MRC Fails In Asserting That FDR's New Deal Was 'Disastrous' Topic: Media Research Center
Joseph Vazquez devoted a March 31 Media Research Center screed to attacking New YOrk Times columnist Tom Friedman for approving of President Biden's stimulus plans. He took particular exception to this part: "Friedman said that Biden should “not only channel his inner F.D.R. but also a little Ronald Reagan and some rip-roaring capitalism.” Friedman argued as if Reaganomics and FDR’s disastrous New Deal welfare state belonged in the same sentence."
Vazquez's evidence that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "disastrous" is a link to a review at the right-wing Foundation for Economic Education of a book called "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute -- and, thus, brings a highly biased view of FDR to the table. It begins with a highly dishonest cherry-picking of unemployement statistics: "In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, unemployment in the United States had soared to an unprecedented 16.3 percent. In human terms that meant that over eight million Americans who wanted jobs could not find them. In 1939, after almost two full terms of Roosevelt and his New Deal, unemployment had not dropped, but had risen to 17.2 percent." This omits the pertinent fact that Great Depression unemployment peaked at 25.6 percent in May 1933.
Powell's book has been dismissed as a work of revisionist history designed to preach to fellow conservatives and libertarians and is not necessariliy reflective of reality, byt Vazquez won't tell you that.
Further, as we've previously noted, unemployment statistics from the 1930s did not count people employed by government work programs -- a key piece of FDR's New Deal -- as actually being employed, thus making the unemployment rate artificially high, and it can be argued that FDR cutting back on spending and raising taxes in 1936 caused a recession in 1937-38 that raised unemployment rates.
Vazquez went on to complain that Friedman "used California’s 2020 decision to ban the sales of new internal combustion engine cars by 2035 as an example" of the government directing capitalism to achieve needed goals, adding, "The Institute for Energy Research rebuked California’s ban as placing 'Californians into a financial dilemma of not being able to afford a vehicle.'" Vazquez didn't mention that the Institute for Energy Research is funded by fossil-fuel interests, making their conclusions a tad suspect.
Certain national-conservative governments in Eastern Europe should be natural allies to conservative policymakers stateside, if such unicorns existed.
Vladimir Putin's, for example.
Before his death, from the safety of exile, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one of Russia's bravest and most brilliant sons, praised Putin's efforts to revive Russia's traditional Christian and moral heritage. For example:
"In October 2010, it was announced that 'The Gulag Archipelago' would become required reading for all Russian high-school students. In a meeting with Solzhenitsyn's widow, Mr. Putin described 'The Gulag Archipelago' as 'essential reading': 'Without the knowledge of that book, we would lack a full understanding of our country and it would be difficult for us to think about the future.' …
"If [only] the same could be said of the high schools of the United States." (Via The Imaginative Conservative.)
The Russian president patiently tolerates America's demented, anti-Russia monomania. And, as America sinks into the quicksands of Cultural Marxism, Putin's inclinations are decidedly reactionary and traditionalist.
He prohibited sexual evangelizing by LGBTQ activists. He comes down squarely on the side of the Russian Orthodox Church, such as when vandals, the Pussy Riot whores, obscenely desecrated the cathedral of Christ the Savior. The Russian leader has also welcomed as refugees persecuted white South Africans, where America's successive governments won't even officially acknowledge that they're under threat of extermination. Also, policies to stimulate Russian birthrates have been put in place by the conservative leader.
Hungary is oh-so happy in its homogeneity and wants to keep it. But not if Washington can help it. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's motto is, "Procreation, not immigration." Orban plumps for closed borders and pro-Western, Christian, Hungarian-families-first policies. Yet his ongoing campaign against George Soros, an agitator for global government, was met by Donald Trump's State Department with a stern rebuke to … Hungary, claiming that its anti-Soros law will cost the country dearly.
Americans on the right could only dream that, like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic – the U.S. would "shut its border to Islamic migrants to keep potential terrorists out."
There's no mention of all the political repression Orban has done to achieve that allegedly "oh-so happy in its homogeneity" in Hungary. And Mercer might want to ask Alexei Navalny how Putin's crusade for "traditional Christian and moral heritage" is working out for him.
Mercer spent the rest of her column lamenting that apartheid ultimately cost South Africa support from the West as an anti-Soviet ally. Then, reminding us she still has some nostalgia for apartheid, she concluded: "An ahistoric, rootless America, shot through with dangerous and systemic anti-white animus, is an America in which liberty has been lost."
CNS Touts Wash. Post Fact-Check On Biden -- Something It Never Did Regarding Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones wrote in a March 31 CNSNews.com article:
At his March 25 news conference, President Joe Biden called Georgia's new election integrity law "un-American" and "sick."
