MRC Embraces Woodward Book ... To Accuse Milley of Treason Topic: Media Research Center
A new year, a new Bob Woodward book exposing the highly dysfunctional inner workings of the Trump White House -- and, just likelast year, another round of tirades and ranting from the Media Research Center over said book.
This time, though, Woodward and co-writer Robert Costa (a former writer for the conservative National Review) served up a tidbit the MRC could work with, one that kept it from attacking them, at least at first: In the midst of Trump's increasingly unstable mental state following his election defeat and out of fear that he might provoke a war with China, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Mark Milley that he secretly contacted Chinese officials to assure them that the U.S. wouldn't attack. But instead of focusing on the instability of their favorite president that forced such extraordinary measures, the MRC decided to accuse Milley of treason, like Nicholas Fondacaro did in a Sept. 14 post:
If a military general tried to insert himself into the chain of command in an attempt to usurp power from a civilian Democratic president and promised America’s chief adversary they would warn them if we were going to attack, the liberal media would be screaming and calling it what it was: treason. But since Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley did those exact things to President Trump, CBS and NBC came out in strong support of it during their Tuesday evening newscasts, suggesting he was protecting the nation.
For much of Tuesday, CNN was fixated on claims from Bob Woodward’s new book that Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley had committed treason by promising China that he would warn them if the United States planned to attack. It even weaseled into their California recall election coverage where special correspondent Jamie Gangel openly defended Milley, suggesting he was just trying to protect the country and critics were acting on politics.
Unsurprisingly, Fondacaro refused to address the issue of Trump's mental instability.
Mark Finkelstein complained that CNN had on Miles Taylor, who anonymously wrote a book criticizing the Trump administration while still working in the Trump White House, to talk about the accusation, huffing that Tayloer was "the most perfectly partisan source" -- never mind that, again, he worked in the Trump White House -- and weirdly adding that "There's something of the callow youth about the 33-year-old Taylor."
The View’s Joy Behar emphatically defended General Mark Milley, after it was revealed in Bob Woodward’s book that he may have committed treason while President Trump was in office.
In the journalist’s book, he claims that the Joint Chiefs Chairman, and principal military adviser to the president, secretly called China to assure them he would warn in advance if President Trump planned an attack against their country. Some might call that treason. But Joy Behar was fine with that, even being at odds with her equally liberal co-hosts.
But Behar was thankful for the general’s alleged betrayal of our country, because Trump was a “lunatic” and a “certifiable nutcase” who should’ve been removed from office, she claimed[.]
Fondacaro ranted some more, nonsensically calling Milley "woke" as well as treasonous:
The broadcast networks doubled down Wednesday in their defense of the woke general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, going from beyond just circling the wagons to building out a fort backed by President Joe Biden. Each of the “big three” were out to paint him as a hero who single-handedly kept President Trump from destroying the world, a delusion they and Milley wished was true. They even tried to rationalize his promise to China to sell out America if we attacked.
Fondacaro insisted that there was "no evidence Trump was planning" an attack on China or Iran, but didn't mention that mentally unstable people are not known for their advance planning.
Finkelstein returned with a post that didn't mention Trump's mental instability but did lecture: "If substantiated, it means that behind the back of the President and Commander-in-Chief, Milley agreed to give a foreign adversary advance notice of an attack. That would constitute an egregious dereliction of duty, and a violation of the core constitutional principle of civilian control of the military."
Clay Waters decided that Milley was guilty of sedition instead of treason:
Wednesday’s New York Times ran a story on a new book by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. “New Book Details Fears Trump Would Start War.”
But national security correspondent Michael Schmidt glossed over the book’s biggest alleged bombshell: That the nation’s top military officer, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supposedly promised to provide China, a foreign rival, a heads-up if any attack was coming.
Such a secret promise to undermine civilian control of the military sounds akin to sedition, and would if true help vindicate “Deep State” concerns from Trump supporters. Yet theTimesdidn’t even notice.
P.J. Gladnick finally acknowledged questions about Trump's mental health -- but he was more interested in a gotcha on a reporter on a minor side issue:
CBS News correspondent Ed O'Keefe attempted to defend the actions of General Mark Milley's secret unauthorized contact with his Chinese counterpart by claiming that national security officials cast aspersions on President Trump's mental health. He added Milley was embarrassed about walking across Lafayette Square with Trump to an Episcopal church on June 1, 2020, where the president allegedly held up an upside-down Bible.
The problem? It was fake news. The "upside-down" Bible cited by O'Keefe was actually held right-side-up. A fact that O'Keefe should have known.
You ignorant Americans! How "delusional" can you be to think there was anything wrong about the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff promising America's greatest adversary to tip them off to any impending attack!
As "delusional" as that might seem to patriotic Americans, that was exactly Nicolle Wallace's opinion on her MSNBC show Friday. Discussing Joint Chief Chairman Mark Milley's phone call with his ChiCom counterpart in which he promised to give advance warning of a US attack ordered by President Trump, Wallace whined:
"Over indelusional America, where disinformation rules the day, there are calls for his firing and worse."
