MRC's Double Standard On Big Tech's Political Donations Topic: Media Research Center
In April, the Media Research Center started a campaign to get its fellow right-wing nonprofit organizations to get them to refuse donations from "big tech" companies, with chief Brent Bozell claiming that "Silicon Valley’s money is toxic and it’s poisoning our society. ... We must act together to end Silicon Valley’s corrupt grip over Washington and our public discourse.” In that letter, Bozell had praised the Heritage Foundation for having "turned down two six-figure contributions from Google and Facebook." The next month, the MRC praised Heritage again for officially signing Bozell's pledge "so long as the platforms suppress conservative viewpoints." That's a bogus argument, of course; the MRC has never proven that "big tech" companies "suppress" conservative viewpoints exclusively.
So it was a little strange to see a May 28 post by Autumn Johnson complaining that Facebook wasn't donating money to conservatives:
Facebook has decided to resume political donations — excluding conservative Republican members of Congress like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Josh Hawley, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Rep. Steve Scalise.
The social media giant says it will no longer give donations to political candidates who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election. The news comes after Google and Amazon announced that they would pause donations to these political candidates as well.
Facebook paused all political donations after the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“As a result of our review, the FBPAC Board has decided to resume contributions, but not to any members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election following the events at the Capitol on January 6,” Facebook Public Policy Director Brian Rice told employees. “While a contribution to a candidate for office does not mean that we agree with every policy or position that a candidate may espouse, we believe this decision is appropriate given the unprecedented events in January.”
If conservatives weren't supposed to take Facebook's money due to the MRC's arm-twisting, why is it now upset that Facebook won't donate to them anyway?
Johnson went on to tout how Republican Sen. Ted Cruz "announced that he will no longer accept donations from Facebook." But she didn't explicitly state that Cruz favored rejecting presidential election results from two states with the intent of throwing the election results into chaos.
Then, in a June 3 post listing this as an example of the "WORST Censorship" that month -- despite the fact no rational person thinks not giving a political donation to someone equates to "censorship" -- Casey Ryan complained further about this situation by suggesting that Trump's bogus attacks on the election were somehow legitimate:
Trump and elected officials had concerns regarding the integrity of the last election, but rather than at least listen to their concerns, Facebook is punishing them.
Politicians should not rely on Big Tech contributions considering that Silicon Valley has appeared to have no respect for the First Amendment. But Facebook has exposed its blatant bias by choosing to punish primarily Republican officials who were elected by the American people. Forbes reported that a majority of Republican voters “believe Trump’s claims that Biden’s win was due to widespread voter fraud.” Facebook has now planned to punish the politicians who share the concerns of their constituents over the integrity of last year’s election.
Ryan surely knows that no Trump- or Republican-promoted attack on the election has advanced in any court, or even that they have held up under the most cursory scrutiny. That means these Republicans weren't concerned about "election integrity" -- they were enabling a lie. No candidate who enables lies so egregious that they threaten to undermine American democracy deserves political support, and Ryan doesn't make the case for why they do.
MRC Sours On 'Nancy Drew' Reboot Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center liked the CW's "Nancy Drew" reboot at first -- but only because one episode pushed a right-wing talking point in passing. Dawn Slusher gushed in an April 1 post:
The CW’s ghostly drama Nancy Drew, (based on the beloved series of children’s books), featured a historical mystery Wednesday night, but real history was made when the show had the courage to admit the truth about the racist and eugenicist beginnings of abortion giant Planned Parenthood. And no, this is no April Fool’s joke, as hard as it is to believe!
Actually, all that happened wds that one character said that "Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood to support eugenics." Which is arguably true. What's less true is Slusher's assertion that racism was wrapped up in that. As we documented when the MRC launched a factually challenged smear campaign against her in 2015, there's no evidence that Sanger was particularly racist or that Planned Parenthood was founded based on racism.
Ah, but the bloom fell of the rose pretty quickly, if only because "Nancy Drew" wanted to reflect what was happening in the world instead of pushing right-wing talking poiints, and Slusher's viewing assignment turned into hate-watching. Thus, Slusher complained on May 6 that a new episode of the show focused on racism -- which the MRC absolutely hates -- prompting her to feel the need to lecture her narrow right-wing audience about how saintly the police supposedly are:
We’ve already seen Hollywood use fictional stories to paint the police as violent racists, but Wednesday’s episode of the CW’s Nancy Drew might take first place for the most over-the-top and racially divisive anti-police storyline. Not only were police vilified, but a few white suspects who aren’t officers were thrown in as evil participants who harassed an innocent black woman for good measure.
The line, "They all cry for their mothers," was an obvious reference to the George Floyd case, which was an outrage to most everyone and resulted in a guilty verdict for the officer. And, of course, they inserted Fraser’s desperate claim that Dolores was resisting arrest into the dialogue when it’s clear that Fraser was just an evil racist who took his hate out on an innocent black person.
The liberal lecture being that we can then assume the same is true for any officer in real life who ends up having to use deadly force on suspects who resist arrest. When in fact, most officers face a life-and-death split-second decision while doing their best to protect their community, and it has nothing to do with race whatsoever.
But as long as Hollywood and the left keep pushing these false narratives and make-believe stories, it’s only going to create further fear, division, and hate - the very things the left claims to be fighting against.
The following week, Slusher found another reason to be outraged at "Nancy Drew" -- not only did it discuss race again, there was a gay kiss:
Another week, another liberal racial episode of the CW’s Nancy Drew. This is obviously not the beloved character you may remember from the classic childhood series by Carolyn Keene. And, now, it looks like the show is going to help promote a spinoff with yet another liberalized version of a beloved childhood character from another book series - Victor Appleton’s Tom Swift.
Wednesday’s episode, “The Celestial Visitor,” introduced Tom (Tian Richards) at the start as he helps Nancy (Kennedy McMann) and the “Drew Crew” solve a mystery. Only, because it's 2021, this version of Tom Swift is black and gay.
Tom shares in the victimhood, too, telling Nancy he can’t come out to his father because he doesn’t want to be seen as “his gay disappointment.” In the end, though, Tom decides to send a strong message to his father by getting Nick, who is straight, to kiss him for a picture he ends up posting on his social media for his father to see.
Fingers crossed, prayers up, God willing, I would just like to watch television without a liberal lecture and not have anymore classic childhood characters politicized.
Of course, it's clear Slusher is the one who sees Tom Swift as a "gay disappointment." And these shows don't lecture nearly as much as she does.