"It's sick, deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line, waiting to vote, deciding that you're going to end voting at 5:00 when working people are just getting off work, deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances."
A day later,Biden issued a statement, titled, "the Attack on the Right to Vote in Georgia," saying in part: "Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over."
His remarks are false. In fact, the Washington Post is giving Biden "four pinnochios" for saying what he did.
You will not be surprised to learn that, according to a search of the CNS archive, CNS has not only never devoted an article to a Washington Post fact-check of Donald Trump, it attacked the Post for fact-checking him at all.
In a May 2019 column, for instance, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham -- the people who run CNS' parent, the Media Research Center -- complained that the Post made a big deal of counting 10,000 falsehoods spoken by Trump, whining that the Post engaged in "bias by target selection," "nitpicking" and "bias by multiplying nitpicking times 100" to reach that number , ultimately dismissing the number as "10,000 gotchas."
CNS has repeatedlyheld Biden to factual standards it refused to apply to Trump.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The main mission of the Media Research Center these days is to trashing the Biden administration and defend Fox News. That's why Curtis Houck writes his biased reviews of White House press briefings the way he does -- Jen Psaki will always be trashed, Peter Doocy is always lionized. Thus, the March 22 review headlined "WH’s Jen Psaki Gets Destroyed by Doocy, Colleagues on Biden’s Border Crisis":
Continuing her streak of awful, no good, very bad days at the White House podium, Press Secretary Jen Psaki crashed and burned on Monday as she tried to explain away the Biden administration’s crisis at the border, responding to probing questions from Fox’s Peter Doocy and a whole cast of colleagues with bald-faced lies about the border being secure and how Facebook and Instagram ads will help deter illegal immigration.
Houck went on to gush about how his man-crunch Doocy "produced some receipts" and was "upping the ante," while Psakimerely "stuck to her talking points."
On March 26, Houck elevated Doocy's whining he didn't to ask President Biden a question at his press conference thte day before:
A day after he was left off the pre-selected list of reporters called on at President Biden’s first press conference, Fox News Channel White House correspondent Peter Doocy came locked and loaded for Friday’s regular briefing, blasting Press Secretary Jen Psaki over Biden’s past support for the Senate filibuster, the administration’s misleading claims about the border, and the administration’s clear insulating of the President from Fox.
Doocy cut right to the chase as the fourth reporter called on, noting that Biden has “said he thinks the filibuster is a legacy of the Jim Crow era” and then asking whether he thought so in 2005:
[...]
Skipping ahead to the last exchange, Doocy noted that Fox has realized going back to “the end of the campaign” that “any time that the President has an event where he was given a list of reporters to call on, Fox is the only member of the five network TV pool that has never been on the list in front of the President.”
Doocy dropped the hammer with this question: “And I'm just curious, if that is an official administration policy.”
Houck didn't have a Doocy to drool over on March 29, so he lashed out at the "liberal media" he's well-paid to despise and spewed hate at a public health official trying to impart facts to the American people:
Hours after CDC Director Dr. Michelle Walensky was on the verge of tears warning of an "impending doom" of increasing coronavirus cases, Associated Press correspondent and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Lemire took her marching orders Monday afternoon to President Biden and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and pressing them to urge states to halt reopening efforts.
For a liberal media and public health community that’s realizing their death grip on the American people was slipping away, it seemed as though they’ve found their new narrative to keep an increasingly vaccinated country from returning to pre-pandemic life.
Farah Forgets Who Has Female Sexual Harassment Accusers Than Biden Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah ranted in his April 2 WorldNetDaily column:
We all know about Tara Reade, the woman who accused Joe Biden while working for him in 1993.
What did she say?
That Biden pinned her against a wall in the Capitol, shoved his hands up her skirt and his fingers into her vagina. Reade told at least five witnesses at the time about the attack. In addition, there is a video of Reade's mother calling into a 1993 edition of CNN's "Larry King Live" asking for help for her daughter's problem with a "prominent senator."
[...]
That he had this experience with one woman could possibly be overlooked, misunderstood amid inspection and adjudication. But there were other women – at least SEVEN in all, according to journalist John Nolte of Breitbart.com.
Consider all you've heard about a similar matter recently concerning Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Most people think that when there's smoke there is fire. Another president comes to mind. Does the name Bill Clinton ring a bell? It's enough to make one think that the "MeToo" movement was a sham to go after Republicans, not Democrats.
Again, Biden has been credibly accused by at least eight women. The man is truly creepy. Here's the record.
Farah has not only ignoring that there are plenty of reasons to question Reade's story, he has also forgotten who the truly creepy one is. More than 20 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment, which seems like a significant number -- and much greater than either Biden or Cuomo.
