MRC's Graham Cheers Polls That Echo MRC's Anti-Media Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just loves it when its anti-media attitudes are reflected in polls. So Tim Graham made sure to pretend to be shocked in a July 9 post:
This is shocking. The latest phone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports found voters overwhelmingly believe “fake news” is a problem, and a majority -- 58 percent! -- agree with former President Donald Trump that the media have become “the enemy of the people.”
To be precise, Rasmussen found that 58% of likely U.S. voters at least somewhat agree with the statement that the media are “truly the enemy of the people,” including 34% who "strongly agree." Thirty-six percent don’t agree, including 23% who "strongly disagree." Fully 76 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of independents agreed.
Graham then laughably added: "With numbers this bad, the media will try to insist the poll must be wrong."
First: This is the guy who, along with his fellow MRC employees, was insisting that pre-election polls were not only wrong but "intentionally" manufactured because they showed Donald Trump losing re-election (which he did). Second: There's plenty of reason to distrust thtese findings, starting with the fact that Rasmussen Reports has a notorious right-wing bias and is seemingly interested in helping to advance Republican narratives than serving up accurate polling.
Graham then joined Fox News' Greg Gutfeld in chortling over another poll showing low media favorability, which Gutfeld defined as "ony slightly more popular than chlamydia":
At the top of Thursday's top rated Gutfeld! on Fox News, host Greg Gutfeld had a little fun with the latest Gallup poll on confidence in the press. The numbers weren't good.
Gutfeld ran clips of Joy Behar mocking Republicans as stuck in the 1850s and ex-GOP strategist Stuart Stevens on MSNBC imagining a Republican-caused 9/11, and asked "So, what's it going to be you bozos? Are we terrorists, are we slave owners? Are we on the road to another civil war, or another 9/11? I'd say make up your mind, but you need minds to make up. And Joy and that freak can barely scrape four brain cells together."
Over his 30 years in media, Gutfeld said, he's learned something about reporters. "Their entire purpose is to slam their subject because in their world that's success. You don't win awards for doing a piece on Trump supporters that says wow, these people are decent Americans or even most Trump supporters are decent Americans. You find one that isn't and then you smear the rest. Anger and fear sells."
Apparently, Fox News is not part of "the media," since it arguably does all of those things to an even greater extent than the non-right-wing media. Indeed, "anger and fear sells" may as well replace "fair and balanced" as Fox News' slogan. But Gutfeld -- and Graham -- will never admit that.
In a Sept. 1 post, Graham was in full rant mode on a poll that didn't toe the MRC narrative on media hatred:
Sara Fischer at Axios reports a new study by the Pew Research Center found "Conservative trust in media has cratered." That's not quite right: Conservative trust in liberal media has cratered. In a poll conducted in mid-June, Pew found Democrats continue to have great trust in the media, declining slightly from 83 percent to 78 percent. Why not? They echo the Democrats.
Graham isn't going to mention that one big reason that conservatives have so little trusdt in "liberal media" is because he and his MRC co-workers getspaid very well to inculcate that mistrust -- not necessarily because it's true, but because it's a narrative that sells, generating millions of dollars a year of the MRC to perpetuate the cycle.
Graham complained further:
CNN's Brian Stelter hit the panic button at the top of his "Reliable Sources" newsletter and associated the conservative media with "flooding the zone with s--t." (Bolding is Stelter's.)
Let's be honest and recognize that this trust-in-national-news gap isn't happening in a vacuum. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen said his takeaway was that "Republicans trust everything less, including social, often seen as a freewheeling alternative to The Media, icon of right wing resentment theatre. Flooding the zone with s*** works. It lowers trust in the entire system, so the worst among us can profit."
The "flooding the zone" strategy includes a never-ending Fox News narrative about Big Media and Big Tech censoring and hurting and destroying everyone in its way.
It's completely tiresome that liberals and leftists equate trust in their partisan media with the success of democracy. Stelter also quoted David Roberts at Vox: "The decades-long, extremely well-funded conservative effort to completely cut its suburban/rural base off from mainstream sources of information has basically succeeded. Not clear that democracy can survive it."
Identifying yourself as the "mainstream" is the first mistake of arrogant liberal journalists. Identifying conservative efforts to expose liberal media -- like NewsBusters -- as killers of democracy is especially loathsome. We'll put on our Tom Cruise costume and yell "You can't handle the truth!"
Note that Graham never actually engages with Stelter's argument but, rather, merely complains that he said it -- after all, he's a prominent cog in that "decades-long, extremely well-funded conservative effort" to discredit the media. And Graham doesn't think it's at all tiresome for spend the vast majority of his career ranting about the suposed destructive effects of the "liberal media" when not only is he pretending right-wing media doesn't have a similar effect, he absolutely refuses to admit there's any right-wing media bias at all.
WND Had Mixed Emotions About Jan. 6 'Justice' Rally Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetdaily was of three minds about the Sept. 18 "Justice for J6" rally, in which motley right-wingers expressed their support for the insurrectionnists at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. First up was Brent Smith, who stated in a Sept. 17 column that the rally was a stupid idea:
But it seems we on the right also have our gaggle of morons – like those who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6. Notice I said entered – but for all intents and purposes, they were let in.
Little did they know, but certainly should have, that Jan. 6 was a setup – a setup by the left. Of course, it wasn't organized by leftists, but they quickly made it into a crisis that didn't go to waste, beginning with the twisting of President Trump's words and intent, from, "We will march down to the Capital to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," to him "inciting" violence with his caustic rhetoric.
The Quick Reaction Force (QRF) of the left, the leftist media, turned that almost entirely peacefully protest march into something rivaling 9/11 or the Civil War. It was and still is despicable. But it's what we've come to expect from the media.
Yet after all that's happened in the aftermath – after all the reflection of what a stupid idea it was to enter the Capitol, some have decided, "Hey – January 6th was such a monumental failure, let's try it again. Let's give the radicals on the left another go to paint all conservatives as domestic terrorists." Brilliant!
I agree that the some 600 people charged in connection to Jan. 6 deserve real justice, but I can guarantee they won't be helped by people showing up at the Capitol again.
The left, with an assist from Trump-hating spineless Republicans, made up their minds long ago about the guilt of every last one that was there on Jan. 6. And nothing will change their minds.
So what a great idea, to have another "right-wing rally." CNN already reported of a "new wave of concern about more potential violence on Capitol Hill …"
There have been no calls by leftists to shut this thing down. Gee – I wonder why? It sure as hell isn't because of their love and respect for freedom of speech. They are hoping that something will happen that gives them the opportunity to paint all on the right as domestic terrorists, or at the very least, enemies of democracy.
Anyone with a brain has to know that this event is a monumentally bad idea. If you are considering attending, don't. If you know anyone who may, try to talk some sense into them.