The MRC's Latest Anti-Gay Targets: Plastic Bricks and Cereal Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserarch Center absolutelydespisesanyone who commits the offense of not being heterosexual. It has expanded that fight to inanimate objects like plastic bricks and cereals. Matt Philbin ranted in a May 20 post:
Having neutered the notoriously toxic masculinity of Mr. Potato Head, progressives are continuing their long march through the toy industry. Lefties intent on remaking the world in their image know their project depends on indoctrinating the young.
Thus, Lego has announced “‘Everyone is Awesome,’ its first LGBTQ-themed set,” according to USA Today’s Christine Fernando. Lego is launching the toys in “Pride Month” in June, which, as we know, is Ramadan for the leather speedo set.
Fernando explains, “The colors in the set are inspired by the rainbow flag, according to the statement.” And they probably don’t hurt when you step on them. But just the rainbow flag? Surely intersectionality demands the inclusion of other victim groups.
Yes, Philbin is mad at Legos, which should apparently always be considered heterosexual. On top of Philbin's bizarre sneering that anyone who's not heterosexual is part of "the leather speedo set," whatever that means, he went on to huff, "No doubt Lego will follow up with a Portland Public Library set where the purple drag queen can really strut his stuff. And with all those new letters in the alphabet soup, surely there will be many opportunities for follow-ons. (And, yes, the MRC also had a meltdown over the whole Mr. Potato Head thing.)
Alexa Moutevelis brought that same hateful, dismissive tone to a May 25 post raging at Kellogg's for offering an LGBTQ-themed cereal:
It's that time of year again - time for corporations to rainbow-up and start pandering to the LGBTQABCDEFG crew for “Pride Month” in June!
This year, Kellogg’s is partnering with GLAAD for a new “Together With Pride” cereal, which has already hit stores. This is an update from past gay cereal campaigns, which were only offered online. Now can you get woke messaging in your face in the grocery aisle!
The cereal is described as “berry-flavored, rainbow hearts dusted with edible glitter.” Gotta admit, that’s the gayest cereal I’ve ever heard of - way to play to stereotypes!
The box has all your favorite Kellogg’s cereal characters rallying around the bowl, including Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, and Snap, Crackle and Pop. A little Frosted Mini Wheat is pictured holding a rainbow flag with a triangle on it, which I had to look up. Apparently, the rainbow flag alone was not inclusive enoughand they had to add elements “to represent marginalised LGBT communities of colour” and transgenders.
Yeah, that’s what everyone wants in their breakfast – cereal with a side of social justice activism. Just another way they force feed their propaganda down people’s throats.
As if the MRC's anti-LGBT hate isn't propgandizing its readers to hate people different from them.
This isn't even Moutevelis' first time raging against cereal. In response to a similar 2019 campaign by Kellogg's, she huffed, "Have you ever eaten Froot Loops and thought, 'This cereal isn’t gay enough?' Do you seek a safe space to eat your Rice Krispies? Are you concerned that your Corn Flakes aren’t sufficiently woke? Well, now Kellogg’s has the solution!" She spat in her conclusion: "Equality and inclusion in a breakfast food – it's social justice cereal! I think I'm gonna lose my breakfast."
Moutevelis doesn't seem to realize that it's her toxic hate -- inculcated by the MRC, which pays her well to spew it -- that's making her ill.
MRC Repeatedly Attacks Actor It Also Dismisses As A 'C-Lister' Topic: Media Research Center
A May 28 Media Research Center post by Abigail Streetman dismissed actor Bradley Whitford -- whom she weas attacking for being "ignorant and Trump deranged," "twisting the truth and spewing left-wing propaganda all over social media" and making "several unhinged and false claims" in a TV appearance -- as a "C-lister." But, as with Bette Midler, the MRC sure does spend a lot of time focusing on this supposedly irrelevent "C-lister."
Whitford's actual sin here was to note that the Repubilcan Party "worships an insurrectionist" and calling Donald Trump a "disturbed sociopath." For all her hateful invective "twisting the truth" and making "false claims," the only evidence Streetman offers to counter Whitford is to huff, "I guess Whitford forgot that Trump specifically said “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” during the rally on January 6." But Streetman conveniently overlooks that Trump also said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Whitford got another post devoted to him the next day, taken from the same TV appearance. Charlotte Hazard complained that "left-wing actor Bradley Whitford ranted to his fellow liberal that 'we cannot get anything done if we don't protect democracy and pass H.R.1.,' referring to federal legislation being pushed by Democrats to rig all future elections in their favor." Hazard then went on to receite right-wing talking points against the bill. Scott Whitlock cited Hazard's post in a post that same day in a roundup featuring how "those silly celebs were at it again this month, attacking their favorite conservative Republican targets."
That's three posts in two days highlighting the views of a supposedly irrelevant "C-lister."
The MRC also took offense to Whitford joining his fellow actors on the TV show "The West Wing" reuniting to encourage people to vote in the election. Lindsey Kornick whined in August that the reunion is "just what America doesn’t need," adding that "At this point, the only time The West Wing is brought up is for liberals to whine about the good old days with Democrats in charge." Gabriel Hays melted down in a September post: "The real vexing aspect of this stupid reunion special, besides you now trying to disassociate what may have been one of your favorite TV shows, from the pro-civil unrest, Trump Derangement Syndrome-suffering left, is that in between each of the episode’s acts, an annoying liberal will lecture you about voting."
Again: That's a lot of digital ink being spilled on someone who the MRC wants you to think is nothing but an irrelevant "C-lister."
Cancel-Culture Haters At The MRC Cheers Reporter Getting Fired For Old Tweets Topic: Media Research Center
As much as the Media Research Center whines about liberals allegedly imposing "cancel culture" on conservatives, it sure gets happy when the opposite happens. Tim Graham is quite happy in a May 22 post:
In his newsletter, Brian Stelter wrote “This case is getting a ton of attention among media types on Twitter.” Jeremy Barr of The Washington Post reported Emily Wilder, a brand-new staffer at The AP, was fired this week, evidently for "tweets of hers referencing her advocacy for the Palestinian people and opposition to the actions of the Israeli government."
Wilder said she was not told which of her social media posts had violated company policy, just that “I had showed clear bias.” A spokesperson confirmed that “she was dismissed for violations of AP’s social media policy during her time at AP.”
Graham then gets around to the cancel-cuture part:
On Monday, the Stanford College Republicans flagged a post that Wilder made in college, characterizing her as an “anti-Israel agitator” and criticizing the Associated Press for hiring her. At Stanford, she was an active member of the pro-Palestinian groups Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. In the old post, Wilder described Sheldon Adelson, the late Las Vegas billionaire and staunch Jewish supporter of Israel, as a “naked mole rat-looking billionaire.” She also wrote an op-ed in the college paper when Ben Shapiro came to campus which proclaimed "There's no shortage of think pieces on why Ben Shapiro is a little turd."