Note: consider the implications of Milley's promise to the Communist Chinese military that he would tip them off to any coming American attack. Milley would be sending our military members into an ambush where the enemy would be waiting for them! How is that not a fireable offense, or much, much, worse?
It's apparently not a fireable offense at the MRC for Finkelstein to omit the important context of Trump's mental instability.
And in a Sept. 18 column, Jeffrey Lord blames concerns about Trump's derangement on ... Trump Derangement Syndrome:
But as with Joe Scarborough, other liberals in the media are quick to celebrate Milley’s blatantly unconstitutional actions because, as always, Trump Derangement Syndrome reigns.
An uncomfortable truth of this moment in American media history is that liberal media simply doesn’t believe in the very Constitution that gives themselves a guarantee of a free press. To them the Constitution and the democratic values it exemplifies are situational.
And what happens if some future General - or a President - decides to take a page from Milley’s playbook and tries to suspend a network or a newspaper because they think the content aired or published is coming from network executives, editors and reporters the General or President believes are “unstable” or “unhinged”, as Milley was said to believe of Trump? Suddenly there would be self-righteous cries of indignant outrage from those in the media who are now General Milley’s cheerleaders.
All of which is to say, it is abundantly clear liberals in the media could care less about unelected Generals or bureaucrats violating the Constitution - as long as it’s the right unelected General and the right elected President. Got it.
Lord defends Trump no matter what, so perhaps he's not a reliable source of opinion on this.
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted in a Sept. 14 article:
Arkansas Sheriff Chris Brown, head of the Cleburne County Sheriff's Office, issued a statement on Sept. 10 declaring that his office "will not mandate the COVID vaccine" for its employees. He also stressed that he was "appalled" by some of the "absolute dictator-like things we are seeing from the Federal Government."
"I am appalled at some of the absolute dictator-like things we are seeing from the Federal Government, and several of the State Governments," wrote Sheriff Brown. "It is absolute tyranny, and completely abhorrent."
"It flies in the face of everything our country has always stood for, and is only furthering the damage and division done to the people of this wonderful nation," he said.
"I am not pro-vaccine, and I am not anti-vaccine," said Brown. "I am pro-freedom, and I am for each person’s ability and responsibility to decide for themselves (in conjunction with their doctor) whether or not to get the vaccine."
Chapman didn't mention, however, that Cleburne County has a low vaccination rate and a very high risk of its residents catching COVID -- which makes Brown irresponsible for refusing to do what he can to boost public health and safety in his county, which is supposed to be part of his job. (Also, if you are not pro-vaccine, it makes you effectively anti-vaccine.) It also makes Chapman irresponsible for hiding relevant facts that would demonstrate Brown's irresponsibility.
In other words, neither of these people are very good at their respective jobs.
Newsmax Columnist Is Sore Loser About Calif. Recall Topic: Newsmax
The Media Research Center is not the only ConWeb entity to be a sore loser over the California recall atempt. Judd Dunning ranted in a Sept. 16 Newsmax column:
It’s a perfect day to fly California state flags at half-mast for lost liberty. America’s backwards national trendsetter, and my home the last 24 years, has spoken.
By a roughly 63.9% to 36.1% majority (*with 70% voting in at the time of this column), Californians support more vaccine mandates, free market business repression, and individual liberty infringements.
“Rules for me and not for thee” elites are, once again, accepted as our new normal.
Gavin Newsom raised $80,000,000 from local entertainment and eco-socialists. Newsom desperately called in mentally crisp Joe “Jimmy Carter” Biden fresh off his Afghanistan “victory lap.”
Gavin successfully spread fear. Many Newsom supporters are over-emotional, dreamy, often well-tanned, socialist-tolerant sheep.
There is little resistance amongst this well wooled ilk. And why should there be, for those who worship “The State”?
California is a nanny state still high on PPP, EDD, and THC. Little excitement exists for leaving beaches and couches to return to work.
A true majority of Californians love and trust big government.
Our populace obediently watches gobs of leftist news and social media propaganda. It’s a spectator sport here.
Despite all that, Dunning couldn't even be that excited about the Republicans' leading candidate. "Larry Elder has boldly ripped the heads off stupid locals since 1993; as result he is loved by many and hated by more. It was just a fact," adding, "Trump caught elites off guard. Elder is great, but he’s not Trump."
Dunning then played the bogus election-fraud card:
It is a sad state that in the background many still do not trust our elections. Even Tuesday night, on CNN 351,000 “Yes” votes disappeared in an instant during live coverage of the Newsom Recall Election in California.
It remains an unsolved issue and one not to be determined on the federal level. Just as in 2020 our exact recall numbers seem they too, may never be properly known.
Dunning's source for this claim was the notoriously unreliable Gateway Pundit. And, no, it's not true: the exra votes were mistakenly entered then deleted when the mistake was discovered.
Dunning concluded by serving up a familiar turn of phrase:
Here in California behind it all, our greatest issue is our pre-existing hard leftist Foucault-like social capital contracts where people feel a pressure to conform to wokeness, or face getting cancelled or lose freedom for thinking a certain way.
Many have become programmed forgetful robots – and that in essence is … the Newsom problem.
