MRC Suggests There Isn't Enough Anti-Abortion Violence Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh wrote in a Sept. 6 post:
In the mixed up world of far-left MSNBC, the real threat of violence at an abortion clinic is not from the doctor performing the gruesome killing, but from pro-life activists picketing or praying outside. During at least two shows on Monday, MSNBC hosts and guests had full blown meltdowns over Texas’s new law restricting abortions and smeared pro-life activists as violent extremists terrorizing vulnerable women.
On Deadline:White House always rational host Nicolle Wallace whined like a teenager who just got grounded. “There are women in Texas today who feel like their lives are over,” Wallace wailed. “I just think we can't lose sight in our political analysis of the daily hell now that is any woman who doesn't have this choice available to her,” she moaned, adding that every woman is Texas is now “a victim.”
Her guest, MSNBC legal analyst Matthew Miller, hailed the Department of Justice touting how they would not “tolerate violence” against anyone seeking an abortion in Texas. He insisted that this was a routine occurrence: “And it's important that the department said that because every time this issue is in the news, the threat of violence does unfortunately rise at clinics and the department has an obligation to police that.”
This "threat" is overstated, to put it mildly. According to the pro-abortion National Abortion Federation’s latest report, there have only been 11 people that have been killed in attacks at abortion clinics since 1977. Contrast that with the 600,000+ babies killed in abortion in this country, every year.
Marsh's comparison of the amount of people killed in "attacks at abortion clinics" -- note that she doesn't admit that anti-abortion protesters are responsible for those murders -- to "the 600,000+ babies killed in abortion in this country, every year" comes off as a challenge: She seems to be saying that her fellow anti-abortion zealots need to kill more "killers."
(Also, note how Marsh denigrated Wallace's concerns, claiming she "wailed," "moaned" and "whined like a teenager who just got grounded." That's highly unprofessional behavior and is not likely to make anyone take the MRC's "media criticism" serious.)
Lest you think we're exaggerating here, Marsh concludes by furthering the point: "The media is constantly trying to tarnish anyone on the right as a violent extremist, without any basis, while they ignore blatant violence from the left. Not to mention, the irony of worrying about violence outside a murder clinic is lost on them." First: Who does Marsh think killed those 11 people in "attacks at abortion clinics"? Second: By calling abortion clinics "murder clinics," she's making it clear there isn't nearly enough violence happening outside the clinics to providers and others. After all, if abortion is "murder," and conservatives believe murderers deserve the death penalty, there is no reason whatsoever to do what a person deems necessary to stop it, including murder. Life for a life, right?
Marsh didn't mention that her employer has been spending the past year and a half trying to tarnish anyone on the left as a "violent extremist," a Marxist or an member of Antifa simply for speaking out about police brutality and social justice.
In other words, Wallace's concerns seem quite valid. Marsh ably proved that.
Over the last month, the United States has witnessed two shocking actions raken by President Joe Biden. Not only did Biden leave behind hundreds of Americans in Afghanistan, but he's now acting like a tyrant by recently signing an executive order imposing a vaccine mandate for millions of Americans.
In the EO, if a business with 100 employees or more does not force their employees to get weekly COVID-19 testing or a COVID vaccine, the federal government will fine them up to $14,000.00 per violation.
While congressional Democrats impeached President Donald Trump for a phone call and words spoken at a rally, Republicans have been mostly silent in terms of bringing some action against the 46th president.
Neither the Senate or House GOP leadership has called for the impeachment or removal of the president beyond tweeting ambiguous messages. A question arises, especially before the 2022 midterms, why neither of the Republican conferences is attempting to fight harder against a foreign policy disaster and an authoritarian executive order.
The Senate and the House GOP leadership need to learn from how Reps. Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado approached these atrocities.
The congresswomen worked on calling for the impeachment of the president, as well as worked on actual articles to send to the House floor. These women, freshman members of the GOP congressional delegation, set the tone for how the GOP needs to stand up against the Biden administration.
Tone-setting is the name of the game when it comes to politics.
Yes, it is a definite statement to let Greene and Boebert -- twowomen obsessed with bogus far-right conspiracy theories -- set the "tone" for your party, though probably not in the way Cody intended. And when a president's "words spoken at a rally" helps to incite a riot that heavily damages the seat of democracy in the United States, he can and should be impeached for it. Or is Cody trying to downplay the Capitol riot like other Republicans?
Cody had previously called for Biden to be impeached over the Afghanistan withdrawal, which may explain why he's so eager to align hismelf with two of the most extreme members of Congress to try and make it happen.