That spurred critiques from FoxNews.com, The Federalist, and The Washington Free Beacon at a time when Israel and Hamas are a hot story...which then looks like conservatives got her fired, which probably drew the attention of Stelter's "media types on Twitter." For example: "Amazing how quickly a talented young reporter's career can be snuffed out by a Twitter mob that decided to feign outrage over some college tweets," tweeted the Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler.
Graham did not explain why neither Adelson nor Shapiro were those things -- he simply complained that they were said, which is not allowed under MRC rules unless you're a conservative. Graham then complained:
Let's agree. It is just strange for a liberal news service like AP to fire someone for "declaring their views...in any public forum" when just this week, AP's Jonathan Lemire was co-hosting the opinion show Morning Joe on MSNBC, trying to set up Michael Steele, suggesting Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was engaged in a "cynical political play" to oppose an "independent" commission the January 6 riot.
No one got fired when AP's obituary of Rush Limbaugh began by declaring a view: "Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio host who ripped into liberals and laid waste to political correctness with a captivating brand of malice that made him one of the most powerful voices in politics," died, and although he said he was a harmless little fuzzball, he "often trafficked in lies and conspiracies with contempt for his opposition that often veered into cruelty."
AP book reviewer Hillel Italie can write a gushy, badly disguised press release for Hunter Biden's memoir of his druggy life, lamenting "unsubstantiated charges of corruption," and he didn't get fired.
First: Graham offers no evidence to counter Lemire's claim about McConnell or the accuraty of AP's opening about Limbaugh. Ssecond: Conservative reporters appear on opinion shows all the times, yet we don't recall Graham ever complaining about that. Third: The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, publishes badly disguisedpress releaseson a regular basis and, again, Graham has not moved to stop it from doing so.
Then, on May 30, Clay Waters unironically complained that "The New York Times has a gross double standard on 'cancel culture,' or what it called 'digital shaming,'"because it did a story that focused on Wilder. Waters then played whataboutism in an apparent attempt to justify the right-wing cancel culture on Wilder: "Journalist Kevin Williamson’s move from conservative journal National Review to mainstream-liberal The Atlantic was squashed after his strongly held views against abortion were revealed. But Waters didn't mention that a key component of those "strongly held views" is that women who have an abortion be executed -- which the MRC tried to insist was a mainstream conservative viewpoint.
MRC Effectively Endorses Sketchy GOP-Led Ariz. Recount Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Mark Finkelstein has a complaint in a May 26 post:
Hey, if CNN's Chris Cuomo can advise his beleaguered brother Andrew on how to wriggle out of multiple scandals, why shouldn't a CNN reporter debate Republicans in the parking lot? And then be hailed as presidential timber?
On Wednesday morning's New Day, after a long clip was aired of CNN reporter Kyung Lah grilling Republican Karen Fann, president of the Arizona state senate, regarding the Maricopa County 2020 presidential election recount, a thrilled John Berman enthused:
Kyung Lah for president, right? I’ll chair that committee right now. That was a terrific interview."
And of course, without waiting for the results of the audit to come in, CNN repeatedly dismissed it in advance as "bogus" and "a sham." To CNN, it's "bogus" to suggest the election wasn't perfect....after CNN spent four years suggesting the Russians stole the election for Trump.
Whatever people might think of the recount, Fann kept her cool, and treated the CNN reporter as a debate opponent, which she absolutely was:
We think Finkelstein absolutely endorses the recount despite its amateurish and insecure nature, the dubious company running it, and the fact that even the Republican-controlled Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has denounced the recount. It also appears that Finkelstein forgot to read the Mueller report, which detailed how how the Russians worked to influence the 2016 presidential election for Trump's benefit. And he also left out the part where Berman said that Fann had ignored numerous interview request, making the parking-lot intervew necessary.
Finkelstein then added:
When Fann made the case for the transparency of the recount, pointing out that the entire process was being livestreamed, Kyung Lah interjected: "on OAN, with cameras controlled by OAN." When Fann asked if Kyung Lah didn't consider OAN a credible news source, she emphatically responded, "yes!" Pot meet kettle, anyone?
If Kyung Lah's presidential run doesn't work out, perhaps she can take over Brian Stelter's gig, devoting herself to trashing conservative media outlets.
Finkelstein didn't mention that an OAN reporter was helping to raise money to pay for the recount.The MRC has been completely silent about that clear breach of journalistic ethics, which Finkelstein would be trashing CNN for if, say, Lah had done it.
It's telling that Finkelstein is more upset by Lah's interview than OAN's major ethical breach -- and that he's effectively endorsing this highly sketchy audit.
Facebook 'Whisteblower' Touted By MRC Is A Proud Boys Fan Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall touted in a March 29 post:
Facebook whistleblower Cassandra Spencer wrote an exposé about the platform with damning claims of anti-conservative meddling.
The whistleblower who had contracted at Facebook had her life turned upside down after exposing Big Tech bias against conservatives at Facebook. Her tell-all book, “Impact: How I Went behind Enemy Lines in Our Struggle against the Far Left,'' made some devastating allegations.
“[A]fter a few weeks on the job in Texas, she said she noticed that some profiles and pages were secretly marked in a way that would reduce the reach of their live videos,” Fox News reported. “She said in the following weeks she saw a pattern, and she only noticed such flags on pages belonging to conservatives, not to any liberals. And that they were hidden from the account holders.”
Spencer then reportedly reached out to guerilla journalism outlet Project Veritas and began to wear a hidden camera. Facebook reportedly fired her shortly afterward.
Hall did admit that Facebook said Spencer lost her job because she chose "to perform a stunt for Project Veritas." But Hall didn't mention how far-right Spencer is. The New Republic wrote of Spencer's later role in Project Veritas "Gold Mine" project, in which operatives tried to embed themselves in the campaigns of Democratic candidates as moles during the 2020 election:
Cassandra Spencer, the Gold Mine operative who targeted the Warren and Sanders campaigns—and, based on an internal review of Biden staffers and volunteers, shadowed one of their campaign events just before the Iowa caucuses—called herself a “Proud Boys’ Girl” and retweeted Michelle Malkin saying “God Bless the #ProudBoys.” That means that, of Project Veritas’s four infiltrators, at least two declared support for the group.
that seems relevant, given the Proud Boys' role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riot. But Hall didn't think so.