We remember when a Newsmax columnist referred to the "Obama problem," the solution for which, he believed, was a military coup.
NEW ARTICLE: WND Doubles Down On The Big Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
An issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine dedicated to insisting that the election was stolen from Trump might have been considered somewhat credible if it wasn't so filled with easily debunked and discredited claims. Read more >>
MRC Runs The Larry Elder Defense Committee, Part 3: Sore Losers Topic: Media Research Center
We'vedocumented how the Media Research Center went all in on advocating for and defending Larry Elder as the Republican candidate in the California recall election (while probably relieved that it was no longer forced to suppress its natural transphobia in order to defend an early GOP front-runner, Caitlyn Jenner). That continued the day before the Sept. 14 election. Curtis Houck attacked MSNBC's Joy Reid for criticizing Eider:
MSNBC’sThe ReidOuthost Joy Reid continued the liberal media’s meltdown over the possibility of Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) losing Tuesday’s recall election, warning Friday that Republican candidate Larry Elder would not only bring a far-right vision to California, but he will have exploited recall process with help from “right-wing activists” and “wealthy conservative donors” to infect Californians with deadly bouts of COVID.
Reid opened by bragging about improving polls for Newsom because of what The Los Angeles Times “a referendum on Trumpism,” adding she meant it translated into scaring voters that Elder “would turn the great state of California into another Texas or Florida.”
She also dismissed disapproval of Newsom in the Golden State as Astroturf, spitting on the face of millions of California by dubbing recall as “nothing more than a Republican power grab organized by right-wing activists and financed by wealthy conservative donors.”
Houck made no effort to disprove anything Reid said.
Meanwhile, Scott Whitlock was praising actress Rose McGowan -- whom the MRC was attacking just a few years ago as among the "wealthy celebrities" who showed "lack of empathy" by calling for new gun regulations after the Las Vegas massacre -- for her endorsement of Elder:
Normally if a movie/TV star endorsed a Democrat and made a blockbuster claim about a prominent Republican, journalists and network outlets would be anxious to repeat and promote the claim. But when actor and activist Rose McGowan endorsed Larry Elder and the recall effort against Gavin Newsom, there was a collective media yawn from ABC, CBS and NBC.
In addition to the endorsement, McGowan also accused Newsom’s wife of being in on the effort to protect convicted sex rapist Harvey Weinstein. Yet there has been no network coverage of her Sunday appearance with Republican Elder. MSNBC on Monday allowed a scant 47 seconds with Hallie Jackson trying to “both sides” the blockbuster claim: “You've got both sides trying to bring out some star power and some last-minute allegations coming from some.”
In other words, Whitlock got mad at MSNBC for doing to McGowan what the MRC had done a few years earlier.
Nicholas Fondacaro ranted: "The Monday night before California’s recall election, two of the broadcast networks were solidly backing embattled Governor Gavin Newsom as they downplayed his COVID hypocrisy and tried to stoke fear of Republican front runner and radio host, Larry Elder."
And that was it for the MRC's electioneering. But when the election results showed decisively supporting Newsom and rejecting the recall, the MRC went into sore-loser mode afterwards. Whitlock whined:
The media on Wednesday are cheering how Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom won his recall election, but that's not at all how some media liberals reacted when it was a Republican Governor, Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who won his recall back in 2012. Then, they grumbled about the defeat of a union-backed attempt to remove the conservative, lamenting all the money spent.
All three networks trumpeted Newsom surviving California’s recall election as a “resounding affirmation” and “vindication” for the Democrat’s policies. CBS Mornings journalist Major Garrett touted the California results: “The Governor told me he'd made mistakes. But now he has something other elected officials don't have: vindication. This recall election in the end was a referendum on his pandemic policies and the result was a blowout.”
Garrett seemed to have no issue with the massive amount of money spent to save the Democrat. He matter-of-factly explained: “Newsom raised about $70 million to fight the recall, roughly six times the total of conservative radio talk show host and GOP front-runner Larry Elder.”
Whitlock served up some whataboutism as well:
This is a quite a contrast to the tantrum thrown by journalists when the people of Wisconsin rejected a recall of Walker. On the June 6, 2012 Nightly News, then-anchor Brian Williams contemptuously lectured that "money flowed into that state from all over the country, from people who had never been to Wisconsin, had no connection to Wisconsin.”
Unlike the lack of concern about money in 2021, Williams warned, “Part of the new and unlimited spending that is changing politics in a hurry.” Then-CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley complained, "The Wisconsin battle also was a preview of how much money is changing politics these days. Donations flooded into the state on both sides. The recall election may have cost more than $75 million, and about half of that came from outside Wisconsin. A lot of it from wealthy individuals."
Wilmouth returned to serve up a different brand of whataboutism, this one of the Fox-fluffing kind:
As the California recall campaign closed, New Dayand other CNN shows ignored news reflecting unfavorably on Democrats while going negative against Republican candidate Larry Elder until the very end.
New Day and other CNN shows completely ignored liberal actress Rose McGowan's endorsement of Elder as she also accused Democratic Governor Newsom's ex-wife of trying to protect Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein from McGowan's charges of sexual assault.