Joseph Farah And 'Contempt Prior to Examination' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah wrote in his Sept. 9 WorldNetDaily column:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."
Some of the best historical quotes – like the one above – are unattributable with any degree of certitude. It has been attributed to several people including Edmund Spencer and William Paley as far back as 1794.
Still, there is wisdom in these words – especially in regard to their meaning in our times insofar as what we have come to know as "fake news" and "conspiracy theories."
Think about it.
The key words in this parable are "contempt prior to examination."
It means making up your mind before the facts are in. We're all guilty of it sometimes. But it has become de rigueur for far too many.
Farah will never admit it because he's shameless and dishonest, but he is among that crowd. That has been the modus operandi for how Farah has run WND for the past 25 years. On story after story -- from Barack Obama's birth certificate to Seth Rich to election fraud -- he first came to a conclusion that reflected his vengeful far-right ideology, then directed his minions to backfill with claims regardless of their accuracy. That utter disregard of the truth has put WND in the precarious financial position it is in today -- not to mention making it so radioactive that almost no credible people want to do business with it.
Rather than admit those inconvenient facts, Farah went on his usual tirade against the "deep state" and "Russia collusion" and painting Donald Trump as a victim, huffing that "Visceral hatred of Donald Trump, his manner and his ideas are tearing America apart, destroying our social fabric, rendering justice and self-government nearly impossible."
Does Farah think his visceral hatred of Obama and Joe Biden isn't divisive and destroying the social fabric? He has chosen to believe a lie about the 2020 election and is spewing Biden derangement -- which, yes, renders justice and self-government nearly impossible. He is a major contributor to the conditions he purports to decry.
Nevertheless, Farah continued to indict himself:
No matter what you might believe about Donald Trump, is it inarguably true that "contempt prior to examination" is foolishness, error, absurdity, craziness?
If so, why do we practice it? Why just accept what you hear from those with the biggest megaphone?
It has to do with the survival of the greatest society the world has ever known. The time is short.
If Farah wasn't so utterly gutless, he needs to ask himself that question. It would make his call for atonement less hollow, since he's amply demonstrated that he's a religious hypocrite who has no intention or desire whatsoever to atone for his legacy of hate, lies and divisiveness -- not to mention contempt prior to examination.
CNSNews.con went back to an old Obama-era tactic in reporting on Septembner's employment statistics: downplay the decline in the unemployment rate by focusing on the labor force participation rate. Susan Jones pushed that in the headline of her main article on the numbers, "BLS: Labor Participation Rate Stalls, With 61.6% of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population Working":
September was a month of slow job growth, with a measly 194,000 nonfarm payroll jobs added -- the worst number of the year.
It was well below analysts' expectations of 500,000, and it follows the disappointing (revised) 366,000 payroll jobs added in August, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.
The unemployment rate fell, but so did the important labor force participation rate, which has remained within a narrow range of 61.4 percent to 61.7 percent since June 2020. And the number of people who are not in the labor force -- have no job and are not looking for one -- is the highest it's been since March.
Jones suggested that "pandemic-related unemployment benefits have ended," which should have pushed employment higher, but did note that "Labor Secretary Marty Walsh put some of the blame on the delta variant." Still, she also included a Republican congressman ranting that President Biden "has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy."
CNS didn't offer its usual sidebars on goverment employment or the jobless rates for Black or Hispanic workers. But it did publish a couple of follow-up articles that pushed its anti-Biden editorial agenda. An Oct. 11 article by Melanie Arter uncriticaly repeated Republican Rep. Steve Scalise insisting that "President Joe Biden’s policies are to blame for last month’s disappointing job numbers." Arter did add that "Biden blamed the Delta variant" for those numbers, but did not quote Scalise making mention of that. She did note that Fox News host Chris Wallace said the numbers were disappointing even though extra unemployment benefits ended at the beginning of September, but quoting Scalise blathering about "other welfare programs."
That was followed by an Oct. 12 commentary by Nick Stehle of the right-wing Foundation for Government Accountability weirdly cheering over the end of the "job-killing federal unemployment bonus." Stehle was silent on the disappointing numbers, which in his theory should have been better due to the end of those extra benefits.
MRC Cheers Another Right-Wing Authoritarian Leader's Attacks on 'Big Tech' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's longtradition of embracing right-wing authoritarian leaders who hate "big tech" as much as the MRC does coninues in a Sept.9 post by Gabriela Pariseau:
Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro made a bold move, marking one up for free speech in his nation. The embattled president signed a provisional measure that will make it illegal for Big Tech to arbitrarily remove legal social media content.