Two days later, Kayla Sargent gushed that "Former Facebook employee Cassandra Spencer wrote an exposé that alleged anti-conservative bias within the company." But she too failed to mention taht Spencer is a Proud Boys fangirl.
The MRC has a bad habit of lionizing far-right extremists who purport to be whistleblowers against the "big tech" companies they hate.
CNS' Multi-Pronged War On Nancy Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Just as it does for President Biden, CNSNews.com lovestocherry-pick things about Nancy Pelosi that it can write negative articles about. We've already noted CNS' obsession with attacking Pelosi over the Capitol riot she had nothing to do with, but there have been many other examples over the past several months.
In December, an anonymously written article pushed CNS' weird narrative that Pelosi is old and frail. Under thte headline "80-Year-Old Nancy Pelosi: ‘I Plan to Receive the Vaccine in the Next Few Days’," the anonymous writer stated that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is 80 years old, announced today that she plans to receive the COVID-19 vaccine “in the next few days.” The article reproduced Pelosi's statement anbout receiving the vaccine, in which her age was not mentioned. The next month, Melanie Arter dutifully repeated attacks on Pelosi for "allowing Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) to vote for her as speaker in person less than a week after Moore announced testing positive for COVID-19." (That hypocritically contrasts with CNS' reverse mask-shaming months later.)
In March, another anonymous article used Pelosi to take a shot at Biden, noting that Pelosi "lauded President Joe Biden as an exemplary father while introducing his virtual appearance at a House Democratic caucus meeting on March 3—but forgot to mention Biden’s son, Hunter Biden."
Yet another anonymous article that month had the teasing clickbait article "Cuomo Kissed Pelosi and…" But the article's reailty was much more boring, consisting of said anonymous CNS employee being forced to scour the internet for pictures of Pelosi with Andrew Cuomo:
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has appeared in some videos and photographs kissing and/or hugging Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California.
One photo by Getty Images shows Pelosi and Cuomo at an event in New York where Cuomo kissed her on the cheek.
No explanation was given as to why the article exists, such as Pelosi having defended Cuomo at some point. The article didn't even mention that Cuomo was under fire for allegedly sexual harassing (for which, by the way, Pelosi hascriticized him, something the article also didn't mention).
In April, when Pelosi awkwardly thanked George Floyd “for sacrificing [his] life for justice" following the murder conviction of ex-police officer Derek Chauvin, CNS made it the lead story that day in an article by Patrick Goodenough.
That month, CNS also got mad that Pelosi marked Ramadan with a message stating that "Our vibrant, diverse Muslim communities are essential to the American fabric." No explanation was offered as to why CNS apparently found that statement so offensive.
A April 15 article by Craig Bannister tried to put words in Pelosi's mouth by repeatedly describing talk about expanding the Supreme Court as "court packing" even though Pelosi never used the term.On May 6, Bannister tried to manufacture outrage about Pelosi saying that Rep. Elise Stefanik was replacing Rep. Liz Cheney in House Republican leadership because "she’s more, shall we say, compliant" -- but failing topoint out that the reason Cheney was booted from House GOP leadershipw as because she failed to comply with pro-Trump colleagues by bringing up Donald Trump's corruption and his role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot (a narrative CNS enthusiastically embraced).
CNS even finds ways to take shots at Pelosi when reporting on inoccuous things that even the highly partisan CNS can't disagree with. For example, a March 8 article featured Pelosi's statement in support of International Women's Day under the headline "Pelosi: ‘We Choose to Challenge Those Who Commit Violence and Abuse Against Women’" -- but illustrated it with an old photo of Pelosi with former President Bill Clinton (who, for the record, has never been credibly accused of abusing or otherwise committing violence against women).
CNS' weird anti-Pelosi obsessions continued with devoting articles -- most of them anonymously written -- to seemingly every single statement she has made that could be seen as non-hateful to the LGBT community:
CNS is apparently so desperate for Pelosi-LGBT content that it has pulled its oldtrick of doing multiple articles on the exact same thing. On June 28, an anonymous CNS writer complained, under the headline "Pelosi: ‘Vulnerable Transgender Children Are Being Targeted by a Disturbing Wave of Hateful Legislation’":
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) put out a statement on Saturday to mark the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision—which declared there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage—and used the moment to draw attention to the state laws that are now being passed to deal with issues rising from transgenderism.
Then, on July 1 -- under the exact same headline -- came another anonymous critique of the exact same Pelosi statement, albeit slightly reworded from the earlier attack:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said in a statement marking the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges—which declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right--that state legislatures have recently passed a “wave of hateful legislation” relating to “transgender children.”
Are there no editors at CNS? Are they that lazy and unaware of what they publish? Or do they simply hate Pelosi, and transgenderpeople, that much?
MRC's Graham Whitewashes G. Gordon Liddy's Horribleness Upon His Death Topic: Media Research Center
Rush Limbaugh wasn't the only right-wing radio host the Media Research Center was morning this year (while studiously ignoring what a terrible person and whining about anyone who pointed out that fact). Tim Graham gushed and lamented in an April 4 post:
G. Gordon Liddy became a beloved conservative talk radio host for 20 years after serving time in prison for organizing a break-in of Democrat headquarters at the Watergate in 1972. His show would air in the mornings here in Washington on WJFK, and he would entertain by interviewing conservatives (including us at the MRC) and reading news stories and opinion pieces from the Washington Times. I warmly remember how we talked for nearly an hour in 1996 about my book Pattern of Deception.
When he died on Tuesday, we could guess that Liddy's obituary headlines would be more negative than say, communist dictator Fidel Castro's in 2016. We were not wrong.
After that "warm" remembrance, it was off to the whataboutism races, comparing Liddy to one of the few people who could be considered a worse human being, starting with a complaint that one headline called Liddy an "unrepentant burglar":
"Unrepentant burglar." Now does anyone think a liberal newspaper will lead its Bill Clinton obituary with "Unrepentant sexual harasser"? Or will those words lead the Al Franken obituary headline? Franken had a talk radio show for a while. No chance.
On April 1, New York Times headline in the paper was "G. Gordon Liddy, Watergate Scandal’s Remorseless Ringleader, Dies at 90."
In 2016, the New York Times headline read, “A Revolutionary Who Defied the U.S. and Held Cuba In His Thrall.” Anthony DePalma of the Times began by calling Castro a “fiery apostle of revolution” who “defied the United States for nearly half a century.”