Maybe if we're lucky, they'll be a freak hurricane or tornado that blows through.
The same day, Tom Zawistowski complained that the rally was being demonized by "the left":
So, let me get this straight. A group of around 700 American citizens, by "intelligence estimates," with documented legal concerns about disparate treatment of the political prisoners arrested after the Jan. 6 violence, are going to be protesting at the U.S. Capitol and in several state capitals this Saturday, Sept. 18. They have a permit for the event from the U.S. Park Service. They have coordinated the details of the event with the Capitol Police, the D.C. Police and the Park Service. They have their own security.
They have publicly rejected any participation in the event by anyone who wants to commit violence. They are doing what is lawfully their right to do under the First Amendment and doing it in a lawful way, as all Americans would want them to do and wish had been done on Jan. 6. Yet, Reps. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who chair panels that oversee the Capitol Police, said, "Given the violent tendencies of the right-wing extremists who plan to attend, it is obvious this rally poses a threat to the Capitol," while adding that Capitol Police have "a clear plan … to maintain order."
Does he mean those "violent tendencies" like the Antifa and BLM violent "peaceful protests," which included looting and burning 140 cities and inflicting $2 billion in damages while injuring 2,037 police officers?
They say it's "obvious"? Based on what, Rep. Ryan? Leaked media claims from "unknown sources" about "internet chatter"? Really?
Then why are all the unfairly demonized groups, like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and even most hard right podcasters and social media sites, telling everyone "don't go, it's a false flag event setup by the FBI to trap Trump supporters"? Which it is not.
While everyone on the left is creating hysteria to try to stop this event and attack those with a dissenting opinion, those on the right should be embarrassed for not supporting this important rally. They are proving that one thing is clear: The left, the media and the Biden regime have succeeded in creating delusional thinking on both sides of America's great divide.
In closing, let me state clearly, this unwarranted hysteria is all a campaign of intentional distraction intended to stop Americans from exercising their rights and stop the world from hearing the truth about what actually happened on Jan. 6 and the gross mistreatment of the Jan. 6 political prisoners. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows half of Americans believe that the U.S. government is holding political prisoners.
On the other hand, Joseph Farah penned a Sept. 22 column after the rally praising it for being a "dress rehearsal" for the anti-Biden movement he wants to start:
And so it begins. …
On Friday, I shared my thoughts about how to build a visible movement against Joe Biden's terror program – and I watched a picture perfect demonstration of it already on Saturday!
A group of several hundred peaceful protesters gathered near the Capitol – and were met by a heavy police presence meant to "protect" the building from another "insurrection," just as I predicted.
This was a demonstration seeking "Justice for J6" (a reference to the Jan. 6 Capitol fracas) that made its point effectively amid beefed up security, police in full riot gear and National Guard fencing.
This was a start of what I proposed for the occupation of Washington EVERY DAY commencing later this year and continuing through the midterm election next year.
Think of it! An OCCUPY D.C. movement by the deplorables! It's rich. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? This should be the polar opposite.
They had just the right tone on Saturday. The event began with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. What a contrast to the mayhem of the left!
So there you have it. A job well done. Keep it up!
Remember, I was suggesting that OCCUPY D.C. begins with some planning around Nov. 8, 2021, and ends hopefully in an electoral triumph Nov. 7, 2022. But I'm delighted to witness a dress rehearsal for the idea.
Contrary to Farah's claim, there weren't "several hundred" protesters there; the attendance was a couple hundred at most.
MRC: It's 'Politicizing Death' To Note There Are Missing Non-White Women Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has managed to politicize the death of Gabby Petito ... by accusing others of politicizing it. Kristine Marsh complained in a Sept. 22 post:
After the body of a missing 22-year-old woman Gabby Petito was found earlier this week and ruled as a homicide Tuesday, ABC was already politicizing the young woman’s death. On Good Morning America, co-anchor T.J. Holmes criticized the media for not giving enough attention to missing people of color and urging them to follow the left-wing Black Lives Matter movement.
Holmes seems to have been inspired by MSNBC’s Joy Reid, who voiced the same criticism on her show Tuesday night.
Marsh then played whataboutism:
From there, [Holmes] highlighted three missing person cases of Jelani Day, Daniel Robinson and Maya Millete, all not white women, to show how they weren’t household names. The elephant in the room is why ABC didn’t cover their stories when they went missing to begin with. Not to mention the dozens of minorities who are killed by gang violence every few weeks in places like Chicago, doesn’t get the notice of the networks. So the media themselves are the ones responsible for catering a narrative that diminishes the importance of black lives.
On Wednesday, just days following the tragic discovery of missing woman Gabby Petito’s body and the autopsy ruling her death a homicide, CNN’s New Day aired a segment in shocking bad taste accusing society of suffering from “missing white woman syndrome.” The guest on the show, journalist Mara Schiavocampo, began by claiming, “This isn’t saying Gabby Petito is not important,” and then went on to complain about the way the media has relentlessly covered her story.
“When everybody knows their face, when everyone knows the world is looking for them, it makes a real difference,” she said. This, of course, is a good thing, and assisted in the search for Petito. However, Schiavocampo interpreted the national media attention as a flaw in the nation’s "value system":
Yes, that’s right. Covering the Petito tragedy is just another symptom of systemic racism, and this type of media coverage is directly endangering women of color, according to Schiavocampo: “This makes them less safe. Perpetrators, predators know that if you want to get away with murder, you seek the victim that no one is going to look for. So this has very real implications for women who are walking around today.”
Curiously, Schiavocampo did not have a problem with the statistical underrepresentation of men in missing persons cases: in 2020, 35,000 more men than women over 21 went missing. It doesn’t quite fit with her narrative that the problem is racism.
As the nation grieves alongside the Petito family and anxiously awaits new developments in the story, it is stunning to see such bitterness from pundits who can only think about fairness in the wake of a young woman’s murder.
Neither Marsh nor Switzer bothers to hold up righty-wing media as a shining example of how missing-persons cases are covered -- because they presumably know that their record is at least as bad. Plus, "missing white girl syndrome" is very much a thing, and there's no reason to believe that systemic racism doesn't play a part in that. Also, systemic racism is very much a thing too, but the MRC's partisan agenda means it will never admit it exists.
WND's Zumwalt Declares That Biden Is Not His President Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously noted that WorldNetDaily made a big deal of complaining that some liberals declared that Donald Trump was not their president -- despite the fact that editor Joseph Farah had made a big deal of declaring that Barack Obama was not his president. Now the not-my-president is swinging back, if James Zumwalt's Aug. 27 WND column is any indication:
While we live in a time when many Americans will not admit it, I will: I love my country. Through good times and bad, good presidencies and bad, that love has never diminished. One generation of family member after another – from Jacob Zumwalt who served during the American Revolution to my son's 21st century service in Iraq as a bomb technician – attests to this love by voluntarily serving in uniform.