Farah concluded by declaring, "Who do think is creepier – Biden or Cuomo? Who do you think is a nicer guy?" Of course, Farah is such a Trump fanboy that he'll never admit Trump is far creepier than both of them combined.
NEW ARTICLE: Trump Friends Even After The End Topic: Media Research Center
The fact that President Trump has been out of office for months (and left in disgrace after the Capitol riot) isn't keeping the Media Research Center from continuing to defend him and his wife's record in office. Read more >>
CNS' Uber-Catholics Bash Biden Some More Topic: CNSNews.com
The uber-Catholics who run CNSNews.com love to demonstrate their supposed moral superiority over President Biden, a fellow Catholic, because he's not forcing all of America to abide by the right-wing Catholic policies CNS demand. Let's tally how CNS has tried to use Biden's Catholicism against him in the past few months.
Manging editor (and uber-Catholic) Michael W. Chapman invoked one of his favorite hardline catholics in a Feb. 16 article:
Two days after President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris announced that they are committed to codifying Roe v. Wade into law, Catholic Cardinal Raymond Burke, an American, gave a sermon in which he said such a plan is part of the Evil One’s “program of lies and death.”
This is the same Cardinal Burke who said in August that Biden “is not a Catholic in good standing and he should not approach to receive Holy Communion.”
The same day, a column by anti-abortion activist Judie Brown criticized Catholic bishops for supposedly not bashing Biden hard enough on the issue of abortion: "As members of the media press hard for Biden’s abortion agenda—including the repeal of laws that require parents to be notified if their minor child seeks to abort her baby—we find it nearly unbelievable that the bishops really need to clarify the obvious facts about abortion. What is it actually going to take for not only bishops, but Catholics in general, to awaken to the sad reality of our time?"
The next day, CNS' favorite dishonest Catholic, Bill Donohue, huffed: "President Biden used his first day in office to discuss human rights. However, he did not speak to this issue in a broad manner; rather, he limited his discussion to the rights of homosexuals and transgender persons. This tells us a great deal about his priorities."
That sort of hostile coverage continued:
An anonymously written Feb. 21 article carried the headline "Catholic Bishops: Stop Biden-Backed Equality Act That Would ‘Force Girls…to Share…Shower Spaces With Biological Males’."
On Feb. 22, Chapman found a bishop to attack Biden as "not a real Catholic ... just a fact." Chapman went on to lecture: "Biden and his supporters in the left-wing media frequently refer to his 'devout' Catholicism, but gloss over his support for abortion on demand, gay marriage, gay adoption, and other issues contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church."
On march 2, Donohue hufffed that "If there is one thing that makes Biden "overtly religious," it is his habit of carrying a rosary. ... What does that have to do with his public policy decisions that are of interest to the Catholic Church?"
Two days later, Donohue complained: "Not a day goes by without some commentators, usually left-wing Catholics, trying to convince the public that [Biden] is a model Catholic. This is disingenuous. If Biden were a model Catholic, there would be no need to assure us that he is."
Chapman spent a March 26 article highlighting aonther bishop's attack on Biden, declaring that he "'should not present himself' for Holy Communion at Sunday Mass given his decades-long support for abortion and other grievous sins." Chapman further editorialized: "Biden should not present himself for Communion because he has used his power and vote over the years to ensure that abortion occurs in this country (and abroad) and that Planned Parenthood receives federal funding. Abortion and contraception are contrary to Catholic moral teaching."
Chapman called on his favorite Biden-hating bishop again on March 31: "In response to a question about President Joe Biden's open defiance of the Catholic Church's moral teaching, particularly on abortion, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, an American, said that 'a person who claims to be a Catholic and yet promotes in such an open, obdurate, and aggressive way a crime like procured abortion is in the state, at least, of apostasy.' He added that the next step to consider is a church penalty for the 'crime of apostasy, which would be excommunication.'
On April 5, editor Terry Jeffrey was the one who scrounged up a Biden-bashing bishop, "stating that President Joe Biden, who supports abortion and same-sex relationships, should not receive Holy Communion.
Chapman harrumphed on April 14: "Although President Joe Biden is a Catholic -- a Catholic who rejects nearly all of the fundamental moral teachings of the church -- a recent survey shows there is "little evidence" that his faith is resulting in "high approval ratings from his fellow Catholics." In fact, his highest job approval rating, 67%, is among people who never attend church." Chapman went on to tout: "Many Catholic bishops have denounced Biden's support for abortion and gay "marriage," and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has said Biden could face public excommunication from the church."
Jeffrey returned on April 28 to promote yet another Biden-bashing bishop: "“It can create confusion. ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?”