The Washington Post headline for Castro was slightly more balanced: “Revolutionary remade Cuba: Dictator who defied U.S. was loathed, beloved.” But Kevin Sullivan and J.Y. Smith oozed that Castro was “a romantic figure in olive-drab fatigues and combat boots, chomping monstrous cigars through a bushy black beard,” who “became a spiritual beacon for the world’s political far left.”
The Post headline for Liddy was more restrained: "G. Gordon Liddy, undercover operative convicted in Watergate scandal, dies at 90." But a photo montage was headlined "G. Gordon Liddy, infamous operative in the Watergate break-in, dies at 90."
On the front of Friday's Style section, Post feature writer Dan Zak called Liddy a "super-klutz." He cracked "As with so many self-professed paragons of strategy and masculinity, the man who advertised himself routinely as 'virile, vigorous and potent' was most famous for underperforming. He was brilliant at scheming but lousy at pulling off schemes... Liddy may have died Tuesday at 90, but he lives on in any number of characters afflicting our politics with their theatrical machismo or numbskulled shenanigans."
This is comical, since Zak is best-known for exhaustively glorifying the "numbskulled shenanigans" of three radical pacifists who theatrically broke into the Oak Ridge nuclear lab and threw blood at the walls.
One could say that Graham oozed over Liddy.It should be noted that at no point does Graham dispute the accuracy of any of those less-than-flattering characterizations of Liddy, including that of "unrepentant burgler" -- he's simply complaining they were said at all. Graham also forgets that being an unrepentant burglar is pretty much the defining image of Liddy that most Americans have -- at least, the ones who aren't still sucking up to him because a radio hit with him 25 years ago went well.
And this isn't even the frist time this year the MRC tried to whitewash Liddy. In anuary, Scott Whitlock lashed out at MSNBC because a promo used images of Liddy and Oliver North alongside pictures of Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials in criticizing people who were "just following orders": "What, exactly, to Liddy and North have to do with the actual Nazis? That these two were following orders connected to their respective scandals makes them like... Nuremberg trial Nazis? And what does any of this have to do with 2021 Republicans?" Whitlock forgot that is a Liddy-Hitler connection beyond this: Liddy said in a 2004 interview that listening to Hitler on the radio "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," adding that "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body." Liddy also chose his wife on eugenic grounds, "a tall, fair, powerfully built Teuton." And let's not forget that Liddy also gave his listeners advice on how to shoot federal agents.
The MRC tried to whitewash that too, of course. A 2013 post complaining that Robert Kennedy Jr. brought up Liddy's admiration of Hitler played the whataboutism card by claiming that John F. Kennedy "a soft spot for Der Fuhrer" according to his diaries. But that was deliberate cherry-picking; a full reading shows that nowhere in his diaries did JFK express sympathy for the Nazi cause.
The MRC has to group Liddy with the likes of Castro and Hitler to make him look not as terrible by comparison. Graham's fuzzy memories about how he "warmly remembers" Liddy as a "beloved conservative talk radio host" rings not only hollow but tone-deaf and desperate as well.
Scott Lively Anti-LGBT Meltdown Watch, Pride Month Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Satan, and therefore his Antichrist human host, will cloak himself in the rainbow as an essential element of his claim to be the Messiah.
Now, to nip in the bud the "Christian left" sophistry that deflects attention away from homosexuality to the sin of "pride," let me stipulate that pride IS the sin at the very root of LGBT perversions, finding its most complete expression in homosexual copulation, as Moses noted in Leviticus 18:22, and Paul so eloquently explains in Romans 1:18-32. I'll further stipulate that their other favorite deflection tactic regarding the "Sin of Sodom," that the actual sin was "inhospitality," is also true: there was no act in the ancient Hebrew culture so grossly inhospitable as the attempted homosexual gang rape of visiting strangers by "all the men of Sodom both young and old" described in Genesis 19:1-11.
Thus, rampant homosexuality is the key symbol of ultimate rebellion triggering God's wrath. And this was true in the case of the Flood as well, in that homosexual "marriage" triggered it, as Jesus implied in Matthew 24:37-38 (taken together with Genesis 6:5) and the ancient Hebrew rabbis expressly stated in the Talmud (Genesis Rabbah 26:5:4). Revelation 11, especially verses 7-8, confirms its association with the Kingdom of the Antichrist.
Let this be America's warning as it willingly hosts countless rainbow-emblazoned "Gay Pride" parades and flies the LGBT rainbow flag over every U.S. embassy in the world. THIS is the harbinger of wrath. And your attitude about pride in perversion is a big part of God's litmus test for your fate. Shun the curse of the LGBT rainbow flag!
Sexual sin without consequences is the false promise of contraception on demand to normalize culture-wide fornication (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1966), the back-up plan of abortion on demand ( Roe v. Wade, 1973), the "no fault" divorce laws of the '70s that ended punishment for adultery, legalized sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) and finally, the invention of "gay marriage," which ended the ancient and essential primacy of natural-family norms that had always served as the "immune system" of society (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).
Today's front line of cultural assault on our immunity-suppressed body-politic is transgenderism, which moves beyond sexual conduct to destroy binary male/female human identity in preparation for transhumanism. Now-rapidly emerging transhumanism brings the end of God's design for mankind and the rise of a new human-created "better" species made possible by technology.
Once anarchy had defeated ordered liberty in sexual matters, the disruption of order in all the other social realms was made easier.
Let us pray and work for that counter-revolution to do more than just punish evil figureheads like Fauci, Newsom and Cuomo. Let us be champions of a return to the "ordered liberty" that can restore our national immune system. And let our voices be heard especially clearly during this "Gay Pride" month of June, when the people most responsible for destroying our moral foundations are celebrating their presumed supremacy with presumed impunity.
Regular readers know that I am devoting my weekly columns in the month of June to pushing back against its designation across all the woke countries of the world as "Gay Pride Month." Prophecy-oriented readers recognize the deep significance of this phenomenon, as I document in my book "The Petros Prophecy" (free upon request). MAGA patriots of all stripes are awakening to the centrality of the LGBT agenda to Cultural Marxism and the conquering army of Dem and RINO co-conspirators, as I have summarized in past articles. Virtually every clear-thinking, freedom-loving person in the world recognizes that the increasingly universal, increasingly mandatory celebration of same-sex attraction disorder is a kind of ideological tyranny. The smartest of them realize its ultimate goal is to impose groupthink upon humanity and criminalize dissent.
For about 20 years I have worked to educate the conservative movement about this process and goal which I call the Five Steps of Homofascism: Tolerance, Acceptance, Celebration, Forced Participation and finally Punishment of Dissent. Importantly, this is the process used to enforce submission to every part of the Marxist agenda, but the LGBT movement has always been the point of the Cultural Marxist spear, and every phase of the five-step process was perfected in the fight for so-called "gay rights" before being adapted for other issues.