The Government of Brazil claimed in a tweet thread that the law was sparked by concerns of Big Tech’s actions “that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil.” The provisional measure “forbids selective deplatforming” and “the removal of content that may result in any kind of ‘censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order,’" according to the Twitter thread. The Brazilian government account said it “hope[s] [the law] will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.”
The measure protects freedom of expression but excludes illegal content “such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights,” reported The New York Times. Tech companies also purportedly need a court order for permission to remove any other content, according to The Times.
Actually, Bolsonaro is more a threat to free speech than the champion Pariseau wants you to think he is. In 2020, Bolsonaro enacted a law that effectively opens his critics to arrest under the guise of "national security." Since then Bolsonaro revived a law from the country's dictatorship era to arrest critics of his response to the coronavirus pandemic. Interestingly, last year Facebook suspended a network of accounts it said were run by employees of Bolsoaro and his family to spread divisive political messages, so it's clear Bolsonaro knows his way around misinformation.
Still, Pariseau was determined to make him a part of the MRC's bogus "victimhood" narrative:
The Brazilian president is up for reelection, and like former President Donald Trump, has been repeatedly censored by Big Tech. YouTube removed 15 of his videos for so-called COVID-19 misinformation in July, according to the BBC. The New York Times reported that “[l]ast year, Facebook removed statements by Mr. Bolsonaro after he promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure for the virus. Around the same time, Twitter deleted posts from the far-right Brazilian president for pushing [allegedly] false remedies and calling for an end to social distancing.”
In July, the MRC declared that Bolsonaro was "censored" for having "dared to question the liberal narrative concerning COVID-19" -- which translates into getting caught spreading COVID misinformation that the MRC will never admit is misinformatoin.
Newsmax Repeats Lie About Biden's Video Feed Topic: Newsmax
Jeremy Frankel repeated a right-wing conspiracy theory in a Sept. 13 Newsmax article:
During a trip to Boise, Idaho, on Monday for a briefing on wildfires with federal and state officials, President Joe Biden's feed was abruptly cut by the White House.
Biden said during the briefing he wanted to hear more from George Geissler of the National Association of State Foresters. Biden asked Geissler if he could ask him a question, and Geissler replied "of course."
Biden then said, "One of the things that I've been working on with some others is —," before his feed was cut. It was then replaced by a full-screen graphic saying, "Thank you for watching."
Biden's feed has been cut by the White House before. Last month, it happened when Biden was about to respond to a reporter's question concerning the military's withdrawal deadline from Afghanistan. It also occurred in March, during a virtual event, when Biden said, "I'm happy to take questions if that's what I'm supposed to do."
Politico reported last week, when Biden speaks in public, some White House staffers might "mute him or turn off his remarks," because they are "filled with anxiety that he's going to take questions from the press and veer off the West Wing's carefully orchestrated messaging."
But as we documented when the Media Research Center pushed this same Republican-hyped claim,this claim isn't true -- the feed was always planned to be cut off, which journalists covering the event knew because it was described beforehand as a "pool spray," in which the feed would end when Biden turned to questions.
But Newsmax never did a follow-up article to tell the truth, so Frankel's lie remains live and uncorrected.
CNSNews.com's favorite dishonest Catholic, Bill Donohue, spent his Sept. 15 column railing against Attorney General Merrick Garland for the commonsense comment that "We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act." How dare Garland imply that anti-abortion protesters are violent, Donohue raged; unfortunately for him, in serving up his version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, reminded us of exactly that fact while pretending the violence wasn't representative of anti-abortion protesters:
If pro-life Americans are so violent, Garland should be able to rattle off the names of abortionists whom they have killed. In the 21st century, there have been four such killings: one in 2009 and three in 2015. Two men, both ex-cons, were responsible, and neither was assisted or associated with a pro-life group. They acted alone.
In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was killed by Scott Roeder. When it happened, I condemned it. "We have to get the message out that life means we have to respect all life," I told CBS Evening News, "including somebody as bad as Dr. Tiller was."
Tiller, by his own admission, performed over 60,000 abortions. His specialty was killing babies in utero who were nearly born, or were partially born. Hence his nickname, George "The Killer" Tiller.
Roeder was a deranged man who was hardly representative of pro-life activists. He had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, and got into trouble when he stopped taking his medication. His wife testified that she thought he was bipolar, and his brother also spoke about his mental problems. He had previously been arrested for carrying explosives, and he spent time in prison for other violations.
In 2015, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. killed three people in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo. He had previously been arrested and convicted for carrying a "long blade knife" and illegally possessing a loaded gun.