As a veteran who served for over a quarter of a century, I never thought I would say this about a commander in chief, but the terrorist bombing at the Kabul airport that claimed 40 lives, including at least 13 of our brave warriors, leaves me no choice. It is love of country and all those serving to protect her who have needlessly, callously and intentionally been put in harm's way with no rational basis for doing so that forces me now to declare: "Mr. Biden, you are not my president."
I do this with deep concerns. Every president before Biden making a bad decision did it with the same love of country many of us harbor. But Biden's outrageous actions, both in opening up our borders and rushing to withdraw from Afghanistan, is senselessly claiming American lives.
Biden need take no further action to demonstrate the fact protecting American citizens and our military from danger is not his priority. Because he rejects this responsibility, evidenced by a disgraceful withdrawal that leaves an enemy behind that is stronger than ever before while subjecting our warriors to greater risk both now and in the future, Biden commits a dereliction of duty for which I no longer consider him my president.
Zumwalt sounds like a fair-weather patriot, supporting the country only when his fellow right-wing ideologues run it. But given how many bogus election fraud conspiracies he has spouted over the past several months, it seems very likely that Zumwalt actually decided well before this that Biden was not his president.
CNS' Resident Refugee Obsessive Continues His Work Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com writer Patrick Goodenough has longbeenobsessed with the issue of refugees coming to the U.S. -- specifically, that there are too many of them in general, too many non-Christians and not enough Christians. That obsession has continued through this year as well.
In April, Goodenough complained that "the Biden administration is reversing its decision announced on Friday to keep the number of refugees to be resettled in fiscal year 2021 at the record-low 15,000 cap set by President Trump last fall," which came after "after refugee resettlement groups expressed “shock” and outrage” over the administration’s “broken promise” to significantly raise the 15,000 ceiling set by President Trump for the fiscal year. Goodenough once again defended Trump (as he is wont to do), this time over Secretary of State Antony Blinken's claim that refugees from Africa and the Middle East had effectively been blocked under Trump:
But those claims distort the facts.
It is true that Trump’s PD of October 27 last year did not set out specific allocations for refugees from each of the five regions traditionally used in the U.S. refugee program: Africa, East Asia, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Near East and South Asia.
But the criteria that it did use would have covered refugees from all parts of the world, including Africa and the Middle East. They included: those fleeing religious persecution; those falling into a category listed in the 1990 Lautenberg Amendment and its 2004 extension, the Specter Amendment; and those falling into a category in the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007.
The fact remains, however -- whether Goodenough wants to admit it or not -- that Trump sought throughout his administration to drastically cut the number of refugees allowed into the U.S., particularly from Africa and the Middle East.
And even with that denial, Goodenough went on to complain in a May 4 article that "President Biden’s new determination on refugee admissions, announced on Monday, indicates that when it comes to resettling refugees in the U.S., his administration is prioritizing those from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia over other parts of the world."
As the Biden administration's refugee policy firmed up even more as the year continued, Goodenough found new reasons to complain in a Sept. 21 article:
The Biden administration informed Congress on Monday that the United States will admit up to 125,000 refugees in fiscal year 2022, doubling the ceiling of 62,500 that it had hoped to resettle in FY 2021.
An admission ceiling of 125,000 refugees would be the highest set by any administration in almost three decades.
The move comes after Trump administration reduced the annual refugee admission cap for five consecutive years, each time setting a new record low ceiling: 50,000 refugees in FY 2017, 45,000 in FY 2018, 30,000 in FY 2019, 18,000 in FY 2020, and 15,000 in FY 2021.
But Goodenough found something to cheer in an Oct. 6 article -- that Biden couldn't reverse Trump's unusually low refugee quotas in time to get more refugees in before the fiscal year ended:
Despite a last-minute escalation during the final month of the fiscal year, the Biden administration in FY 2021 oversaw the smallest resettlement of refugees since the modern-day refugee admissions program was established in 1980.
A total of 11,411 refugees were admitted to the United States during the year that ended on September 30 – 403 fewer than the previous record low, recorded during the last full fiscal year of the Trump administration.
The month of September alone saw one-third of the annual number of resettled refugees arrive – 3,774 refugees out of the total 11,411. The largest contingents came from the Democratic Republic of Congo (1,442 refugees), Syria (705), and Sudan (360).
Goodenough went on to join his CNS co-workers in grumbling about refugees coming from Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal, making a big deal abou h ow "Many of those are “parolees” – Afghans who did not work for the U.S. and so are not eligible for SIVs, but who have been granted temporary admission on humanitarian grounds."
MRC Shoehorns Nicki Minaj Into Its Right-Wing Victimhood Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
In 2017, the Media Research Center was attacking hip-hop artist Nicki Minaj because she once "putted a golf ball into a rear-end shaped golf hole as 'a tribute to Scotland’s love of golf,'" going on to huff: "This is also the pop star that criticized Melania Trump, asking a concert audience, 'You niggas want brainless bitches to stroke your motherfucking ego?' She’s also anti-Catholic, performing on stage as someone who is possessed by demons, snarling at a priest, and ‘levitating’ while a choir sings a sexualized version of “O Come, All Ye Faithful.” Nothing says culture like mocking religion."
But times change, and the MRC is now willing to forgive all that because Minaj is suddenly useful to its right-wing agenda.
A Sept. 15 post by Curtis Houck admitted that Minaj's claims about COVID vaccines were "unfounded," but he was all to willing to take her side because she was involved in a Twitter feud with MSNBC's Joy Reid, whom Houck hates with an irrational passion. Houck referenced Minaj's "bizarre" claims in a post later that day but, again, was much more obsessed with trashing Reid.
Rapper Nicki Minaj claimed to have been penalized by Twitter after she posted tweets expressing skepticism over COVID-19 vaccinations and apparent agreement with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
The massive shakeup of modern politics continues as a rapper condemned political tribalism and censorship. Minaj made headlines when she expressed concern about the risks of taking a COVID-19 vaccination shot on Monday, cautioning her followers “pray on it” and to “make sure you’re comfortable with ur decision, not bullied.” On Wednesday, she posted an Instagram story claiming, “I’m in Twitter jail y’all. They didn’t like what I was saying.” Twitter has reportedly denied that the platform took action against her account.
Minaj faced backlash from Twitter users for expressing skepticism over COVID-19 vaccination and for sharing a clip from Carlson. Minaj shared a tweet with a bullseye, presumably as an endorsement, of Carlson praising her post for encouraging Americans to think for themselves. Carlson observed in the video how “our media and public health officials didn’t like this because they make their living bullying people.”
