like you’ve never seen."
A Jan. 19 article by Susan Jones featured a file photo of "A caravan of would-be illegal immigrants" from ovember 2018.
A separate article by Jones the same day declared: "Illegal immigration is accelerating once again, as thousands of Central Americans are heading to the U.S., taking President-elect Joe Biden at his word that he will halt deportations in his first 100 days, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told the Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday."
On Jan. 20, Jones noted that Antony Blinken, at his confirmation hearing for secretary of state, saying that undocumented immigrants shouldn't come, which would seem to undermine CNS' later claim that Biden encouraged them to come.
On Jan. 22, Jones gave space to a Fox News appearance by the head of the union for Border Patrol employees, claiming that "There is absolutely reason to be concerned" about security at the Southwest border.
The same day, an anonymous CNS writer complained that "When President Joe Biden arrived at the White House after being inaugurated on Wednesday, he signed an executive orderhalting the construction of an 'impassable physical barrier' at the U.S.-Mexico border."
Another Jan. 22 article, this one by the mysterious "A. Kim," groused that Biden's executive orders on immigration represent "a sweeping change that reflects a return to Obama-era policy," further complaining that "illegal aliens" are "now officially termed 'non-citizens.'" "Kim" also claimed that Republicans opposed Biden's "plans for amnesty," even though no policy change was identified as such.
On Jan. 25, Jones let Chad Wolf, onetime acting Homeland Security secretary under Trump, fearmonger about Biden's policy changes, claiming that the are "going to cause an immigration and border security crisis on our Southwest Border."
In short: CNS was always going to attack Biden on immigration no matter what is happening now. It telegraphed that nearly three months ago.
MRC Attacks Fact-Checkers Who Correct Right-Wing Attacks on Transgender People Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates both transgender people and fact-checkers, so when right-wing claims about trangenders get fact-checked, Tim Graham is sure to complain. In a March 4 post, Graham lost it when PolitiFact pointed out there's a difference between gender and gender identity:
You can tell a "fact checker" is marching to the drumbeat of the libertine left when they labor to deny the biological fact that the overwhelming majority of humans are born as either boys or girls.
On Thursday, PolitiFact took sides in the hallway Twitter battle between freshmen congresswomen Marie Newman and Marjorie Taylor Greene over the so-called "Equality Act" being debated. "We checked, and the science is clear: Gender identity goes beyond male and female."
How can you trust any "fact check" from people who are this slippery with obvious facts? On Thursday, PolitiFact wasn't subtle by illustrating their "check" with a picture of left-wing activists holding up a sign reading "TRANS EQUALITY NOW."
(Greene is once again being defended by the MRC despite her far-right views because she hates transgender people as much as Graham apparently does.)
Graham then attacked the experts PolitiFact used -- as he's wont to do when they don't conform to his right-wing ideology -- complaining that one "teaches a "Biology of Sex" courseto correct "society" and "a general lack of scientific interest and understanding when it comes to sex and gender," and another "donated repeatedly to Obama for President and other Democrats and wrote a book called Galileo's Middle Finger. Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science."
The next day, Graham whined in defense of transgender-hating Republican Sen. Rand Paul:
PolitiFact isn’t the only “fact checker” that abandons the facts to embrace the Church of Gender Fluidity. On Thursday, CNN’s went after Sen. Rand Paul for referring to the removal of a penis as “genital mutilation.” There’s also breast amputation, but CNN “fact checker” Aaron Millman put the scary snip-snip aside for politically correct descriptions – six usages of “gender confirmation” surgeries or “gender affirmation” treatments.
That's not counting the headline: "Fact-checking Rand Paul's comparisons of genital mutilation and gender confirmation surgery."
Using terms like "affirmation" and "confirmation" clearly identify CNN with LGBTQ orthodoxy, but they're not "facts" words. They're "feelings" words. CNN is "Feelings First" on this "fact" check.
Graham was particularly put out that the CNN fact-checker pointed out that "Paul draws on data from the American College of Pediatricians, a group that many health experts believe is on the wrong side of a number of controversial medical topics, especially the issue of gender conversion therapy," and that the American Association of Pediatricians offered a more credible take. Grahamhuffed in response: "Millman is trying to suggest that the AAP -- which has accepted all tenets of the LGBTQ ideology, and eschewed the hard facts of biological sex -- is somehow non-political, non-ideological, "mainstream" -- while the ACP represents 'non-credible sources.' In other words, the AAP is supposed to be revered like CNN, and the ACP should be tainted like Fox News."
Well, yes. The ACP is a right-wing group with only 500 members that exists to hate LGBTQ people and puts its fringe politics ahead of sound medicine. The AAP is a mainstream froup of 67,000 pediatricians that has been around since 1930 and conducts credible research on numerous issues involving children's health.
Apparently because he realized his attack on the fact-check itself didn't hold water, Graham then issued a personal attack on the fact-checker himself for being an intern. "They’re letting interns do the 'fact checking,'" Graham exclained, adding: "Under his Twitter bio with the words “justice unit intern,” his pronouns (he/him) and a rainbow-flag emoji (confirming he's an LGBTQ ally), his "header" photo is liberal Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) with Desus & Mero."
We would no doubt hear from Graham if we went after the MRC's interns -- which are allowed to do "media research" stuff like the full-timers -- the way he smeared the CNN intern. But it's apparently OK for Graham because he's a Republican.