That brings us to the main contention of this article: that the abbreviation "Q" for "Questioning" in the acronym "LGBTQ" designates a category best described as "prime candidates for recruitment into the LGBT army." "Q" effectively stands for "ReQruits," and serves the same function for the Marxist faith that the term "seeker sensitivity" serves for the Christian faith – a system for and emphasis on attracting new members.
To be clear, by "recruiting" I primarily mean encouraging impressionable young people to experiment with same-sex conduct with each other. That is the implied and sometimes express purpose of adding Q to LGBT when used by advocates of sexual conduct outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage. And it is why I advise everyone who cares about the moral, emotional, physical and spiritual health of young people never to add "Q" to LGBT when referencing the coalition of people with same-sex attraction disorder and/or gender-identity disorder. To do so enlists you in the recruitment process whether you intend it to or not.
While adult recruitment of young people into same sex relationships does occur, and is especially common in male homosexual culture (related to the age-old phenomenon of pederasty), this problem is significantly eclipsed by the ongoing mass-recruitment of young teenagers into homosexual and/or transgender self-identification through culture-wide social engineering, marketing and propaganda.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, 'Clown Show' Edition Topic: Media Research Center
In Media Research center writer Curtis Houck's highly biased and partisan worldview -- one he gets paid well to espouse -- White House press secretary Jen Psaki is evil personified, and biased, hostile reporters like Fox News' Peter Doocy are heroes who are always logical and serious and certainly not clowns or carnival barkers (his favorite alleged insult for CNN's Jim Acosta, who was no more abrasive or hostile than Doocy is).
So, when Houck decided to feature non-right-wing reporters for the June 7 briefing, his headline screeched "The Clown Show Is Back!":
The White House Briefing Room returned to full capacity for Monday’s Psaki Show and with that, Trump era carnival barkers such as Breakfast Media’s Andrew Feinberg, Playboy’s Brian Karem and The Grio's April Ryan made sure to have seats. Along with fellow far-left reporter Yamiche Alcindor of PBS, they bashed former President Trump and trumpeted the disastrous For the People Act.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan made a guest appearance at the start and Ryan was there to lob softballs with her first question complaining that Russian President “Vladimir Putin has already smeared [President Biden’s] name” and then suggesting passing the For the People Act was a necessity to national security.
Houck further displayed his lack of seriousness and professionalism by repeating a fellow right-winger insulting Alcindor as "the White House press corps’s most useless reporter." But Houck made sure to suck up to his man-crush, touting how "Doocy decided to show up with excellent questions about holding China accountable and Biden not speaking or tweeting about D-Day."
Speaking of sucking up, Houck unironically accused non-right-wing reporters of doing just that in writing about the June 8 briefing:
With Tuesday serving as the final White House press briefing for at least week due to President Biden’s trip to Europe, liberal reporters had one more chance to perform for the cameras and/or suck up to Press Secretary Jen Psaki. Unfortunately, PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor,The New York Times’s Katie Rogers, and The Grio’s April Ryan seemed to be more like CNN's Brian Stelter than, say, Fox’s Peter Doocy.
After Ryan hammered Psaki from the left about the right for Black Americans to vote being in peril, Rogers tag-teamed with Psaki to mock conservatives and Republicans as having “[gone] crazy” and got “worked up”over Vice President Kamala Harris’s comments about the U.S./Mexico border as well as her NBC interview.
Rogers began with a series of climate change and infrastructure questions, but that was merely lip service to what she seemed most enthused about: trashing the right.
We don't remember Houck ever complaining when his beloved Kayleigh McEnany used White House press briefings to trash liberals -- in fact, he reveled in it. Houck also sucked up to Doocy again, declaring that he "came ready to ask questions that actually advance the ball down the field." Of course, Houck means that they advance right-wing narratives.
Houck's all-too-predictible rants, hate and man-crushing have more than amply demostrated who the real clown is here.
WND's Farah Again Begs For Money, Again Blames 'Digital Cartel' For WND's Woes Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been ranting a lot about the "digital cartel" that is supposedly running WND out of business. That's because he's begging for money and he needs a victim. Farah rantted in a June 14 column:
For almost 25 years, WND has blazed trails in the new media world as the first independent online news site. We were challenged, vilified and made sport of by the state-run media, but it was not until 2017 that Google and Facebook – along with Twitter, Apple and Amazon – joined forces against us.
And then I suffered a series of strokes in 2019 – talk about a double-whammy!
At least it's no secret now. But WND has continued to tumble – Google and Facebook denying us revenues and readers, Amazon killing WND books and movies.
While in normal times WND regularly showed up among the top of Google News results, it now never does. Even worse are the words it uses to characterize our stories – "dangerous," "derogatory," even "shocking content." These are all applied to TRUE stories – all of which have panned out. But few got to read them, because Facebook censored them and Google made sure they weren't read by most people.
I don't want reform. I want real justice for those harmed by these companies. What they have done to the American landscape with these tactics is a disgrace!
Under no circumstances should these corporations be permitted to engage in political lobbying, soliciting, accepting government contracts or participating in any political activities, operating as they currently do under special government protections against liability claims.
By law, Google and Facebook must be ideologically neutral in all they do, since, under the law, they are not "publishers" but "carriers" of information – the same goes for Twitter, Amazon and Apple.
Farah is lying when he says that every single story WND has published is "TRUE" -- we'vedocumentednumerousexamples of false and misleading information WND has published, not to mention the defamation lawsuit from a Tennessee car dealer it abruptly settled out of court before trial after dragging things out for years by, in part, admitting that the stories it published calling him a drug dealer were false.
Also, Google and Facebook are private companies who have terms of service by which they have every right to remove or restrict those who violate it. WND publishes conspiracy theories and many stories of dubious factual content, and because one of the services Google and Facebook provide is accurate information to their subscribers and users, they have under no obligation to promote information that's not true masquerading as "news."
Farah also invoked Google critic Robert Epstein to attack the company for is allegedly "demonstrable pro-Democrat activism" in the 2016 election. But as we've documented, Epstein's research, as clickbait-y as it is for right-wingers like WND and Farah, leaves something to be desired.
After more ranting, Farah gets to the sales pitch:
WND has been forcibly downsized by these leftists by 80% since January 2017. There's a direct correlation between the percentage of Google-Facebook advertising revenue control and the decline in advertising revenue at WND in the same time period.