His mental state was worse than that of Roeder's. A judge ordered him to undergo a mental competency exam to see if he was sufficiently competent to represent himself. After fielding the results, the judge ruled that Dear was not mentally fit to stand trial: he cited findings that he suffered from a "delusional disorder." Dear was sentenced indefinitely to a Colorado state mental hospital.
Donohue is trying to have it both ways -- effectively endorsing Tiller's death for being a prolific "killer" while insisting that the man who killed him was an outlier who was "hardly representative of pro-life activists." In fact, as we've documented, Roeder had contacts with anti-abortion group Operation Rescue before he killed Tiller, and a phone number for the group was found in his car when he was arrested. He also did not mount an insanity defense at his trial and a psychologist found him competent to stand trial -- which kinds blows up Donohue's dismissal of him as a "deranged" schizophrenic.
As for Dear, he had undeniably absorbed the messaging of the anti-abortion movement. He was quoted as ranting about "no more body parts" -- a reference to a key storyline at the time involving undercover anti-abortion activists secretly taping and deceiving Planned Parenthood about purported trafficking in fetal parts .Just because Dear has been found incompetent to stand trial doesn't mean he was not influenced by mainstream anti-abortion rhetoric frequently skirts the line between activism and advocacy of violence.
Donohue waled that very line in his conclusion: "And lest we forget, while the killing of unborn babies is legal, the fact remains that abortion clinics are a much more deadly place for children than they are for those who do the killing. Think about that, Mr. Garland and Mr. Biden." Donohue will never admit it, but Roeder and Dear certainly didn't forget about that.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Big Lie Moves To Arizona Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily embraces the highly dubious Arizona election audit because it cast the aspersions on the 2020 presidential election that align with its Trump-friendly agenda. Read more >>
Virtue Signaling: Met Gala Makes MRC Reach Meltdown Mode Topic: Media Research Center
Who coiuld possibly find offense at a museum fund-raiser? The Media Research Center, of course.
The Met Gala is a fund-raiser for New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, though it's perhaps more notable for being a gathering for the rich and famous wearing outlandish or provocative costumes. And that's where the MRC can step in for some lazy right-wing virtue signaling to make fun of goofily dressed non-conservatives. Add in that one guest was the hated Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wearoing a dress stating "Tax the Rich," and the MRC was in virtue-signaling overdrive.
Krstine Marsh took a shot at AOC in a Sept. 14 post complaining that she was discussed on "The View":
None of them brought up the hypocrisy of a congresswoman who makes $174,000 a year attending a $30,000 dollar a ticket event lecturing the "rich." While “rich” is a relative term, (nearly all Americans would be considered rich compared to the rest of the world), even Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is “rich” next to the average American. The Census Bureau’s latest report shows the Median household income (pre-coronavirus) was $68,703 in 2019.
(It's also funny to see right-wingers switch frrom trying to shame AOC for having once worked as as bartender to trying to shame her for accepting the same salary every other member of Congress gets.)
Scott Whitlock whined in another post the same day:
Talk about tone deaf. The co-hosts at CBS This Morning touted socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wearing a “tax the rich” dress, ridiculously insisting that it didn’t apply to them because “We ain’t rich.”
Duthiers gushed, “We are talking about style.... Starting with the biggest fashion moments at the night at the Met Gala in New York City. A-list stars were flashing some creative looks.... Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's gown game with a message. Can you see that?” Gayle King repeated the message, “Tax the rich.”
Co-host Tony Dokoupil joked, “Were there any rich people last night?” Clueless Duthiers replied, “Not us. ‘Cause we ain't rich.” According to The Sun, co-host Gayle King is estimated to be worth $40 million. According to Bugle, co-host Dokoupil is worth $6 million. According to FamousIntel, Duthiers is worth almost a million. Nor rich? What do these journalists think rich means?
Whitlock went on to rant: "In June, Dokoupil channeled his inner socialist, hyping a probably illegally-obtained ProPublica report about the wealthiest Americans." That would be the exact same report Whitlock's MRC co-worker Joseph Vazquez touted for exposing George Soros' financial information, and he didn't complain about the info being "probably illegally-obtained."
Yet another Sept. 14 post, this one by Kathleen Krumhansl, served up more AOC-bashing and how Spanish-language networks covered her:
The nation´s Spanish-speaking liberal media do a great job at keeping fatuous Latina congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez out of the news. And for good reason, as you will see in the following Telemundo News “interview” captured during her appearance at the red carpet of the $30k-a-plate Met Gala, where she donned a haute-couture gown with a printed message bashing those she was comfortably mingling with.