Note that Hall claimed only that Minaj was merely "expressing skepticism over COVID-19 vaccinations" when, actually, she made a specific claim about a cousin's friend suffereing swollen testicles after receiving the vaccine -- something which, again, has been discredited.
But the fact that Minaj was making a demonstrably false claim doesn't matter to Hall. He has found yet another person to fit the MRC's narrative, and that's all that matters.
An employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has presented video recordings to Project Veritas of colleagues privately voicing alarm about the safety of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, alleging a cover-up of "evil at the highest level."
Jodi O'Malley, a registered nurse at the HHS-run Phoenix Indian Medical Center in Arizona, told Project Veritas CEO James O'Keefe in a video featuring the recordings that she's seen dozens of people with adverse reactions to the vaccines come to the facility, but the cases are not being reported.
"You have the FDA, you have the CDC, that are both supposed to be protecting us, but they are under the government, and everything that we've done so far is unscientific," she said.
O'Malley recorded another nurse on hidden camera saying most incidents aren't being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, known as VAERS, because physicians complain it takes too much time.
She also recorded emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales wondering aloud why HHS won't take into account the natural immunity that comes from infection.
"The problem in here is that they are not doing the studies," Gonzales said to O'Malley. "People that had [COVID-19] and the people that have been vaccinated – they're not doing any antibody testing. Everybody is quiet with that. Why?"
O'Malley's whistleblowing also addressed the blocking of off-label COVID treatments that many physicians around the world have found to be effective, particularly hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
A pharmacist confirmed to O'Malley that that she's barred from prescribing ivermectin, even though it's use for COVID-19 is supported by more than 100 studies and the testimonies of governments such as the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.
Because Moore doesn't bother to fact-check anything that aligns with his anti-vaxxer views, it was up to an actual news organization to look into O'Malley's claims:
Claims that no reports are being made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System are misleading. The system, which currently contains more than 720,000 reports, was set up for early warning purposes and may contain “incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable” information. Through the system, health regulators such as the CDC and the FDA analyze data to identify serious vaccine-related adverse effects, such as the rare occurrence of myocarditis.
The video also includes claims promoting ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug touted by anti-vaccine communities as an effective treatment against Covid-19. Neither the FDA nor the WHO recommends the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19.
That organization also hinted at O'Malley's possible motivation -- a cash grab to justify pushing her fringe beliefs:
A crowdfunding page for O’Malley appeared on GiveSendGo, a Christian fundraising site, and has since raised over $417,000. “Now that she has boldly stepped into the limelight and exposed corruption in our Federal Healthcare system she is facing an uncertain future,” reads the call to donate.
Moore's claim that a study in Uttar Pradesh proved the effectiveness of ivermectin as a COVID treatment isn't true either. As an actual medical fact-checker pointed out:
Likewise, the Ivermectin recommendation didn’t necessarily cause the current drop in COVID-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh, which can be due to other factors. In an article for The Conversation, epidemiologist Rajib Dasgupta explained that the sharp decline in COVID-19 cases in June 2021 might be due to the high proportion of previously infected individuals, combined with COVID-19 vaccination and increased testing.
Indeed, the fourth nationwide seroprevalence study conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in June and July 2021 showed that 67.6% of the population over the age of six had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 as a result of either vaccination or previous infection. This figure is much higher than in the previous three national serosurveys (0.7% in May-June 2020, 7.1% in August-September 2020, and 24.1% in December 2020-January 2021).
The claim that Uttar Pradesh is now COVID-19 free due to the use of Ivermectin is inaccurate and unsupported by scientific evidence. Uttar Pradesh isn’t entirely free of COVID-19, and comparisons with other states are challenging due to differences in testing capacity. Furthermore, many factors other than Ivermectin use could have influenced the course of the second COVID-19 wave in Uttar Pradesh, including restrictions and immunity from previous infection and vaccination.
In addition, the quality of evidence supporting Ivermectin use in COVID-19 patients is very low. For this reason, public health authorities don’t recommend the use of Ivermectin for preventing or treating COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Given all these uncertainties, we can’t determine whether Ivermectin played any role at all in the decline of COVID-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh.
But that doesn't fit WND's preferred narrative, so it's Moore's job to censor it.
There's A Gay NFL Player, And The MRC Is Not Happy Topic: Media Research Center
When professional football player Carl Nassib came out as gay, the notoriously anti-gay Media Research Center was on hand to complain about it. After his announcement in June, Alexa Moutevelis whined and played whataboutism:
Get ready for the NFL and woke sports media to become even more unbearable. If you thought they were bad before, just wait until you see how they’re reacting to the first active NFL player in history to come out as gay.
Remember, this is the same media that glorified Michael Sam for being the first openly gay player to be drafted (he never played an NFL game) and Colin Kaepernick for being openly anti-police and anti-America, while hating on Tim Tebow for being openly Christian.
As for the NFL itself, the official twitter account (complete with rainbow NFL logo) tweeted Nassib’s video with the message, “The NFL family is proud of you, Carl.”
The NFL has apparently learned nothing from the hemorrhaging of viewers in the wake of their embrace of Black Lives Matter social justice activism and has decided to double down with LGBTQ promotion. It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em.
Moutevelis' alleged proof that the NFL is "hemorrhaging" viewers beause of "social justice activism" is a post from last December by the MRC's mysterious (and hateful) sports blogger, Jay Maxson, making that correlation-equals-causation claim without evidence to support it.
Speaking of Maxson, he (or she -- we don't actually know for sure) is pretty homophobic, so he (or she) felt compelled to weigh in on Nassib's story. A couple days after Moutevelis' post, Maxson seemed to take glee in the fact that Nassib is a Republican:
Carl Nassib went from hero to zero in record time. Hailed earlier this week by the Left for being the courageous first active homosexual player in the NFL, Nassib is now getting canceled by the Twitter mob because he is a registered Republican who voted for Donald Trump. Oh, the agony of it!
Twitter is afire with the unthinkable news. Snopes already declared the rumors true: Nassib is indeed a registered Republican.
Yes, the MRC suddenly likes Snopes again because it confirmed a fact that conforms to right-wing narratives. On the other hand, despite claim that "Twitter is afire" with the story, Maxson cited no major non-conservative on Twitter bemoaning this fact.
Maxson kept up his (or her) homophobic whining, melting down over the NFL making a play for LGBT fans in part to capitalize on Nassib:
At long last, football has shed its macho identity of steel curtains and doomsday defenses, not to mention toxic masculinity. Football came prancing out of the closet Monday with a new identity: “gay,” “lesbian,” transgender” and “queer.” As well as "beautiful."