As usual, CNS refused to give any Catholic Biden supporters a chance to respond to the attacks.
MRC Censors Full Controversy Over 'Christian Crowdfunding Platform' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall fretted in a March 17 post:
The crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo stepped up to the challenge and was described by a liberal blog as the “go-to fundraising vehicle for some Trump supporters and far-right groups looking to solicit money online.”
GiveSendGo — and other new alternative platforms — may just be the pushback to Big Tech the conservative movement has been waiting for. “Donald Trump’s efforts to [allegedly] delegitimize the results of the 2020 presidential election set off a gold rush, allowing prominent lawyers, conservative PACs, Republican lawmakers, and others in the former president’s orbit to raise millions of dollars off false claims of a stolen election,” liberal outlet GEN reported via Medium. The blog post, “Trumpworld Has Been Using a Christian Crowdfunding Platform to Rake in Cash,” written by Medium Associate Editor Richard Salame, illustrated that “GiveSendGo has been a friendly resource for those looking to push claims of election fraud.”
Salame made clear that the large amounts of money being processed by the conservative crowdfunding platform were nothing to scoff at:
Among the most successful fundraisers is Matthew Braynard, the former director of data and strategy for Trump’s 2016 campaign. Braynard had launched his fundraising page on the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo on November 7, promising to use the money to “detect potentially fraudulent ballots.” After a week, donations had surpassed the goal of $590,000 that he had set by tens of thousands of dollars, and by mid-January, the campaign had raised more than $675,000 from nearly 9,000 donations.
See that "[allegedly]" in the first paragraph of Hall's item? Hall put that in -- apparently, he doesn't believe that Trump tried to delegitimize the election despite all the evidence showing that he did. He also omitted a key fact about Braynard's crowdfunding campaign that was in the article he's atacking: Braynard has yet to make public any evidence he claims to have of election fraud, which seems to suggest that the only fraud here is being perpetrated by Braynard.
But for all Hall's gushing about how "conservatives have actually begun to establish their own platforms to address their concerns rather than merely accept being deplatformed," he's not going to tell you other reasons GiveSendGo is considered controversial. The big ones is that it allowed crowdfunding campaigns for people arrested in the Capitol riot and for a legal defense for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two people at a Wisconsin protest against police brutality. Is it really "Christian" to give money to credibly accused criminals?
GiveSendGo popped up at the MRC again in an April 19 post, in which Autumn johnson complained that Twitter didn't block an article on a data breach at GiveSendGo that revealed the names of police officers who donated to Rittenhouse's defense fund.Johnson comlained it was a double standard because Twitter "banned the New York Post article exposing the contents of Biden’s laptop over unfounded allegations that the story relied on hacked materials." Hunter Biden is a right-wing obsession, and the origin of the laptop has never been proven -- and given that the story came from Rudy Giuliani as campaign dirt and published by the New York Post, which just got busted lying about Kamala Harris, there's good reason to question the veracity of that story.
Newsmax Writes An NRA Press Release Topic: Newsmax
A March 30 article claims to have been written by Eric Mack, but it reads like it came from the National Rifle Association's PR shop:
The National Rifle Association has faced some challenges with bankruptcy proceedings and a move to Texas after New York Democrats sought to engage in politically motivated investigations, but its membership growth is strengthening.
The NRA has seen 150,000 new members this year alone, averaging about 1,000 new members a day, NRA Director of Media Relations Amy Hunter told The Epoch Times.
Mass murder events and President Joe Biden's administration's talk of gun-control measures have also led defenders of the Second Amendment to join the nation's top gun lobby.
"We've had two federal bills that have been passed in the House, and they're going to be heard in the Senate soon," Hunter told the Times. "You have Biden talking about executive action that he's going to take, and it's been pretty steady throughout history that when you have an anti-gun president in office, and he's passing laws, signing executive action, that usually causes a surge in NRA interest in membership."
The NRA now boasts 5 million members after a summer surge, she added.
Mack provided no evidence that the New York investigation into the NRA is "politically motivated" -- in fact, given all the financialshenanigans that have been uncovered, there's more than sufficient cause to investigate the organization. Mack alluded to the NRA's problems only in the second-to-last paragraph of his article, when referenced an NRA board member trying to fight the New York investigation and declaring that "he must take on a culture of subservience and alleged financial misdeeds that has sprung up around the group's top executive, Wayne LaPierre."
That's not really enough to shake off the press-release feeling of Mack's article.