The irony of her theatrics not only escaped the anchors and reporters of the morning talk shows and midday news editions at both networks, but actually made them gush at her “genius”. In the words of Telemundo anchor Aranxta Loizaga “I liked those, I have to say, concealed political messages'.
In case you wonder how AOC, who earns a $174,000 salary subsidized by taxpayers, was able to dish out $30,000 for a high society event read on. According to a Tweet from the very own AOC, “NYC elected officials are regularly invited to and attend the Met due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city's cultural institutions that serve the public.” How conveniently hypocritical of the so-called socialist AOC.
Wedon't recall Krumhansl speaking out against Republican politicians getting tickets to events as a benefit of their position.
In the fourth (!) post of the day on the subject, Mark Finkelsten huffed:
CNN's New Day panel on Tuesday morning unanimously defended Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for wearing a "Tax the Rich" dress to the $30,000-a-ticket Met Gala.
Maggie Haberman —a New York Times correspondent who doubles as a CNN analyst—suggested that it was brave of AOC to go an event filled with rich people wearing such a dress. Haberman claimed AOC's message was not "popular" with that crowd, and therefore that there was something " risky" in her wearing the dress.
To which we politely reply: baloney! The notion that a crowd of NYC elites was offended by the dress, and that it was brave of AOC to wear it, is absurd. Most in attendance were likely amused, and/or thrilled to have such a liberal celebrity in attendance! And of course she was hobnobbing! What better place to fish for big-time campaign donations than in a room filled with rich Manhattan elitists!? How many in attendance already were, or soon will be, on her donor list?
Finkelstein wouldn't even begrudge her not having to pay for the ticket: "If AOC was given a free ticket worth $30,000, why wouldn't that constitute a gift or a donation by the Gala?" Finkelstein apparently believes that AOC is so dumb that she wouldn't check House ethics rules before accepting the ticket.
So too, apparently, does Gabriel Hays, who cheered the inevitable right-wing ethics complaint in a post the next day:
Little Miss Champagne Socialist and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) could have violated congressional ethics with her recent attendance at the uber elitist Met Gala in her designer “Tax the Rich” ball gown.
The American Accountability Foundation asked the congressional office to “immediately open an investigation” into whether AOC received a ticket as an illicit gift.
AOC’s attendance at the gala was a wildly successful publicity stunt that paradoxically drew attention to her hypocrisy. Here was a politician, who constantly cries about rich people and their abuse of the system, going to one of their parties, schmoozing it up with them, and then telling people she was trying to hold said rich people accountable with the not-so-subtle “tax the rich” messaging on her dress.
Conservatives didn’t buy it, accusing the politician of enjoying elitist prestige while using her dress to virtue-signal against said privilege as a shield from criticism.
Hays concluded by sneering: "And even if it ends up being technically true that AOC was welcome to attend, it doesn’t change the fact that AOC looks like a total hypocrite." Because nothing defines right-wing virtue-signaling more than accusing non-conservatives of hypocrisy -- ironic, given its treatment of that "probably illegally-obtained" financial information.
AOC wasn't the MRC 's only Met Gala target, though. Equally as hated is soccer player Megan Rapinoe, and John Simmons huffed in a Sept. 15 post under the overwrought headline "Megan Rapinoe Taunts America at Met Gala With Pro-Gay Messages":
Monday night’s Met Gala was a cesspool of rich politicians and celebrities showing off their wealth and status to compete for media attention. While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stole the show a gown with the ridiculous message “Tax The Rich” painted on it, U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team star Meghan Rapinoe had an equally nauseating message to convey at the gala.
Rapinoe, a staunch supporter of LGTBQ+ rights and any message that is anti-America, walked into the gala in an American flagged-themed pantsuit holding a clutch bag that said, “In Gay We Trust.” It clearly was a jab at our nation’s motto, “In God We Trust.”
Gays are not oppressed people anymore. When you have an entire month of the year dedicated to celebrating you, businesses change their logos to rainbow colors, and sports leagues are hosting “Pride Nights,” you have lost the right to foolishly claim that you are oppressed. You are anything but.
In a nutshell, Rapinoe’s actions display classic leftist tactics to get their agenda approved: claim oppression, say America is the problem, and then get what you want.
First: If you're the sixth MRC post to whine about AOC's dress, it wasn't ridiculous and you helped achieve her goal. Second: Yes, Simmons really did equate being gay to being "anti-America." Third: Yes, Simmons really did melt down over Rapinoe's cluch bag. And fourth: Simmons sounds like a guy who desperately wants to make sure gays are oppressed again.