The NFL’s marketing department has demonstrated the fine art of virtue signaling on performance-enhancing drugs with this startling Youtube video.:
"Football is lesbian. Football is beautiful. Football is queer. Football is life. Football is exciting. Football is culture. Football is transgender. Football is queer. Football is heart. Football is power. Football is tough. Football is bisexual. Football is strong. Football is freedom. Football is American. Football is accepting. Football is everything. Football is for everyone."
The video follows’ last week’s revelation that Las Vegas’s Carl Nassib is the first active NFL player to emerge from the closet. It also gives the NFL a big virtue-signaling send-off to the LGBT’s annual June pride month.
This ain’t your father’s NFL anymore, not by a long shot. It’s not the league of Dick Butkus, Mike Ditka or Pittsburgh’s famed Steel Curtain. The NFL had already turned off many fans, on both sides of the political aisle. The latest bull-rush of pride mania may just be the last straw for another wave of fans who’ve had enough of the social justice, virtue signaling and political grandstanding.
Maxson didn't explain why it was a bad thing for the NFL to try to expand its audience beyond homophobes like him (or her).Nevertheless, Maxson whined further about sports taking part in LGBT Pride Month in June, grumbling that "Carl Nassib, an NFL player for the Las Vegas Raiders, sprinted out of the closet to worldwide fanfare."
When Nassib made the cut to play for the Raiders this season, Maxson huffed in a Sept. 1 post:
The most strident LGBT voices in sports are crowing about Carl Nassib becoming the first openly, active out football player in NFL history. At the same time, SB Nation Outsports is griping and moaning that – yet again – there will be no out men’s tennis players competing in the U.S. Open.
Carl Nassib thrilled the Left when he came out of the closet in June. “(I)t was the biggest story in sports for a few days,” Jim Buzinski crowed on the Outsports blog Tuesday. Yes, to a gay sportswriter it was. The rest of the world, not so much.
In announcing their 53-man roster for 2021, the Las Vegas Raiders on Tuesday assured the LGBT world that Nassib made the final cut. He’s going to be the first openly homosexual player in NFL history when the Raiders host Baltimore Sept. 13. Yabba dabba do.
It’s a good bet that Nassib will be the toast of the NFL to the Left, so starved for the homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders and non-binary types who make their crazy world go round.
The MRC's latest addition to LGBT-averse sports bloggers, John Simmons, served up his own take on the situation in a Sept. 14 post after Nassib became the first openly gay NFL player to have played in a game:
Week 1 of the 2021-2022 NFL season concluded with a thrilling duel between the hosting Las Vegas Raiders escaping with a win in overtime over the Baltimore Ravens 33-27.But apparently, the really important storyline was that the first openly gay NFL player participated in a game.
When Nassib first made his “coming out”announcement via Instagram, NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell and countless other people on social media hailed him as a hero. Unfortunately, that narrative will probably only gain more traction as the season progresses.
And that is not a good thing. The media and the NFL have routinely supported the left-leaning causes taking root within the sport, which will likely grow in the following weeks thanks to the recent developments regarding Nassib.
As is the case with most causes the NFL supports, they will jam that propaganda down your throat until it becomes at least normalized that this is the way football will operate, if not outright accepted.
It is abundantly clear that the NFL does not support faith-based, American-loving, conservative values, but favors social justice and gay pride.
The days of watching football for the sake of the pure enjoyment of the sport are over. It has become an indoctrination camp for millions of viewers in the hopes of making them liberal sympathizers.
Yes, Simmons really does believe that the mere existence of Nassib on a football field is an affront to right-wing snowflakes who think football is made for them and only them.
Scott Lively Anti-LGBT Meltdown Watch, 'ReQruitment' Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
If you thought "Gay Pride Month" (formerly known as June) was bad, brace yourself for another annual "Gay History Month" in public schools throughout October, including "Coming Out Day" on the 11th. June was for planting the seeds of sexual anarchy in the hearts and minds of the children and teens. October is the harvest, when countless American parents discover that the "Q for Questioning" in LGBTQ actually stands for ReQruitment of their children (which is why conservatives should never add Q to the acronym).
The cutting edge of the LGBT agenda is now transsexualism, but the catch-all idea of "gayness" remains the "gateway drug" to childhood self-identification with perversion. All of the "out and proud" LGBT-based identities begin in the mind, often spawned by LGBT propaganda-driven enticement to sexual experimentation and rebellion (highly alluring to all-too-many hormone-inflamed pubescents).
Gay History Month (in the controlled social-engineering environment of today's public schools) is designed both to sell the false narrative of LGBT political activism as "a noble and historic movement for social justice," and to define a young person's personal pursuit of "sexual liberation" through "gayness" as an act of moral courage. This explains the delusional zealotry of "woke" youth since the "gay" 1990s (which for many lasts well into adulthood as a life cause).
CNS Columnist Is A Catholic Priest, But He Sounds Like A Right-Wing Activist Topic: CNSNews.com
We've noted one instance in which CNSNews.com columnist Rev. Michael P. Orsi comes off as a right-wing polemicist instead of the Catholic priest he is supposed to be. There are more, such as a July 15 column headlined "Jesus Was Canceled too":
Our society is coming to resemble the world through which Jesus walked in many uncomfortable ways. We have an intellectual elite, including educators, media, and literary types, whose “correct thinking” and “settled science” are every bit as rigid as how the Scribes and Pharisees interpreted the Torah.
We have our masters of industry and technology who are as singularly focused on protecting their business interests as the Priests and Levites guarded the prerogatives of the Temple.
We have politicians and their operatives who are as obsessed with enlarging their sphere of control and protecting their power as were the Roman occupiers of biblical Palestine.
We even have our equivalents to the Zealots in today’s various radical groups. Their devotion to transforming society is every bit as fanatical as that of those biblical revolutionaries.
Of course, he sees "cancel culture" as coming from the "progressive left," not from his fellow right-wingers.
In a July 23 column, Orsi managed to portraying critical race theory and questions of gender identity -- and, effectively merely not beoing heterosexual -- as thte work of Marxism:
The primary way in which Marxism operates is by co-opting, in a distorted manner, Judeo-Christian religious/political precepts. So, for instance, social justice is interpreted in the communist worldview not as human dignity, freedom, and equality before the law, but as redistribution of wealth, class warfare, and ongoing conflict between races and ethnic groups (as in critical race theory). These days, any aberrant forms of gender identity and sexual expression also seem to fall under the social justice label.
The religious root of this Marxist worldview is the assumption that humanity has nothing to do with the image and likeness of God, but rather is merely part of the material world. Therefore human beings can be reshaped in any way that suits current desires, attitudes, or expectations.