CNS Lets Columnists Launch Bogus Attack On Another Biden Nominee Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hasaverybadhabit of launching partisan attacks on President Biden's nominees, and Kristen Clarke, nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights, was no exception. CNS left it to its commentary section for the hit jobs on Clarke. In a Feb. 1 op-ed headlined "Biden Nominates Lawyer Who Outright Said Whites Are Inferior," Hans Bader claimed:
Clarke has said that blacks are genetically superior to whites.
"Melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities," while "most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning," wrote Clarke in the Harvard Crimson newspaper in 1994.
If Clarke still believes blacks are superior to whites, and is involved in formulating the Biden administration's affirmative-action policies, her racist views may affect their legality, by tainting their motivation.
In fact, it was clear then -- and was pointed out again during Clarke's confirmation hearing in April -- that Clarke's letter, published when she was a student at Harvard, was satire, a response to a controversial book (yet popular in right-wing circles) called "The Bell Curve," which tried to make connections between race and IQ and was co-written by a Harvard professor.
Nevertheless, this was followed by a Feb. 9 column by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky and Caitlin McDonough cited the satirical letter to claim "Clarke cited a number of 'experts' regarding what she called the 'truth' about the 'genetic differences between blacks and whites.'" The same day, Bader invoked the letter again to claim that Clarke "exhibited racism and anti-Semitism at Harvard Law School."
Despite publishing this misinformation, CNS refused to cover Clarke's confirmation hearing at which the truth was told about the letter. Instead, it published an April 19 column by Bader prestending that Clarke's satire wasn't clear at the time and that she only recently claimed it was satire:
Clarke now claims ;her anti-white statements were satirical, in contrast to the past, when she stood by them. But they occurred in a serious discussion, and she made these statements at a place and time where even shocking racial claims about whites were made in all seriousness.
Clarke and I both attended the same school, Harvard University. There, I encountered black students who believed crackpot racial theories that echoed Clarke's statements (such as the idea that blacks are, by nature, warm, communal, spiritual people, unlike whites, who are coldhearted oppressors). These bizarre racial claims were made without any hint of humor or irony. The black secretary of the Harvard Law School student government told me in all sincerity that his kids would fight mine in a race war some day. And I had thought he was my friend!
I don't believe Kristen Clarke, because she is a blatant liar. In the same April 14 hearing where she claimed her racist remarks were made in jest, she also denied having supported defunding the police, in an article in which she stated three times, "We must invest less in police."
Bader then cited right-wing publications claiming that it the satirical intent wasn't clear at the time, even though it came in the wake of "The Bell Curve," something Bader tried to downplay (not to mention the fact that Clarke was a 19-year-old undergrad at the time).
Art Moore credulously wrote in a March 24 WorldNetDaily article:
A former Republican member of Congress who ran for president, Michele Bachmann is now the dean of the graduate school of government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Noting some polls show nearly half the country still doesn't believe Joe Biden won the election, she put together a seven-hour virtual conference Tuesday called "Analyzing American Election Integrity."
The university, she told WND in an interview Wednesday, simply was a "forum for letting speakers put evidence out – it's their opinion, not ours – and then let people decide for themselves."
Some presenters, such as election experts John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky, addressed the general issue of fraud and the Democrats' controversial For the People Act while making no judgment about the outcome of the 2020 vote.
Others, such as former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, presented evidence to back their insistence that President Trump was the true winner.
Bachmann said her aim was to pull together the evidence "and let people decide for themselves: Was this a true and legitimate outcome or not?"
"And I'll tell you the evidence was overwhelming that it was not," she said. "People want truth and they want justice."
Moore went on to uncritically summarize claims made by presenters at the conference, such as touting how "Navarro is the author of a three-part report presenting evidence from six battleground states he believes Trump won." WND has previously touted Navarro's claims -- but didn't tell readers many were bogus.
Moore also highlighted the appearance from Gateway Pundit's Jim and Joe Hoft: "The Hoft brothers presented evidence, including video footage they obtained from Detroit's TCF Center on election night, that they have compiled from among the 1,700 articles they have published on the election." But Moore seems to have forgotten that WND previously promoted their claim -- then had to append a correction after it was prove that the video didn't show what thet Hofts claimed it did.
Meanwhile, Jim Swift of the conservative site The Bulwark did what Moore wouldn't and detailed the craziness and general factual inaccuracy of the conference: "Enough falsehoods were spewed by the speakers sponsored by Pat Robertson’s school yesterday to merit two-dozen rebuttal articles." Swift also added:
Many of the panelists brought up (you guessed it) GEORGE SOROS. I didn’t count how many times this bogeyman’s name was invoked, but if you had watched yesterday’s livestream while playing a drinking game with the sole rule of having another shot every time someone said “Soros,” you’d soon have been under the table. Which, come to think of it, might have been the best way to experience this travesty.