As for the woman who made a racially-charged attack on Elder by throwing an egg at him while wearing a gorilla mask, Erin Burnett OutFront and Early Start were the only two CNN shows to give it any coverage, with Early Start burying it before 6:00 a.m. Kyung Lah even hinted that Elder was to blame for the attack as she asserted that he "draws out some hatred from people."
By contrast. New Day's competitor on Fox News Channel, Fox & Friends, covered both stories. On election day Tuesday, Fox showed a clip of McGowan being interviewed by Fox host Tucker Carlson discussing why a liberal like here would support Elder.
Wilmouth offered no evidence that the egg incident was "racially charged." Instead, he continued to praise Fox News for hyping the "racist egg attack," while complaining that CNN "jump[ed] on Elder for suggesting 'shenanigans' by Democrats might cost him the election, with CNN host Brianna Keilar calling it 'the little big lie' on Monday's show."
Given that no credible evidence has surfaced to back up Elder's pre-emptive claim of voter fraud, it can be argued that CNN was right to point that out. Strangely, Whitlock didn't question why Fox News chose to censor that.
Then again, the MRC knows what side its bread is buttered on. It has been publishing Elder's column since early this year. Elder suspended the column during his campaign, but he returned with two columns on Sept. 29 and Oct. 1 reflecting on his failed campaign -- and the MRC publishedthose without comment.
Muslim-Hating WND Columnist: Islam Is A 'Comorbidity' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The best way, then, to vet immigrants is by the faith they practice. As the data show, young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out against their hosts across the West. Second-generation Muslim-Americans are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.
Omar Saddiqui Mateen shot up a Florida gay nightclub, in 2016. He was a second-generation Afghan-American. Although Mateen's father was an admirer of the Taliban, the moron media concluded that junior was no jihadist, only a latent, self-hating homosexual, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.
The reason for second-generation terrorism is no mystery. More so than girls, boys need strong men in their lives – men who'll affirm their masculinity. Young men crave manly mentors with a strong moral message. But in contemporary American culture, men are sissified and feminized, and biological boundaries blurred. American boys, K-12, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.
When a Muslim male, moreover, hears American preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country's Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors – he quickly learns to reject his adopted country's heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe at Muhammad and his acolytes.
The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn't mean there is a moderate Islam – or that these moderates won't sire sons who'll embrace the unreformed Islam.
As painful as it is to say, being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion.
By "risk factor," I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system counseling conquest, not co-existence. "Islam's borders are bloody," cautioned famed historian Samuel Huntington. The data support his prescient and profound analysis.
It is a distraction to claim, as the moderates do, that jihadis are misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or unicorns. Fact: A Muslim's actions, be they in accordance with the "real Islam" or not – sanctioned theologically or not – could be deadly to Americans.
Afghans are as tough as teak. America, however, is a soft, feminized, sentimental and self-hating society. It is dangerous to import men from such a militant manly culture into a country that teaches its immigrants to hate American history and heroes, and to despise and dominate our naive, eager-to-please people and their customs.
More so than countries-of-origin, religion is The Risk Factor in vetting Afghan immigrants. In the popular parlance, we might say that their Muslim faith puts Afghan Muslims in a security risk group and that Islam is a religious comorbidity.
CNS Weirdly Rushes To Defend Pat Buchanan, Censors Conflict of Interest Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones kicked off a Sept. 8 CNSNews.com "news" article with her usual biased editorializing:
Speaking about the Democrats' $3.5-trillion entitlement package on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a news conference, "I'm so excited as to how transformative it is," especially for mothers of young children who want to go back to work "to reach their fulfillment."
Pelosi said building back better means sending more moms to work and more children to federally subsidized daycare:
Jones then got weirdly defensive when Pelosi referenced President Nixon's veto of subsidized child care in 1971 in a statement written by his then-aide, Pat Buchanan:
Pelosi reached back fifty years to criticize President Nixon -- and his speechwriter Patrick J. Buchanan -- for vetoing a publicly funded child care bill in 1971.
‘So, again, just for your information, I remember -- now, some of you weren't born then,” Pelosi said:
I remember that we were on the brink of this when I was having my small little babies, my five children in six years. We saw that in the Congress of the United States when Richard Nixon was president.
In a bipartisan way, the Congress passed the child care bill. Look, in the history books, everybody thought the president would sign it. It was cause for great excitement and would make a big difference.
Somebody named Patrick Buchanan intervened, making it a cultural issue, like we're sending our children to a Soviet-style situation by having child care, and the president vetoed the bill 50 years ago, 1971.
So, it's long, long, long overdue that we recognize the importance of our children and their care, the value of women in the workplace, and the only way that we can truly Build Back Better is with women in the workplace.
So that's why this is my theme all along, with our members has been Build Back Better with women, remarkable, remarkable transformational initiatives in this legislation.
Nixon's 1971 veto message, written by Buchanan, criticized "communal approaches to child rearing" versus "the family-centered approach."
Jones followed that by declared, "Here, verbatim, are Nixon's nine objections to the 1971 attempt at having the federal government directly involved in child care," followed by, yes, a lengthy reproduction of said objections.