Orsi's Aug. 19 column appeased anti-vaxxer sentiments, arguing a right and duty to reject a COVID-19 vaccne because "It’s your body, and you have the right to refuse accepting any chemical substance to which you object morally, or which you fear might injure or even kill you," adding tyhat "I have come to believe that there would be grounds for a faith challenge to an employer mandate." He went on to argue that "if the demands are reasonable, then they are appropriate, if only to ease any discomfort which others might feel at being in close proximity to an unvaccinated person," but then declared: "If you should find yourself under pressure to be vaccinated, I would suggest you contact the Pacific Justice Institute. Based in Sacramento, Calif. with other offices around the country, PJI could provide legal guidance and assistance in securing a religious exemption."
Orsi spent his Sept. 1 column trying to turn a right-wing rant about the less-than=smooth withdrawal into a call for "conversion":
Finally, what is the American Way at this point in our history? Surely not this.
Can we ever get back to some understanding of our country as place where there’s a commitment to the rule of law and the biblical principles on which it was founded, as well as loyalty to those who have sacrificed on our behalf, and (at the very least) an intention to treat people fairly?
Will we ever again be a land Superman would have recognized?
It would take a lot. We’ve got quite a bit of lost ground to recover. Two small indicators: a recent commentary in The New York Times proclaiming "a more secular America” and a newly appointed chief chaplain of Harvard University who is a self-identified atheist.
Think of it. Our secular nation with a Harvard atheist chief chaplain has just experienced one of the most shameful failures in its history.
What is left for us to do?
Well, we can do what we’ve always done in moments of crisis. We can pray. And that’s no small thing. It’s brought us through conflict and national self-doubt before.
Pray for those we’ve left behind. Pray for the tortured people of Afghanistan, who are now reliving the nightmare from which they thought they had awakened.
Pray for repentance and conversion — for our own personal sins, for the sins of our leaders, for the sins of the nation. In fact, declaring a national day of repentance and conversion might be a timely idea.
Shades of Joseph Farah! Orsi doesn't say if he will ask for repentence for his eagerness to use his religious pulpit as a political soapbox.
Orsi started a Sept. 14 column reflecting on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, but eventually turned it into a rant that vaccine mandates are satanic:
In his recent address, Biden insisted that forcing people into vaccination “is not about freedom or personal choice. It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love.”
But this is not true. The issue is precisely about personal freedom and choice, the freedom to choose what we will accept into our bodies, a freedom protected by the Constitution, a freedom acknowledged and defended by the Church.
The government does not own our bodies. They are given us by God to use in glorifying him. We are not to be coerced or pressured into compromising them.
Biden’s forced vaccine initiative contradicts this truth. As such, it’s a violation of human dignity. And no amount of syrupy, guilt-laden appeals to conscience, to protecting “people you love,” can mask the fact that it, too, is deception.
Such things are the work of the Father of Lies, the Prince of Darkness.
Yeah, he went there. How many people will die of COVID because of Orsi's extreme rhetoric?
MRC's Houck Spews Insults At Joy Reid For The Offense Of Defending Biden Topic: Media Research Center
In the right-wing bubble in which the Media Research Center resides, people on TV are simply not allowed to say anything nice about people who are not right-wingers -- even the president if he is a Democrat. Combine that with MRC writer Curtis Houck's particular enmity for MSNBC host Joy Reid -- which rivals that for Jim Acosta and Jen Psaki -- and Houck had a meltdown in August when Reid dared to defend President Biden amid the Afghanistan pullout. nHouck ranted in an Aug. 18 screed in which viciously called Reid "Kabul Karen":
All week, MSNBC’s The ReidOut host Joy Reid has shilled for the Biden administration amidst the embarrassing and deadly collapse of Afghanistan that’s trapped thousands of Americans and Afghan allies. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, Reid’s spin ranged from arguing this was what the American people wanted to blaming Donald Trump for the calamity to denouncing Afghans and the U.S. military.
And to further beclown herself, Reid’s fellow quislings included cartoonish hacks such as David Corn, Tom Nichols, Ben Rhodes, and Jennifer Rubin.
That's right -- not following right-winganti-Biden talking points makes you a "quisling" -- that is, a traitor. Because that's how Houc and his ilk see anyone who doesn't agree with them.
The next day, Houck was spewing hate at Reid again, this time smearing her as "Jalalabad Joy":
Jockeying with MSNBC colleagues to be the Biden administration’s Baghdad Bob on Afghanistan, ReidOut host Joy Reid spent Thursday’s show bolstering her resume by chastising the media for having a “gaze...fixed on Afghanistan” and being “pissed off” that the deadly and chaotic withdraw hadn’t “go[ne] smoothly” instead of spending more time focusing on the January 6 riot or Thursday’s bomb threat.
Reid bolstered her mental gymnastics by arguing the press have remained unhappy about what’s happened despite the “remarkable” sight of “daily press conferences and demands for oversight and constant information.” And if that wasn’t enough, Reid vocalized what she tweeted on Sunday, that the American right was on equal footing with the Taliban.
In the next block, Reid expanded on her colossal strawman about the right as opposed to Afghans coming to the U.S., calling it a “bewildering” and “growing Republican backlash” to “welcoming them with open arms for putting their lives in danger to help keep us safe at home.”
That conveniently left out at least eight Republican governors, a primetime Fox News host, multiple Fox News contributors, a Trump White House communications director, and the co-founder of The Federalistto name a few.
QWho doesn't it leave out? Numerous Republican politicians and activists, not to mention Houck's co-workers at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, which has been touting all that fearmongering about Afghan refugees.
By8 Aug. 25, Houck was apparently running out of Afghan cities he was familiar with, so he was reduced to insulting Reid with the much less alliterative name "Khandahar Joy":
After having ignored Afghanistan on Monday’s show, MSNBC’s ReidOut host Joy Reid circled back to being a Biden flunkie by insisting all is going well for the Biden administration on Afghanistan, saying they’ve done “a thorough job” in Kabul despite a lack of ldquo;burden-sharing”< on the part of NATO allies.
Reid also made sure to level bad-faith attacks on Team Biden (with some help from MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance), saying the only way critics would be satisfied with what’s transpired in Afghanistan would be Biden “promis[ing] to leave troops in there for another 20 years.”
It's quite funny to hear someone who has nothing less than a Trump flunkie for the past four years accuse someone else of being a "Biden flunkie."
WND's Root Ramps Up The COVID Misinformation and Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
Serial COVID misinformer Wayne Allyn Root strikes again in his Sept. 6 WorldNetDaily column, beginning with unironically insisting that everyone else is lying but him:
It's been quite a week. I've been in the media business for decades and I've never before witnessed such lies, exaggeration and outright fraud. All with the intent to force everyone to be vaccinated. The question is why?
Let's start with the vaccine itself. The results in Israel prove what a sham, charade and fraud this all is. The U.S. government and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention argue that the vaccine is our only chance to survive. And that people are hospitalized and dying with COVID-19 because they are unvaccinated.
Both arguments are pure fraud.