Thus, there's nowhere else for WND to turn than to direct financial contributions. What we collect in donations for the WND News Center all goes to reporters, editors and contributors – every dime.
That's why beginning Tuesday, June 15, we're launching our drive to raise $100,000 by July 15. And with your help, and God's help, we will rise like a phoenix again to help America straighten out this mess.
Please support us with your prayers and by making a generous tax-deductible donation to the WND News Center, the nonprofit, charitable, 501(c)3 sister organization to the for-profit WND. And consider sending a monthly contribution of any amount.
If we go down, soon the independent free press will be a thing of the past, and with it, our uniquely blessed nation.
Nah, that's not gonna happen. bad-quality "news" operations like WND will go down, but those who publish quality news will not be affected. Farah is once again trying to blame the "digital cartel" for his own failings in how he has run WND for the past two decades. Sensationalism and conspiracy theories sell -- but only to a certain extent. If WND published content that was truthful and of high quality, he would not be as affected as he is by the shift away from advertising that nearly all online media operations face. The fact that Farah is begging for money tells us that the WND News Center and ad-free subscription plans -- which didn't launch until late 2019, nearly two years after WND's current round of existential crises -- aren't bringing the money they need and were too little too late. Apparently, not as many other operations want to republish WND's dubious content as it was counting on.
More importantly, WND never deviated from the content that played a major role in driving WND into the ditch -- it's still obsessed with conspiracy theories and publishing less-than-truthful content. It didn't change, and hasn't shown that it deserves to live.
Since then, most of Farah's columns have been tirades against "big tech," with similar pleas for money and the occasional update. On June 23, Farah wrote that the drive had raised $12,517.38, which he insisted was "a good start, but we have three weeks left to raise the remaining $87,483."
Weirdly, this campaign is being promoted only in Farah's column and not anywhere else on the WND website, even though higher visibility might help raise more money. That findamental mismanagement may be another sign WND doesn't deserve to live.
But in his June 30 column, Farah moved the deadline, giving himself a couple more weeks to raise the money: "As of today, we've raised $23,564. Thank you sincerely for that, all who donated. Now we need to raise the remaining $76,436 by the end of July." Farah did not explain why his deadline moved.
Looks like another WND fundraising campaign lacking transparency -- even after Farah bashes the "digital cartel" for an alleged lack of transparency.
CNS Column Falsely Blames Biden For Pipeline Cyberattack Topic: CNSNews.com
Julio Rivera, of something called Reactionary Times, ranted in a May 14 CNSNews.com commentary:
So, with it being well-established that America’s literal borders are being weakly monitored, a message has been sent to the world’s hack-for-profit underground that America has never been more vulnerable as she is at this very moment in history.
Want proof? Look no further than this past weekend’s Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack. Colonial's 5,500-mile pipeline carries almost half of the East Coast's fuel supplies.
This most recent attack occurred in the wake of the Justice Department starting a 120-day review of critical cybersecurity threats last week. The DOJ initiative was confirmed in late April by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco at the Munich Cyber Security Conference.
Curiously, Rivera made no mention of Donald Trump, who was president the previous four years and apparently did nothing on the cybersecurity front that would have stopped the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack -- indeed, he does't mentionb Trump at all. He did, however, go back to the Obama administration, which he claimed "was marred by a multitude of foreign cyber-attacks.
Rivera closed his commentary by sounding like a Trump hack: "If this losing trend continues for the Biden Administration, Americans can expect nothing short of agony during the more than three-and-a-half years we still have left with 'Sleepy Joe' and company." He offered no evidence of anything Biden did or didn't do to be blamed for the cyberattack -- whcih means he's just ranting for no reason.
Drag queens continue to groom preschoolers with the help of entertainment media and woke "educators."
This spring, a PBS Station in New York aired a drag queen storytime and sing-along with "Little Miss Hot Mess" on a program for children aged 3-8.
Lil Miss Hot Mess read her "children's book" The Hips On the Drag Queen Go Swish Swish Swish on the preschool program Let's Learn, for WNET, a New York PBS affiliate.Let's Learn is a partnership of WNET and the New York City Department of Education.
What, exactly does Ehrhard think letting a drag queen read a book to children is "grooming" them for? Not to hate people different from them? That would a terrible outcome as far as Ehrhard is concerned, since the MRC pays her well to spew her hate.Later in the piece, Ehrhard huffed that "PBS has been pushing Gay, Inc.'s agenda for years." she did not explain what "Gay, Inc." is, let alone its purported "agenda"; instead, she linked to the MRC's 2019 meltdown over a gay character appearing in the animated TV show "Arthur," which explains nothing.
It was Veronica Hays' turn to melt down in a May 27 post declaring that "inflicting" a gay character on the animated show "Rugrats" was "LGBTQ propaganda":
Paramount+ is releasing new Rugrats reboot this month and its gonna be gay! Yeah baby!
Your children are sure to appreciate this very inclusive update to the Rugrats lore. Unfortunately, we’re not being blessed with a gay baby. No, it's actually Phil and Lil’s mom Betty who is receiving a sexuality update. As pop culture outlet The AV Club says, Betty “has low-key always been a queer icon.” For those who did not see this coming “let’s be real: Betty was gay as f**k - and now that's actually canon.”
This is a momentous occasion for the collective culture, as Betty is the first openly gay woman in the Rugrats series. The original series portrayed Betty as an independent and gutsy business woman married to the very passive and quiet Howard. He is being kicked out of the picture this time around for the Paramount+ reboot. Whether or not this new Rugrats rendition will explore new potential gay love interests for Betty is yet to be seen. For the sake of the children, let's hope not.
So before Betty was madegay, was "Rugrats" heterosexual propaganda? Hays didn't address that.
On June 1, Gabriel Hays whined that another animated show was getting gay characters:
Another favorite kids show for the last generation of youngsters is falling victim to yet more militant wokeness. Last month, Entertainment Weekly finally unveiled the new, LGBTQ-as-hell characters from its upcoming Proud Family reboot. Yes, the show now has an interracial gay dad couple, who, might we add, are the proud parents of another new character, a budding social justice activist.
Well this certainly puts the Proud in Proud Family.
The reboot, which is set to air on DisneyPlus in 2022, makes no bones about its commitment to the radical, anti-traditional family spirit of the age. Just look at the show’s name, The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder. Of course, the show lives up to the euphemism, with EW announcing that gay Hollywood actor Zachary Quinto and trans actor Billy Porter will be playing an interracial gay couple.