There was no mention, however of the reason Jones rushed to defend (or was ordered to rush to defend) the honor of Nixon and Buchanan: Her boss, Terry Jeffrey, worked for Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign and managed his 1996 presidential run. It says so right on his CNS bio.
Consider this yet another reminder that CNS isn't really about news, it's about advancing political narratives -- which is exactly what you should expect for an organization run by a political operative who won't disclose his conflicts of interest.
Alex Berenson Becomes A Useful Tool For The MRC's 'Censorship' Victimhood Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves misinformation about COVID and its vaccines, so it's no surprise that it has embraced longtime COVID misinformer Alex Berenson -- even invoking his status as a former New York Times reporter in a bizarre attempt to build his credibility (even though the MRC has a blogger devoted almost exclusively to trying to discredit the Times). So it was inevitable that he would be folded into the MRC's "censorship" victimization narrative -- despite the fact that the Atlantic has documented how Berenson has been wrong about much of the pandemic, going so far as to call him "the Secretariat of being wrong."
In June 2020, Alexander Hall hyped that Amazon briefly banned sale of a book Berenson wrote on the pandemic, making sure to call him a "former New York Times reporter." In December, Kayla Sargent gave Berenson full entry in the MRC's victimhood pantheon:
Conservatives have long bemoaned the lack of viewpoint diversity in the discussion surrounding COVID-19, but for one Wall Street Journalcolumnist, the issue is personal.
Former New York Times reporter and author Alex Berenson claimed in a recent article for The Wall Street Journal that Amazon “has twice tried to suppress” several booklets that he wrote about COVID-19.
“Like the scientists who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, I simply believe many measures to control the coronavirus have been damaging, counterproductive and unsupported by science,” wrote Berenson.
As we've noted, the Great Barrington Declaration pushed "herd immunity" to COVID -- something most virus experts disagreed with -- and it was so poorly vetted that the declaration includes fake names.
Joseph Vazquez touted Berenson echoing the MRC's victimhood narrative on Fox Business in a March post:
Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson joined Fox Business to sound the alarm on the amount of power that Big Tech wields over the flow of information.
Berenson slammed Big Tech companies like Facebook for wanting it “both ways.” Specifically, if Big Tech companies were utilities, they would not be held liable for “every bit of speech” across their platforms, but at the same time that would mean they “can’t censor anything,” Berenson said. Regarding opinions and factually inaccurate information, Berenson asked on the March 25 edition of Mornings with Maria: “Do we want these companies in the business of deciding what’s factually accurate, what isn’t? Do we want them fact-checking, which Facebook increasingly does?” He continued: “Do we want [Big Tech] — you know — destroying large groups that come together for causes that some people may not like, or many people may not like? I think that’s a really bad idea.”
Berenson said that the Big Tech behemoths needed to decide: “Are they publishers, where they’re responsible for everything, or are they utilities where essentially they’re not responsible for anything, unless it’s clearly illegal?”
It sounds like Berenson simply wants to get away with pushing misinformation -- not that Vazquez will tell his readers that misinformation is what he's known for.
When Twitter banned Berenson for his repeated COVID misinformation, Gabriela Periseau devoted an Aug. 30 post to inducting him into the "censorship" hall of fame, while also taking the MRC dodge by admitting only that he served up "alleged misinformation":
Former New York Times journalist and author, Alex Berenson, said in a recent statement that he “expected this day was coming.” Twitter “suspended” his account for alleged misinformation.
Fox News reported that Twitter “permanently suspended” Berenson, for his alleged “repeated violations of [Twitter’s] COVID-19 misinformation rules.” Twitter has temporarily restricted Berenson’s account on multiple occasions for his outspoken criticism of how the COVID-19 pandemic has been handled. In “the tweet that did it,” as Berenson described it, he claimed that the controversial COVID-19 vaccines should not be thought of as vaccines but rather as “therapeutic[s].”
Berenson posted a purported picture of his final tweet in his online Substack newsletter, Unreported Truths. “[The COVID-19 vaccine] doesn’t stop infection or transmission,” read the tweet. He added, “[d]on’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it?”
Pariseau did not mention Berenson's long history of pushing COVID misinformation.]
The next day, Hall returned to promote Fox News' Tucker Carlson encouraging Berenson to sue Twitter over his suspension (for, yes, "alleged misinformation"), adding that "Berenson has good reason to criticize Big Tech for being too quick to censor when stories are still developing." Like Pariseau, Hall didn't mention that much of what Berenson wrote in this "developing" story has been wrong; instead, Hall dishonestly framed the issue by claiming that "Twitter has temporarily restricted Berenson’s account on multiple occasions for his outspoken criticism of how the COVID-19 pandemic has been handled." Hall also oddly failed to mention that Carlson offered to fund a possible Berenson lawsuit against Twitter.
Needless to say, Berenson's suspension is such an alleged coup for the MRC's victimhood narrative that it made the list of August's "WORST Censorship," Like his MRC co-workers, author Casey Ryan made sure to identify Berenson as a "former New York Times journalist" and declined to mention Berenson's long history of misinformation.