CNS Hypes Bishop's Attacks On Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Part of the multi-pronged war CNSNews.com has waged against Nancy Pelosi is a holy war -- bashing her for being insufficiently Catholic because she won't support the outlawing of abortion. CNS has ramped things up by serving as a stenographer to the archbishop of her San Francisco diocese, dutifully repeating his partisan attacks on her. Editor Terry Jeffrey wrote in a July 23 article:
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, whose archdiocese includes all of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district, issued a statement on Thursday rebuking Pelosi for a statement she made at her press briefing that day explaining why she is pushing for federal funding of abortion.
At her briefing, Pelosi had an exchange with a reporter about the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 2022 that is moving through the House and that, as the Appropriations Committee puts it, includes "repealing the discriminatory Hyde Amendment."
Later that day, Archbishop Cordileone put out a statement. It was headlined: “Statement of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defending efforts to permit federal funding of elective abortions.”
“Let me repeat: no one can claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life, let alone have the government pay for it,” said the archbishop.
An anonymously written Aug. 6 article hyped Cordileone's attacks again under the hype-laden headline "Pelosi’s Archbishop Smacks Her Again for Supporting Tax-Funded Abortion: ‘Catholics Stand for Human Life’":
Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, who presides over the archdiocese where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) lives, sent out a tweet on Sunday of a story in LifeNews.com that was headlined: “Nancy Pelosi Blocks Vote on Bill to Ban Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for the 55th< Time.”
“The Hyde Amendment saved 2.4 million innocent babies,” Archbishop Cordileone said in his tweet. “Catholics stand for human life and core human rights.”
A Sept. 6 article -- also anonymously written -- started to sound repititious in parroting Cordileone again:
Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, the diocese where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) resides, published a commentary in the Washington Post on Sunday stating that you cannot be a good Catholic and support the killing of unborn children through abortion.
“You cannot be a good Catholic and support expanding a government-approved right to kill innocent human beings,” said Cordileone. “The answer to crisis pregnancies is not violence but love, for both mother and child.”
Cordileone specifically addressed the response of both Pelosi and President Biden—both of who profess to be Catholics—to Supreme Court’s refusal to issue an injunction against a Texas law that bans the abortion of babies who have a detectable heartbeat.
CNS cranked up the biased attacks with a pair of Oct. 18 articles, both by managing editor Michael W. Chapman. The first hyped an anti-Pelosi prayer campaign the archbishop was promoting:
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who has repeatedly implored pro-abortion Catholic politicians, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to accept the pro-life teaching of the Church, recently called on all Catholics to say some special prayers (and fast) every Friday for Pelosi to have a conversion of heart.
“Speaker Pelosi speaks fondly of her children," he added. "She clearly has a maternal heart. Pope Francis has called abortion murder, the equivalent of hiring a hitman to solve a problem. The solution to a woman in a crisis pregnancy is not violence but love."
"Please join me in praying the rosary and fasting for a conversion of Speaker Pelosi’s maternal heart to embracing the goodness and dignity of human life not only after birth, but in the womb as well," said the archbishop.
The second promoted Cordileone saying that "While discussing his prayer and fasting for the conversion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi," he called abotion a "Satanic practice."
This being a highly biased right-wing "news" outlet, CNS gave Pelosi no opportunity to respond to Cordileone's attacks. It did, however, publish a Sept. 23 article by Craig Bannister featuring Pelosi responding to the bishop:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she and San Francisco’s archbishop “have a disagreement about who should decide this,” when a reporter asked her to react to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s declaration that her abortion bill constitutes “child sacrifice.”
“This proposed legislation is nothing short of child sacrifice,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said in a Tuesday statement regarding the Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755).
Pelosi replied that “it’s none of our business” to tell others they can’t have abortions, that no one has the right to talk about the issue unless they’ve given birth – and that she and Archbishop Cordileone disagree about who should decide whether or not an unborn child is aborted:
Bannister featured several other anti-Pelosi quotes from Cordileone, even though none of the Cordileone-promoting articles permitted a rtesponse from Pelosi.
CNS' mission statement states that it will "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story." It has failed to do so yet again.
MRC's Graham Takes Cheap Shot At Alec Baldwin Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates Alec Baldwin -- for being a provocative liberal, for mocking Trump on "Saturday Night Live," and for generally just existing; a particularly hateful review of a Baldwin hosted talk show called it "A Bloated, Self-Aggrandizing Snooze-fest - Just Like Him." The MRC has even demanded that Baldwin's acting career be destroyed (a sign that its cancel-culture attacks on him have failed, and tha they'll admit it). It's even still mad at Baldwin for a 1998 fit of hyperbole about wanting to stone Henry Hyde during the Ciinton impeachment drama.