Though what else are we to expect from Disney these days? The mega media giant has cultivated some of the most cherished childhood memories, only to brutally crush them years down the road. Ask any diehard Star Wars fan. Now it seems that even a lighthearted children’s comedy about a charmingly dysfunctional African American family can’t escape the woke revisionism.
The same day, Veronica Hays returned to totally lose it over "Blue's Clues" showing children that non-heterosexual people exist:
Pride Month is upon us. And with that, an onslaught of LGBTQ propaganda from every corporation and media outlet. Unfortunately, for the children of America, classic cartoons, such as “Blue Clues” are the latest mechanism being used to target kids and snuff out their innocence.
“Blues Clues” published a video to its YouTube channel entitled “Blues Clues Pride Parade Sing- Along.” Nina West, a popular drag queen and previous contestant of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” stars as a cartoon drag queen leading all the other queer animals in song. "This family has two mommies. They love each other so proudly and they all go marching in ... the ... big parade," the lyrics go.
You children can sing along: “this family has two mommies” and “this family has two daddies” and “these babas are non-binary.” And “Ace, BI and Pan grown-ups you see can love each other so proudly.”
Won’t it be fun to hear them chant, “This house is a family of kings and queens, they love each other so proudly.” At last, as if to signal the completion of your child’s brainwashing, the song concludes with “Love is love is love you see, and everyone should love proudly.”
This seemingly innocent kid’s cartoon looks like an aggressive grooming campaign. There’s an astonishing level of attention to detail within each moment of the video to push blatant LGBT motifs. The “Blues Clues” creators took pains with this one, even unto the point of depicting a disabled gay dolphin waving its rainbow flag from a wheelchair. Every variation of queer flag is represented and paraded around by little woodland animals. A hijab-wearing owl is shown proudly waving the rainbow flag. This is not parody.
Of course, if you disagree with a kid’s show teaching your susceptible children that mutilating perfectly healthy bodies is okay and rejecting your God-given sexuality is right and proper, you are a bigot. Celebrating and encouraging mental illness in such a glaring manner should be enough to radicalize every person against these sickos. In the meantime, hide your kids, hide your wives, hide your husbands, and throw the TVs out.
What video was Hays watching that she thinks it's all about "mutilating perfectly healthy bodies"? And the fact she apparently believes that anyone who isn't a heterosexual is a "sicko" suffering from "mental illiness" tells you all you need to know about the virulent homophobic hate coursing through MRC headquearters.
Gabriel Hays served up yet another drag-queen meltdown in a June 8 post:
If your children have access to a screen and the internet they are in more danger than ever of being inundated with hyper-radical sexual politics. This Pride month, children’s programming outlets are pulling out the stops to make kids okay with the trans agenda.
In a highly disturbing music video produced by kids’ cable TV network Nickelodeon, a peppy singing drag queen named Nina West educated kids about pride month and all the support they need to show to oppressed LGBTQ peoples, from the gays to the transgenders.
One of the most telling signs of this propaganda being more radical and transgressive than usual, is that the video's pride flag had trans and oppressed people of color triangle on it. So not only this about celebrating the homosexual lifestyle, it was about promoting trans lifestyle and toxic critical race theory.
Of course, Hays won't tell you what this "trans agenda" is. And dismissing LGBTQ people as merely living a "lilfestyle" than being who trhey are is a longtime right-wing anti-gay trope.
Gabriel Hays and Tierin-Rose Mandelburg did a summary piece on June 16 collecting all this hate:
Once upon a time, parents could feel okay about letting their children watch cartoons or ogle the shelves of toy stores. Chances were good they’d come away with their innocence intact. No more. Progressive LGBT etc. propaganda now litters the cartoons, commercials and even the toy aisles.
Don’t believe it? MRC Culture found that within the last year, from June 2020 to June 2021, at least 30 different pieces of mainstream media and consumer products – many of them children’s TV episodes – assaulted kids with extreme lefty propaganda, mostly focused on promoting the LGBTQ agenda.
Again with the "LGBTQ agenda"! And, again, it's never explained what it is.Perhaps because it fits the MRC anti-gay agenda to baselessly suggest it's something sinister than that it's actually about love an acceptance -- two words that can't be found in those MRC narratives.
Another WND Columnist Unironically Complains About Fake News Topic: WorldNetDaily
Laura Hollis isn't the only WorldNetDaily columnist who has been unironically complaining about media falsehoods and fake news. Rachel Alexander made her contribuion -- which, interestingly, was focused on right-wing media -- in her May 17 column:
The left is great at putting the right on the defensive, lumping us all in with a handful of extremists and making us defend them. As I've written previously, the left has figured out how to label conservative principles as conspiracy theories, racism or other distasteful characterizations, causing us to run from our own views.
Part of the reason they get away with the conspiracy theory label is because we get caught spreading stories that may cross that line, and so the left then lumps in perfectly legitimate suspicions with them. This took place far too often regarding the presidential election.
Alexander didn't call out any outlet by name --perhaps because she knows that the publisher of her column, Joseph Farah, has fully bought into conspiracy theories about the election. She did, however, call out some examples of misinformers promoted by right-wing media:
Another recent example is Mike Lindell's "Absolute Proof" documentary about election fraud. While much of it seemed plausible, there was one lengthy segment discussing foreign hacking of voting machines that was noticeably lacking in evidence. The movie displayed logs of the alleged hacking and cited just one person, Mary Fanning, who has little information available about her on the internet. There is no explanation as to how Fanning obtained the logs nor any of the technical details about how it worked. For something that serious, that incredible, you can't just expect people to believe some little-known woman claiming it's true. If she didn't reveal more details because she was afraid for her safety, then why did she reveal her name and as much as she has?
Maybe clear, irrefutable evidence will come out that there was foreign hacking, so the investigations need to continue. But one person saying so with some logs that could have been made up isn't enough to get anywhere, so it allows the left to pile on and claim the right is making up conspiracy theories.
Needless to say, WND has happily promoted Lindell's dubious documentaries without bothering to fact-check them first. Alexander concluded by lecturing:
I believe the vast majority of these people are patriots who think they are doing the right thing. But the left will use their sloppiness to discredit the rest of us. Those of us who are really laboring to get to the bottom of issues like election fraud get lumped in with extremists' efforts, and we end up wasting a lot of time defending them instead of doing the tedious work required to hold up to the Democrats' intense scrutiny.
They also waste our time watching and then researching all of their ideas. I don't have time to vet every video out there. The videos usually end up the same – a grain of truth stretched to an unrealistic conclusion, with lots of vague, attention-getting words. Stop blindly promoting them; if you don't have time to vet them, don't share them.