CNS Thinks A Michael Moore Fat Joke Is 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Moore hasn't been a major player in American politics for years, but that doesn't keep conservatives from invoking him as a bogeyman of all things liberal or maklng jokes at his expense -- or CNSNews.com from promoting them.
Thus, we have a Sept. 3 article by Melanie Arter with the headline "Huckabee: Outsourcing Americans’ Protection to the Taliban Is Like ‘Outsourcing Your Diet Plan to Michael Moore’." It's about an appearance by Mike Huckabee on Fox News, where he mainly fretted that "the Biden administration might be able to change the focus from the Americans left behind in Afghanistan if the media doesn’t 'keep pressing the story'" -- basically a demand that Fox News continue to obsess about Afghanistan. t wasn't until the fourth paragraph that Arter brought up the headline money quote:
“It might,” Huckabee said, “because the press lacks the curiosity and the natural cynicism that we need in the press in order to keep pressing the story. The fact is, they let Joe just turn his back and walk away, but outsourcing the future of Americans stranded and held hostage in Afghanistan as Bill aptly said, but to outsource their protection to the Taliban is like outsourcing your diet plan to Michael Moore.
Huckabee and Arter wasn't the only one at CNS who continues to be triggered by Moore after all these years. A Sept. 10 column by Bill Donohue complained that Moore "said that upon the evacuation of Americans from Afghanistan, it was time to defend our nation "against our own domestic Taliban." The left-wing activist previously identified them as Christians." He went on to grouse: "We at the Catholic League have also been called the Taliban, even though, to my knowledge, no one who has worked here has ever walked the streets with a machete or thrown a homosexual off a building."
Of course, given what we know about Donohue's hatred of the LGBTQ community, throwing homosexuals off buildings has likely crossed his mind if he thought he could get away with it.
WND's Brown Again Pretending He's Not Attacking Trangender People Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Michael Brown began his Sept. 6 WorldNetDaily column by declaring, "This article is not meant to attack young people struggling with deep-seated gender confusion," that was a warning sign -- attacking transgender people, and the rest of the LGBTQ community, is his job. So he has decided to pretend those "young people struggling with deep-seated gender confusion" are the resl victims -- "To the contrary, it is meant to expose the attack on these young people" -- and anyone who helps them affirm their gender identify is the real evil ones. He went on to rant:
I have been warning against the trajectory of LGBTQ activism since 2004, and over these years, I have talked with countless parents and spouses and siblings, many of them weeping as they shared their stories. But recently, after speaking to several thousand Christians in Franklin, Tennessee, the accumulation of stories I heard was overwhelming.
A father came to me in tears, asking what to do for his 17-year-old daughter. Just two years ago, she was a committed Christian, telling her pastor that she stood with him in the fight for biblical sexuality.
One year later, she was identifying as male and threatening suicide if her father refused to authorize her treatments. Not only so, but her older sister had cut off communication with him because he had not capitulated.
A grandmother asked for advice for her grandson, who lived with her and her husband. His best friend, another little boy in the same building, was now wearing a dress. Should they still play together?
A mother broke down crying as she asked how she should relate to her daughter, now in her 20s. A few years ago, she came out as lesbian, then got "married" to her partner, but now has announced she is male and is in the process of transitioning. The daughter also professes to be a devoted Christian who never misses a church service and who opposes LGBTQ activism.
How on earth did this happen? How have so many people, especially young people, suddenly become so convinced that they are not what their biology and chromosomes say they are? (Again, I do not write this to criticize but to understand, not to hurt but to help.)
And how is it that, according to President Biden and others, "transgender equality" is the civil rights issue of our time?
Rather than consider the possibility that transgender people deserve respect as they try to figure out who they are and that they perhaps they deserve some dignity, Brown plays the "demon" card:
It's as if a horde of demons has been unleashed and our society has fallen into deep deception and delusion. And the ultimate victims, targeted for indoctrination from their earliest years, are the children. (If you think I'm exaggerating, take a minute to watch this "queer, non-binary" pre-school teacher celebrating her accomplishments or this toddler reading through a gay ABC book.)
Whatever the cause of this societal madness, the question that remains is simple: What are we going to do about it?
Nope, definitely not an attack on transgender people. No sirree.
NEW ARTICLE: Fluffing The MyPillow Guy Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had no problem inserting businessman-turned-Trump obsessive and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell into its right-wing social media "victimization" narrative. But why did it stop? Read more >>
CNS Falsely Puts Words Into Mouths Of Biden, Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is deeply committed to putting words in the mouths of people it doesn't like. Editor in chief Terry Jeffrey wrote in a Sept. 1 article:
Biden: ‘Deeply Committed to the Constitutional Right’ to Kill an Unborn Baby With a Heartbeat
President Joe Biden put out a statement on Wednesday stating his opposition to a Texas law—SB8--that bans the abortion of an unborn baby who already has a detectable heartbeat.
The law went into effect today.
In his statement on Wednesday, President Biden said: “This extreme Texas law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade and upheld as precedent for nearly half a century.”
“My administration is deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago and will protect and defend that right,” Biden said in his statement.