It was a total mess, but Moore won't tell you that because he's getting paid to perpetuate the false narrative of the election getting stolen from Trump.
Michael Master complained about oil prices in his March 23 WorldNetDaily column:
Gasoline prices lag oil prices until current inventories of gasoline are sold off. So we should expect gas prices to eventually increase about the same as oil prices, to be about two-thirds higher than the $2 per gallon when Trump was president. For average Americans, that would be about $3.40 per regular gallon of gas, depending on location, up from the $2.11 under Trump. If oil increases to $100 a barrel as some pundits predict, then gasoline could reach $5 – and oil oligarch net worths will increase 250%. That is a lot of incentive for oil oligarchs to try to influence U.S. elections.
The actions of the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Biden administration directly benefit oil oligarchs: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, oil company stock holders.
[...]
How did oil prices increase so much? Because of what Democrats and especially Joe Biden did in the last couple of months. Biden oil policies are really pro-oil oligarchs and anti-average working Americans, those who consume oil products. While Democrats claim that their policies are meant to "save the planet" by discouraging oil consumption, they lie. Oil prices are inelastic. Therefore, increases to oil prices just act, in effect, as increased taxes on oil consumers and additional payments to oil oligarchs. And oil is used in much more than just gasoline.
Master is lying when he blames rising oil prices on Biden and Democrats. The low gas and oil prices in the final year of Trump's presidency -- which is what Master is citing when he priced gas under him at around $2 a gallon -- was caused by the pandemic, not by anything Trump did. And actualexperts have pointed out that oil and gas prices have rising since the beginning of the year because oil-producing countries lowered production last year due to reduced pandemic-driven demand and they have been slow to increase it. None of that has anything to do with what Biden and Democrats have done.
Nevertheless, Master continued to rant:
While Democrats and Biden claim to help working Americans, their actions say something different. Two-bucks-a-gallon Donald Trump actually helped average working Americans by achieving oil independence for the first time since Eisenhower, which must have really ticked off all those oil oligarchs, like Rex Tillerson. Is there any doubt why oil oligarchs ganged up against Trump to help Democrats? Because of low oil prices, just as China helped Democrats because of the Trump tariffs.
Actually, the U.S. oil industry did notsupport Biden's election because he supports policies that are seen as harming the industry.(And, again, $2 gas under Trump had nothing to do with anything Trump did.)
MRC Touts Fox's Doocy Spreading Fake News -- Then Tries To Paper Over It Topic: Media Research Center
As much as the Media Research Center manufactures tons of outrage at "liberal media" outlets when they get caught peddling "fake news," it's much more lenient on its fellow right-wing media outlets who do the same thing (remember, the MRC still hasn't told its readers that the Fox News story it heavily promoted before the 2016 election that an indictment of Hillary Clinton was imminent was retracted a few days later.
Curtis Houck was more than happy to gush over Fox News reporter Peter Doocy's performance in his biased review of the April 26 White House press briefing from Jen Psaki:
After a few uneventful White House press briefings, Monday’s episode drew a number of interesting exchanges on the border crisis, the coronavirus pandemic, masking, schools, and President Biden’s Wednesday address to a Joint Session of Congress.
And after having been off to get married, Fox News’s Peter Doocy returned with a bang in an exchange on the administration’s continued masking despite having long been vaccinated.
[...]
Doocy moved to his second topic by asking about reporting from the New York Post that "every" illegal immigrant child brought to one U.S. facility "is being given a copy of her children's books, Superheroes Are Everywhere."
Asking "why that is" and whether "she's making money off of that," Psaki played dumb by saying she'll "have to certainly check on that" though she "hear[d] it's a good book."
Just one problem: That story isn't true at all. As an actual media outlet reported, a single copy of the book was donated in a citywide donation drive to provide books to the children. This was a screw-up so severe that the Post completely deleted not only the article making the original false claim (though it later returned to the Post's website in edited form) but also a separate article on Doocy asking Psaki about the false story (Fox News and the Post are both owned by Rupert Murdoch). On top of that, Laura Italiano, the Post reporter who wrote the false story resigned, claiming she was "ordered" to write it.
So how are Houck and the MRC reacting to these developments? Very mildly. On the morning of April 27, the MRC's NewsBusters account touted Houck post featuring Doocy pushing the false story, adding, "@pdoocy continues to be one of the few reporters who consistently ask the Biden administration questions that the rest of the media don't want to touch." Yes, most in the media don't push the kind of fake news Doocy got caught using. Houck meanwhile, lashed out at CNN reporter Daniel Dale for the sin of noting Italiano's resignation, hiuffing, "You're a genuinely bad person, Daniel. @Italiano_Laura admitting she was wrong -- you and your CNN colleagues should try it sometime." Houck seems oblivious to the fact that the real story here is Italiano's claim that the Post "ordered" her to write a false story. (And Houck himself might want to try it sometime given that, again, the MRC still won't retract that 2016 Hillary story.)