Worst of all, the media have blacked out the developing disaster in Israel. Israel is the most vaccinated country in the world. They all got the Pfizer vaccine. At first, deaths and hospitalizations went to almost zero. Israel declared victory over COVID-19.
But everything changed. Today a massive COVID-19 outbreak has engulfed vaccinated Israel. Hospitals are full. People are dying. At this moment, Israel, the most vaccinated nation in the world, has more COVID-19 infections per capita than any country in the world.
At this moment, 0.2% of the entire population of Israel is catching COVID-19 each day.
This past week was the worst week for COVID-19 in Israel EVER. Israel is setting records for vaccinated people in the hospital. Deaths are skyrocketing.
Root offers no source for his claim that "0.2% of the entire population of Israel is catching COVID-19 each day" -- we could find no evidence to back it up -- which is a major tell that he's probably lying. but actual data from Israel tell a far different story:
But early data from the Health Ministry aired by Channel 12 news Sunday evening appears to show that those who have received a third vaccine dose are highly protected against the disease. According to the data, just 0.2% of the first 1.1 million Israelis who got their booster dose have been diagnosed with COVID-19 after at least seven days passed since the shot.
In absolute terms, the number of virus carriers who received their third dose is 2,790. Of them, just 187 (0.01%) were hospitalized and 88 (0.008%) developed serious symptoms. Fewer than 15 of them have died, with the report offering no exact number.
Root went on to selectively rant abaout the reason why:
The vaccine isn't just failing, it's a spectacular fail. It wore off. It no longer works. And just as my holistic doctor friends predicted, it makes the next wave far worse. These doctors say vaccinated people are far more contagious; they carry heavier viral loads and are far more susceptible to getting severe illness than someone with "natural immunity."
This experiment with an "experimental, emergency-use-only" vaccine is a great big failure. A dangerous and deadly failure.
Actually there are numerous vaccines that require a regular booster shot, and we don't recall Root ever calling them a "great big failure." Root also conveniently ignores the fact that the Delta variant is much more transmissible than the original COVID-19 virus -- and that vaccination does, in fact, tend to make on less susceptible to catching COVID and from being severely affected by if if one does catch it.
But Root has fear to peddle, so he resorted to an old bogeyman:
Separate from all that, the VAERS vaccine reporting system reports the vaccine itself is causing tremendous rates of death and crippling injuries. So, vaccinated Americans are dying and becoming severely sick from the vaccine, in addition to dying and becoming severely sick from COVID-19 after getting the vaccine.
And none of this is featured in the news. It's a total media blackout.
That's because Root is lying about VAERS -- again. As we pointed out the last time he spread this lie, reports of adverse effects to VAERS are not verified and are not designed to be comprehensive, and the VAERS database itself clearly states that "the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality."
Root served uyp ome more rant: "Worse yet, the same government, CDC and media are trying desperately to denigrate and slander the drug that is most successful in treating COVID-19. It's called ivermectin. In my next column, I'll show you conclusive proof from around the world that ivermectin is miraculously effective versus COVID-19." Root won't tell you that many of those studies he want to cite are far from authoritative and have shady origins, which is why few legitimate medical authorities recommend ivermectin.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Florida Men Strike Again Topic: Media Research Center
When Florida -- led by potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis -- suffered yet another massive pandemic outbreak due in part to his lax efforts to contain it, the Media Research Center felt compelled to rush to his defense once more. Read more >>
CNS Fearmongers About Afghan Refugees Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has never been terribly friendly to the idea of refugees coming to the U.S., especially if those refugees aren't Christian. With the prospect of thousands of Afghan refugees coming to the U.S. after the U.S. withdrawal from there, CNS is sounding the alarm bells again.
An Aug. 17 syndicated column by Michelle Malkin kicked off the fearmongering, complaining that "Open Borders Inc. advocates" have been helping Afghan refugees settle in the U.S. for years, where they are purportedly "straining schools, hospitals, and affordable housing." She went on to sneer: "How do we prevent the refugee resettlement racket from pressuring American politicians to keep importing endless numbers of people from countries that hate our guts?"
The same day, James Carstensen penned an article hyping how the European Union "must prevent a migration crisis at home and focus on supporting Afghanistan’s neighbors to take in those fleeing Taliban control," going on to complain that "European leaders had been concerned about the possibility the situation in Afghanistan could lead to another wave of migration toward Europe, as occurred in 2015-16 when over a million migrants, mostly from Syria and Iraq, entered Europe amid the peak of the Syrian civil war."
On Aug. 24, Patrick Goodenough -- who has driven much of the anti-refugee sentiment at CNS -- seemed bothered that "An independent statutory religious freedom watchdog called on the Biden administration Monday to broaden the priority designation for Afghan refugee admissions to explicitly cover religious minorities 'at extreme risk of persecution by the Taliban.'" He tried to focus on Christians though there are relatively few left in the country, but he did admit:
Many non-Muslim Afghans fled during the civil war or after the Taliban seized control of most of Afghanistan in the 1990s, and 99.7 percent of the population today is estimated to be Muslim.
Most are Sunnis, although 10-15 percent are Shi’a, including Ismailis. During the Taliban’s previous rule, members of the Shi’a Hazara minority were labeled heretics and persecuted.
There are also small, low-profile pockets of Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, Buddhists, Ahmadiyya, Zoroastrians, and Christians.
The same day, Melanie Arter wrote that "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the United States has 'a stringent vetting process' when it comes to welcoming refugees from Afghanistan, although she said she could not speak directly to a report that at least one Afghan who was evacuated from the region had suspected ties to ISIS."
Goodenough repeated his fretting over the possible impact of Afghan refugees on the EU in an Aug. 31 article, highlighting that "The European Union has resolved to protect its borders and increase security to prevent a recurrence of 2015’s mass migration crisis and address fears of a resurgence in terrorism following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan."
From there, it was intern-pestering time: CNS fall intern Megan Williams was sent out to ask senators the bias, fearmongering question: "Are you confident the Biden administration has sufficiently identified and vetted all the Afghans it has brought to the U.S. and that none will pose a threat here?" The answer were predictably partisan, which was the point:
Only one of those four -- Blumenthal -- was a Democrat, making the overall response even more skewed and partisan, which perhaps was also the point.
Editor Terry Jeffrey served as stenographer for a Republican congressman in a Sept. 15 article, touting how "Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) said while questioning Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday that 'reliable information' was not available to 'conduct a meaningful background check' on 'some, perhaps many' of the Afghan evacuees who were granted parole to come into the United States." (UPDATE: Jeffrey made his interview with Smith the basis for his Sept. 22 column under the fearmongering headline "Is Biden Bringing Terrorists From Afghanistan to America?")