President Biden Claims Killing an Unborn Baby Who Has a Beating Heart is a ‘Private and Personal’ Decision
President Joe Biden put out a statement today condemning the Supreme Court’s decision not to issue an injunction to immediately stop a Texas law (SB 8) that seeks to prevent the abortion of babies who have a detectable heartbeat--which generally occurs at six weeks into pregnancy.
The Texas law, which took effect Wednesday, allows individuals to sue abortionists and those who aid a woman in obtaining the abortion of an unborn baby with a beating heart.
President Biden's statement, published Thursday, characterized the abortion of a baby with a beating heart as a "private and personal" health decision.
“Complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in the most private and personal health decisions faced by women,” Biden said in his statement.
Note that in both articles, Jeffrey portrayed Biden has having specifically endorsed "killing an unborn baby who has a beating heart." But at no point did Jeffrey quote Biden saying those exact words are anything similar.By forcing right-wing anti-abortion activist framing around Biden's statements, Jeffrey is injecting bias into what is suppsoed to be "news" -- which is something that CNS' owner, the Media Research Center, purports to oppose.
Perhaps sensing that deliberately injecting bias into "news" stories was a bad look for the editor in chief of the "news" operation to be doing, a Sept. 3 article that did the exact same word-stuffing into Nancy Pelosi's mouth -- but did so anonymously, with the article credited only to "CNSNews.com Staff":
Pelosi: It’s ‘Cowardly’ for Supreme Court Not to Uphold the Right to Kill an Unborn Baby With a Heartbeat
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) on Thursday put out a statement Supreme Court “cowardly” for not issuing an injunction to stop enforcement of a Texas law, which went into effect on Wednesday, that prohibits aborting babies who have a detectable heartbeat.
“The Supreme Court’s cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering,” said Pelosi. “That this radically partisan Court chose to do so without a full briefing, oral arguments or providing a full, signed opinion is shameful.
Again, nowhere does the article quote Pelosi saying shse ensorses "killing an unborn baby with a heartbeat." Again, just because the article lacks a byline doesn't make it any less biased -- only that a CNS reporter refused to put his or her name on said bias.
MRC Promotes Conspiracy Theory Over 'The Office' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Gabriel Hays was acting quite conspiratorial in an Aug. 31 post:
Corporate media companies are yet again deeming what’s appropriate for American viewers to watch. This time Comedy Central has subtly removed an entire episode of NBC’s hit show The Office from its library for not being woke enough.
Ironically, the episode is about the annoying boss Michael Scot botching his way through a company diversity seminar.
According to a recent Newsweek article, the famous sitcom about wacky antics in a mid-level paper distribution company felt a bit of the cancel culture heat. During a Sunday marathon on the cable news channel Comedy Central, viewers noticed that one of the episodes was missing. Apparently, it wasn’t an accident, it was just the media telling us adults that it’s not appropriate for our viewing.
Hays went on to admit that Newsweek merely "surmises" -- with no actual proof -- that the episode's alleged failure to be "woke" is the reason the show didn't air. He's just guessing as well, though at least Newsweek did what Hays didn't and tried to contact Comedy Central for comment. Nevertheless, Hays went on to cite "people on Twitter" pushing the conspiracy theory.
Of course, it's just as likely -- if not more so -- than the reason the episode didn't air is completely benign. Snopes did the research Hays wouldn't and noted that Comedy Central skipped other episodes during that marathon that would have otherwise appeared if it stuck to a strict in-order schedule. Snopes also noted there is no known pressure campaign demanding that Comedy Central or anyone else stop airing the episode.
Hays did admit that "The episode is still available on NBC's streaming service, Peacock. For now. Peacock does not list episodes of 30 Rock that were pulled for having characters in black face." Hays didn't explain why that's a bad thing.
But hey, why research what you're writing about when you can wildly speculate in order to advance a political narrative? Hays concludes:
Who knows why Comedy Central felt compelled to do this? Maybe there is a good reason, but knowing the woke universe we inhabit, it’s most likely a stupid reason. The funny thing is that The Office wasn’t mocking corporate diversity training, it was mocking Michael Scott for being the bumbling racially insensitive one in the mix. The show has always been about contextualizing Scott’s social faux pas with the horror splashed over his co-workers’ faces.
Essentially, the episode is about making borderline racist people look pretty stupid. If anything, this is just proof that whoever is making decisions as to what airs on the network doesn’t get the joke. Then, why the hell are they in charge of running content on something called Comedy Central?
And why portray yourself as a "media researcher" when you can't be bothered to do any actual research?
UPDATE: Right-wing film critic Christian Toto forwarded the bogus conspiracy theory as well in a Sept. 4 post:
Newsweek contacted various Comedy Central officials for comment. Silence. The suits couldn’t muster up the courage to send out a canned statement, let alone a brief phoner to explain their stance. The same goes for Wilmore.
Why? They’re afraid. Afraid of defending their art, of angering the woke mob, of hinting they aren’t as progressive as they should be.
Carell has said in the past his character couldn’t survive today’s woke culture, but that’s as far as he went in condemning the cultural shift.
So “Diversity Day” is gone, at least from Comedy Central. It’s currently available for purchase on YouTube, but for how long? What other “Office” episodes are next? Or will the mob sic another classic TV series for an encore?