So after a tragic accident on a movie set in which a prop gun fired by Baldwin killed a cinematographer and wounded another person, it's sadly not surprising for the MRC to mock him. An Oct. 22 tweet by MRC executive Tim Graham -- pinned to the top of his Twitter feed, no less -- felt the need to make hay on the tragedy by repeating a 2006 statement by Baldwin in the wake of then-Vice President Dick Cheney shooting a hunting companion in which he called Cheney a "terrorist" and demanded that he go "into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."
Never mind that there's no evidence this was anything other than an accident or even that he was aware that the prop gun contained an apparently live round -- indeed, he was reportedly told the gun was safe before the incident. Never mind that Baldwin is fully cooperating with police. Graham has nothing but pure hate for Baldwin, and he decided it was his duty to exploit this tragedy for the sole purpose of taking a partisan shot at the actor.
Remember this the next time any MRC employee claims to have standards, scruples and morals.
WND's Cashill Finds A Capitol Rioter To Spread Conspiracies About Topic: WorldNetDaily
Conspicracy-monger extraordinare Jack Cashill began his Sept. 8 WorldNetDaily column with the dedlaration, "Say the name, 'Roseanne Boyland.'"Unfortunately for Cashill, he needs to spell the name, and he spelled it wrong -- it's "Rosanne." Not a good start for his latest conspiracy theory:
Say the name, "Roseanne Boyland." On Jan. 6, 2021, the 34-year-old Boyland died under mysterious circumstances in a tunnel leading to the Capitol. According to the Washington Post, The D.C. Medical Examiner's office determined that Boyland died of "accidental acute amphetamine intoxication."
Emerging evidence suggests that this diagnosis is as suspect as the one that netted Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin a 22-year prison sentence in the death of George Floyd. What is undeniable is that one well-connected black activist was involved in both.
Although the medical examiner most associated with the Boyland case is Dr. Francisco Diaz, the chief D.C. medical examiner on Jan. 6 was Dr. Roger Mitchell, Diaz's then boss. Mitchell made something of a name for himself with his outrageous meddling in the Floyd case.
We'll spare you most of the details of this conspiracy, but it's in large part a rehash of his defense of George Floyd's killer, Derek Chauvin, attackkng a medical examiner who weighed in on the idea of neck compression by Chauvin as the cause of Floyd's death -- Cashill wants you to believe that Floyd was a complete reprobate who died of a drug overdose and totally deserved it -- who allegedly had a role in determining that Boyland died not from getting trampled but, rather from amphetamine intoxication.
Naturally, Cashill finds a conspiracy here, and he immediately starts stretching the truth:
Among the drugs in Floyd's system was methamphetamine, the drug that allegedly killed Boyland. At the time of his arrest Floyd was obviously and pathetically high. By contrast, Boyland was photographed walking and smiling on her way to the Capitol.
Unlike the Floyd autopsy report that was released within a week, it took three months for the D.C. Medical Examiner's office to rule on Boyland's death, and even then the office was sparing in details.
Actually, nobody has said that methamphetamine was the drug in Boyalnd's system. There are other forms of amphetamine, such as Adderall, which family members said she was taking; it's entirely likely she took a larger-than-prescribed dose of the drug, which on top of other health issues such as obesity and diabetes contributed to her death.
Cashill didn't mention Boyland's multiple health issues, of course. Nor did he mention Boyland's obsession with QAnon and other far-right conspiracies that drew her to take part in the riot in the first place. Instead, he cited antoher insurrectionist who accused law enforcement of using "toxins" and a "gas" that was "not tear gas" on the crowd that included Boyland, citing another far-right activist calling it "poison."
(You might remember Cashill rushing to the defense of two insurrectionists who allegedly contributed to officer Brian Sicknick's death by spraying him with bear spray, which was apparently totally cool with him.)
Cashill knows he must keep the conspiracy going rather than address his own inconsistencies, concluding by ranting that"Nothing that comes out of the office of the D.C. Medical Examiner can be trusted" and huffing that "America's two-tier justice system reaches all the way into the morgue, and Big Media would just as soon keep it that way."