Meanwhile, Houck's April 26 article got some quiet rewriting. The reference to "Feds Using Kamala's Book" was deleted from the headline, and the section on Doocy promoting the false book storywas completely rewritten to remove direct quotes from him and Psaki; it now references only "an exchange about a now-dubious claim from the New York Post about Vice President Harris's children's book being given out at one U.S. detention center for illegal immigrant children." It's not until the very end of Houck's post that there's any evidence that it was altered, with an editor's note that "This post has been updated to reflect the change in reporting to reflect the lack of veracity to the Post's claim about Harris's children's book." There's no mention of this major correction anywhere else on the NewsBusters website, nor is it noted on either Houck's or NewsBusters' Twitter accounts.
Also, note that Houck and the MRC won't actually call the Post story wrong, despite it being definitively discredited; they state only that it's "dubious" and has a "lack of veracity."
By contrast, the MRC repeatedly raged over the Washington Post correcting the record on a two-month-old story involving a phone call then-President Trump made trying to strongarm a Georgia election official into throwing the election his way. And not only is it giving Doocy and the New York Post kid-glove treatment on this major screw-up, it has completely censored from its readers how Fox News earlier had to correct a story it heavily promoted claiming that President Biden's plan for fighting climate change will force Americans to cut meat consumption.
If we needed absolute proof that the MRC give its fellow right-wing media writers a pass on their screwups they would never give to anyone in the "liberal media" for lesser offenses, this is it.
Newsmax's Hirsen Embraces Extreme GOP Rep. Greene For Calling Vaccine Passports 'Mark of the Beast' Topic: Newsmax
James Hirsen began his April 5 Newsmax column by declaring, "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been a target of the establishment press and the social media ever since she was elected to office." But he failed to mention any of the legitimate reasons Greene gets criticized -- her support for QAnon, her personal harassment of mass shooting victims, her series of racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic videos on Facebook. Heck, even fellow Newsmax colmnist Christine Flowers has denounced Greene for her denial of the existence of the Newtown school shooting.
Instead, Hirsen tried to defend another extreme view of Greene's, her claim that a COVID-19 vaccination passport is the "mark of the beast." Criticizing Greene for this extreme view means criticizing all Christians, Hirsen claims:
It is appalling to have to witness the parade of religious bigots in the news and entertainment media, who with apparent impunity think that they can display contempt for the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Christians.
Bible believers across the globe patiently await and prayerfully watch for a future that will someday unfold, one that is foretold in sacred Scripture.
Passages of the Holy Book, which Christians revere as the sacred Word of God, speak of a time when the Earth is ruled by a highly charismatic, yet deeply malevolent figure.
The “mark” to which Rep. Greene refers is an imprint taken upon one’s body, which is a demonstration of allegiance on the part of followers to the singular evil ruler.
Revelation, the final book of the Bible, sets forth key language on the subject.
Revelation, the final book of the Bible, sets forth key language on the subject.
“... all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, ... receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads ...”
The words of the scripture passage also make clear that no one will be able to “buy or sell” unless they have had the mark.
The evil leader about which scripture speaks is called the “son of perdition.” A specific number has been assigned to him, one that is familiar to many Bible believers and non-believers alike: 666.
Hirsen is apparently cool with Greene hatefully smearing people who are trying to keep a infection that has killed millions across the globe from spreading as akin to the devil:
Much like the financial markets make predictions using indicators, the Bible reveals to Christians that they are to watch for End Times indicators of coming events that are foretold in scripture.
One of these indicators is a decline in moral sensibilities.
Millions of Christians and others are painfully aware that this is an ominous trend in our current world. Rep. Greene, along with many of her Christian sisters and brothers, are also extremely uncomfortable with the potential use of intrusive digitally-based identifiers.
For folks like us, the book of Revelation looms large as current events seem to be leaping off the pages of The Word.
The End Times scenario of a one-world government, a one-world religion, and a totalitarian system of rule seem more and more plausible with each passing day.
Thankfully, though, the Second Coming looms larger than all of it.
No, Jim, Greene is not like "millionbs of Christians" in her spread of hate and embrace of hateful conspiracy theories. You may want to rethink your cynical embrace of her.
CNS Attacks GOP Governor Who Refused To Hate Transgender People Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com used to love Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. It touted her call to let the presidential election process play out, defended her from an article about the death of her grandmother, cheered her calls for additional abortion restrictions and happily promoted her call not to shame people who won't wear masks.