Cancel Culture grows in strength and ferocity with every so-called victory.
Like Hays, Toto offered no actual evidence of a conspiracy against the episode by Comedy Central or any member of the "cancel culture" police. The narrative is simply just too good for Hays or Toto to fact-check.
Joseph Farah's Biden Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joe Biden is not the moderate he pretended to be during the 2020 election.
He's not perceived as "honest and trustworthy."
A new poll shows the American people are not confident in his "ability to deal wisely with an international crisis."
Only 38% think he says what he believes and 44% think he's saying what people want to hear.
He's not honest and empathic.
Only 21% think he can bring the country together.
What does this tell you?
It tells you that at best Americans believe they were sold a bill of goods. At worst, Donald Trump was right: They were the victims of the Big Steal, voter fraud – the worst in the nation's history.
This is sensational news for you know who.
It's almost too good to be true, in fact, assuming Republicans will get their act together and stop cooperating in any fashion with this fascist pretender. Republicans also must support in every conceivable way VOTER INTEGRITY as a top priority before the midterms.
Because we have too many Republicans still currying up to Joe Biden! And not enough believing that Trump was highway robbed of the election!
Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Biden received 81,268,024 votes, the most by far of anyone ever elected president? He received more than Barack Obama, who was the best thing that ever happened to Joe.
Do you think that is possible? Biden didn't even campaign in 2020. He rarely left Delaware. Trump was getting adoration at every turn. Anyone who believes these results needs to have his head examined.
And that includes most of the personalities at Fox News.
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."
– Isaiah 6:8
Joe Biden is not the first to choose the words of Isaiah in times of trouble.
But that's what he chose to do after keeping people waiting for consoling words after the latest tragedy in Afghanistan Thursday.
I don't know who advised him. Maybe he thought it was the right time for a Bible verse.
This time, they were words that, shall we say, ring hollow.
Isaiah was not on a recruiting mission for soldiers. He was not on a mission for politicians. He was rather telling the Lord he was volunteering to be the one to give the word of the Lord to His people. After all, that was what Isaiah did – he prophesied. He was looking for marching orders.
Joe Biden doesn't prophesy. He doesn't even follow intelligence reports. And he sure isn't a Bible scholar.
Biden is a fool. We all know that. We can see it for ourselves. We're not dumb, blind and stupid. But he's not alone. He's got accomplices – many of them. And now Peggy Grande has affirmed it.
Now we can all see with our own eyes the real Joe Biden – a feckless, old-beyond-his-years, cognitively challenged codger, a French fry short of a happy meal. We may not know who the "real" president is or if there is one – but we know who's calling the shots for him. We know who's telling him what to say, what to do and when to do it. DEMOCRATS.
Joe Biden is senile. That should be obvious to any rational person. He commits an embarrassing faux pas at least every day. His cognitive ability is a joke. He's ravaged by even MSNBC and CNN, which have been his biggest champions. His Afghanistan screw-up is the latest in eight months of malfeasance and scandals that bring on righteous calls for 25th Amendment challenges, impeachment charges and pleas for resignation. He's been roasted by his former champions abroad among U.S. allies.
But the Democrats never talk about any of this. They neither see nor admit none of it.
And the person who would take over in each removal scenario is the cackling shrew Kamala Harris. It's enough to make you queasy.
Our country has never been in more trouble, not even when Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo were at their peak of vanquishing freedom around the world. To have Franklin Roosevelt at the helm would be more acceptable than a fool who cannot construct a coherent sentence, or, for that matter, read a teleprompter.
I used to call Joe Biden an embarrassment. It was cute when he would do certain things … like plagiarize. If that's all he did, he could be forgiven, sort of. But Joe was a SERIAL plagiarist.
That's because he was never that bright.
Today, Joe Biden is still a fool. He's a disgrace. He's proved that by leaving Americans behind the lines in Afghanistan. I didn't think it was possible that he could do that surrounded by advisers – even Democrats.
But Joe is acting like he has a diseased mind, right now. It's no longer satisfactory calling him confused or cognitively challenged. He has a disordered brain. His mind is sick. It's dark!
And they don't let him talk to anyone without a teleprompter.
Why? He gets confused, confounded, disoriented, bewildered, perplexed, confounded, addled, flustered, dumbfounded, befuddled and even baffled.
Advertisement - story continues below
That's why he knows he'll "get in trouble," as he has admitted, if he doesn't stick to the script.
But he can't. So he keeps getting warned he'll "get in trouble."
Yet, I'm getting at something worse than that. He's gotten very mean in his old age. What do I mean by mean? Unkind with a dose of contemptible pettiness. He's been dishonorable for a long time, putting his own interests ahead of his obligations – like the fate of his constituents, real Americans.
But he can hardly be called an American. He's a coward, he's greedy, he's sordid, he's vile.
I once felt sorry for Joe Biden – I really did. But he has ruined America, brought it to its lowest point ever. That's something that is beyond contempt. I didn't think anyone could be worse than Obama. I now miss that time.
Is Joe humiliating? Yes, he's humiliating America.