CNS deceptively suggested it was taking a stab at offering balanced coverage of the issue with a Sept. 21 article by Susan Jones under the headline "DHS Secretary: 'We Do Have a Robust Screening and Vetting Process' for Afghan Evacuees" -- but it featured only Republican questioning of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about the refugee issue. Jones made sure to tout that one GOP senator "expressed frustration that of the 60,000 evacuees brought to this country so far, about 6,500 (11 percent ) are American citizens; about 3,500 (just under 6 percent) are lawful permanent residents; and about 3,000 (5.5 percent) are people with visas, including SIVs [special immigrant visas]."
Jones turned up the fearmongering again in a Sept. 23 article:
Spokesman John Kirby says the Defense Department, including Secretary Lloyd Austin, is "certainly aware" of problems, including sexual harassment and assault, at various military bases where tens of thousands of Afghan evacuees are staying until they are vetted (if they can be fully vetted).
The Washington Times reported on Wednesday that two Afghan men have been indicted on assault and sexual assault charges at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.
Jeffrey returned on Sept. 27 with another GOP complaint from the same congressman whose fearmongering he had promoted a couple weeks earlier:
Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been raising questions about the vetting of Afghan evacuees brought into the United States.
Thousands of these evacuees have been housed at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB-MDL) in Smith’s home state of New Jersey. On Sept. 2, Smith along with other members of the New Jersey congressional delegation and Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy visited that base.
In a Sept. 20 interview with CNSNews.com, Smith discussed his concerns about the handling of the evacuees who had been brought to JB-MDL and to other facilities in the United States.
“I saw the military doing a magnificent job to make people feel at home, to make sure they had accommodations,” Smith told CNSNews.com. “But I was extraordinarily worried and continue to be about the vetting process before they get there.
CNS has made no similar effort to interview a Democratic member of Congress about the issue, even though he noted that at least one Democrat was a member of the visiting party.
Jones followed up by fretting in an Oct. 1 article:
Around 53,000 Afghan evacuees are currently living on eight military bases in the United States as part of the Biden Administration's Operation Allies Welcome, General Glen VanHerck, the Commander of US Northern Command, told a Pentagon briefing on Thursday.
Another 14,000 Afghans will be arriving soon, once the evacuation flights resume in various foreign countries. Those flights were suspended several weeks ago because of a measles outbreak among the evacuees.
Jones made sure to plug her employer's own fearmongering: "But as CNSNews.com has reported, some lawmakers are very concerned about the ability of U.S. agencies to properly vet Afghans about whom we know nothing."
MRC Remains Weirdly Obsessed With Leana Wen's Former Job Topic: Media Research Center
Wenoted last year how the Media Research Center has had a weird obsession with Dr. Leana Wen appearing on TV to discuss the coronavirus, raging that she wasn't being identified as the former president of Planned Parenthood -- despite that having no relevance to discussions of coronavirus and despite the fact that she held the position for only nine months. That never really stopped.
In April 2020, Curtis Houck did a follow-up on an earlier post ranting about the lack of mention ofWen's onetime affiliation with Planned Parenthood:
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, CNN has shown perhaps the strongest inability to shy away from framing the pandemic through the lens of attacking President Trump and implicitly placing blame at his feet for the deaths of Americans.
Another tic has been their continued refusal to be honest with viewers about how frequent guest Dr. Leana Wen was a former president of Planned Parenthood. Since our first post the Media Research Center kept tabs on Wen’s appearances and calculated her total airtime from March 2-April 2 as 150 minutes and 27 seconds across 44 appearances as a guest or soundbite.
CNN instead stuck to its usual script identifying Wen as either an “emergency room physician,” “former Health Commissioner for the City of Baltimore.” It was an intriguing choice of words for someone who also led an organization (albeit briefly) that aborted over 345,000 unborn children in fiscal year 2018.
As before, Houck didn't explain the relevance of identifying Wen as a former Planned Parenthood official when it has nothing to do with the subject of her TV appearances, despite asserting that CNN was exhibiting "no ethics" in not doing so.
But it didn't stop there:
A June 2020 post by Houck huffed that CNN "brought back Dr. Leana Wen for more fear-mongering and, as NewsBusters has previously documented, he refused to note her former post running Planned Parenthood."
In July 2020, Houck groused that CNN had on "former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen (which, again, they didn’t disclose)."
An October 2020 roundup by Houck of "CNN’s WORST Moments Immediately After Trump’s COVID Diagnosis" made a point of highlighting "Former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen" though, again, that identity was irrelevant to what she was discussing.
Posts by Duncan Schroeder on Oct. 23, Jan. 22 and Feb. 15 all made sure to reference "former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen" even though that identification was irrelevant to her appearances and apparently she was never identified as such on the air.
A July 17 post by Alex Christy did the same, but left out the word "former," thus falsely portraying her as the current Planned Parenthood president.
Tim Graham devoted an entire July 30 post to whining that Wen promoting her new book didn't bring it up:
CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen had a short and stormy tenure at top of Planned Parenthood, but CNN avoids mentioning it like the plague. They are not alone. Wen is now selling a new memoir called Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health, and the book information on Amazon doesn't include it.
On Tuesday, NPR's talk show Fresh Air interviewed Dr. Wen for 36 minutes (more than 6,300 words in the transcript, according to the Nexis data-retrieval system). Nowhere in there was the slightest whisper of her presidency of Planned Parenthood. NPR host Terry Gross read her bio four times, but it never came up.
Lydia Switzer turned a Sept. 16 post into an anti-Wen screed, ranting that she was a baby-killer who wants to keep children safe from COVID:
On Wednesday, CNN actually had the audacity to bring on the former president of Planned Parenthood to demand that public officials "protect our children" by backing draconian COVID regulations being pushed by the Biden administration. In the 1:00 p.m. ET hour, Newsroom host Ana Cabrera referenced the total COVID death count, noting that 1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID. She then brought on Dr. Leana Wen and Dr. Jeremy Faust to discuss.
Dr. Wen, who Cabrera introduced as “CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore health commissioner,” was the president/CEO of Planned Parenthood from October 2018 through July 2019. During the 2018-2019 business year, according to their own annual report, Planned Parenthood facilitated 354,871 “abortion procedures,” or, to be less euphemistic, killed 354,871 babies.
The irony of a former leader of Planned Parenthood, America’s leading baby-killing regime, claiming to stand up for the health and well-being of children, is apparently lost on CNN. In fact, Wen’s position at CNN as a medical analyst is disturbing, given her track record of violating the Hippocratic Oath. She has done inconceivable harm to hundreds of thousands of babies, along with their mothers – but CNN is perfectly fine with letting her accuse schools and viewers of not taking sufficient care of their own children.
So how does Switzer justify being anti-abortion while opposing any efforts to make them safe from COVID? She doesn't say -- that irony is apparently lost on her.