But she refused to hate transgender people to the extent right-wingers demand these days, and that got her in trouble with CNS.
It started according to the right-wing script, with a March 12 article by Emma Riley puffing Noem for declaring that "she was 'excited' to sign into law a bill that would prohibit transgender females (biological males) from participating in real women’s sports in the state’s public schools, its school districts, and in its colleges," much like CNS has done with similar anti-trans laws in other states.Craig Bannister added a March 19 bit of puffery on Noem stating that "Women tend to 'take a step back”' and question their abilities more than men, and they need to address that instinct."
But Noem ultimately decided that the anti-trans bill went too far and vetoed parts of it -- and that set off CNS' rage, initially in the form of a March 22 article by Michael W. Chapman:
Although South Dakota GOP Gov. Kristi Noem, who promotes herself as a firebrand conservative, strongly implied she would sign legislation barring transgender "females" (biological males) from participating in real girls' sports -- and using their bathrooms, locker rooms and showers -- she delayed last week, did not sign the bill, and now wants changes that would essentially gut the legislation, according tothe Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
The bill, H.B. 1217, was passed overwhelmingly by the South Dakota House and Senate, and Noem tweeted on Mar. 8, "In South Dakota, we're celebrating #InternationalWomensDay by defending women's sports! I'm excited to sign this bill very soon."
Everyone expected the apparently conservative Noem to quickly sign the legislation into law. But she delayed, and then last week it was learned that Noem was going to use her "style and form" veto power to partially gut the Fairness in Women's Sports bill.
"Gov. Noem had an opportunity to protect women and girls by signing the Fairness in Women’s Sports bill, but instead she pandered to the demands of special interests," said the ADF in a statement. "In what was an abuse of her ‘style and form’ veto power, she gutted protections for collegiate athletes and took away legal recourse for girls forced to compete against biological boys."
"We are shocked that a governor who claims to be a firebrand conservative with a rising national profile would cave to ‘woke’ corporate ideology," said the legal group.
“The governor tried to explain her betrayal with claims that her hands were tied by NCAA policy," reads the statement.
This was followed the next day with an op-ed by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins going all "Mean Girls" on Noem, as summarized in the headline: "If Noem Doesn't Stand Up to the Left on Girls' Sports, She Can Forget About Being the Right's Rising Star." Apparently, hating transgender people is now a core Republican policy plank.
Chapman returned on March 29 with a list of "47 pro-family, conservative organizations" -- read: right-wing anti-trans activists -- who are mad she vetoed the bill.
On March 30, Chapman parroted another attack on Noem from ADF; after she pointed out that she was being the target of right-wing cancel culture for vetoing tyhe bill, the ADF huffed in response that "criticizing Gov. Noem for caving to woke corporations is not cancel culture. It’s accountability." CNS and its Media Research Center parent believe that only liberals engage in "cancel culture "and that even when right-wingers do the same thing, you can't call it that.
When Noem issued executive orders restricting transgender participation on sports teams -- thus accomplishing a good portion of what the law would have done -- CNS didn't even see fit to do a story on it, even though it played a role in bullying her into it.
Because Noem refused to fully hate transgender athletes to the extent that right-wing activists demand, CNS is apparently now denying her any sort of positive coverage. They must be a bunch of Mean Girls too.
Joseph Vazquez devoted a March 31 Media Research Center screed to attacking New YOrk Times columnist Tom Friedman for approving of President Biden's stimulus plans. He took particular exception to this part: "Friedman said that Biden should “not only channel his inner F.D.R. but also a little Ronald Reagan and some rip-roaring capitalism.” Friedman argued as if Reaganomics and FDR’s disastrous New Deal welfare state belonged in the same sentence."
Ilana Mercer kicked off her March 25 
Susan Jones wrote in a March 31 CNSNews.com 
The main mission of the Media Research Center these days is to trashing the Biden administration and defend Fox News. That's why Curtis Houck writes his biased reviews of White House press briefings the way he does -- Jen Psaki will always be trashed, Peter Doocy is always lionized. Thus, the March 22 
Joseph Farah ranted in his April 2 WorldNetDaily 
The uber-Catholics who run CNSNews.com 
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall fretted in a March 17 
A March 30 
CNSNews.com 
Art Moore credulously wrote in a March 24 WorldNetDaily 
Michael Master complained about oil prices in his March 23 WorldNetDaily 
As much as the Media Research Center manufactures tons of outrage at "liberal media" outlets when they get caught peddling "fake news," it's much more lenient on its fellow right-wing media outlets who do the same thing (remember, the MRC still hasn't told its readers that the 
James Hirsen began his April 5 Newsmax 
CNSNews.com used to love Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. It 