MRC Melts Down Over More Non-Hateful Psaki Profiles -- But Gushes Over Fawning Peter Doocy Interview Topic: Media Research Center
As it often does, the Media Research Center has had another meltdown over a profile of White House press secretary Jen Psaki that didn't express the same contempt for her that the MRC has. First up was Tim Graham in an Aug. 29 post complaining that the Washington Post pointed out how Psaki makes good use of partisan Fox News reporter Peter Doocy:
You can tell just how perfectly The Washington Post fits into the White House publicity apparatus when it posts articles proclaiming that they have Fox News reporter Peter Doocy exactly where they want him. He is a "useful foil," reports Philip Bump, and he's easily foiled.
The headline on this Friday analysis was "Biden escalates his efforts to puncture the Fox News bubble." Jen Psaki is that genius who regularly calls on Doocy because he's going to be lame and embarrassing.
Now ask yourself: can you remember a single viral "bang snap" in the Psaki briefing room from a Washington Post White House reporter? Or are they all cozy cooperators like Matt "I marvel at Biden's fortune cookie tweets" Viser?
Bump then chronicled how Biden got the better of Doocy as he suggested Biden had failed in Afghanistan, and Biden oh-so-effectively suggested Trump had failed, too, and exposed Doocy for posing an "unsound" question.
Philip Bump-Bump was shaking the pom-poms. He concluded by equating Fox with a "hostile power" and with "misinformation."
Weirdly, Graham did not dispute anything in Bump's article, let alone the thesis that Doocy serves as a useful foil for Psaki -- he's merely complaining that it was said out loud in an apparent attempt to boost Doocy's "liberal media" victimhood.
Next, Clay Waters did the honors in a Sept. 19 post:
New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum devoted 2,300 words to profiling President Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki for Sunday’s edition, bragging in the online headline that normalcy (and a more compliant press corps?) had returned to the White House with Trump out: “Bully Pulpit No More: Jen Psaki’s Turn at the Lectern.”
Grynbaum’s piece reeked of cringy attempts to be hip, down to the Instagram-ready opening line in which we learn that "political fame hits different” (i.e., has a different effect on one than it did previously) with bad man Trump off the scene.
He let Psaki prevail while staging a social media smackdown against her “regular foil,” Fox News reporter Peter Doocy.
Grynbaum briefly noted critics “on the right,” but strove to neutralize their criticisms of the White House press corps, using Psaki herself.
Waters even whined that the article "also noted Breitbart White House reporter Charlie Spiering called her briefings "rehearsed, scripted, and boring." He seems mad that the Times deviates from the MRC's narrative that Psaki is a sleazy mess and Doocy is America's hero.
Of course, if Waters and Graham actually want to see media pom-poms in action, they don't need to venture outside the building. They juast have to look at Curtis Houck's slobbering Sept. 27 writeup of an interview Doocy did with the MRC's favorite right-wing radio host, Mark Levin:
Fox News’s Peter Doocy gave a rare interview on his job as White House correspondent to legendary conservative author and talk radio host Mark Levin on his Sunday night FNC show Life, Liberty, & Levin and shared what it’s like to question President Biden on his ever-changing views, what goes into his questions at press briefings, and even what reporters at other outlets think about him.
Dubbed by Levin as a star “of modern day journalism,” Doocy began by saying that, when it comes to questioning Biden, his approach has been “think about what he is saying presently, and then how that is possibly not lining up with things that he has said in the past” and therefore “compare and contrast Joe Biden and Joe Biden.”
After a break, Doocy showed he’s all class and didn’t explode in the way others did with the Trump administration, conceding that he’s had “some times” in which the White House doesn’t give him straight answers and, when it happens, he realized “I am going to have to follow up on this...or just that, this is all we’re going to get[.]”
Doocy again took the high road when asked about Biden continuing to duck questions, saying that, going back to the campaign, there were times when Biden would “continuously...linger[ed] around...to see, ‘okay what’s that tall, blonde guy in the back barking at me about today.’”
Levin closed with illuminating questions about what Doocy’s colleagues think of him and last week’s kerfuffle in which the White House excused Biden not taking questions alongside U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson by blaming...Johnson (click “expand”):
Levin wrapped with quite the series of compliments: “And you really are, even at a young age, you’re demonstrating to so many people what journalism is all about.”
Between Doocy and correspondents like Aisha Hasnie, Bill Melugin, and Trey Yingst, the future of the news side of Fox News is bright (despite what CNN would want you to believe).
That's the very definition of a softball interview -- and a fawning recitation of said softballs. Since Levin is the MRC's close personal friend, they wouldn't dare call him out for peddling such embarrassing fluff.
WorldNetDaily was already spinning the results of the Arizona election audit to make it look better than it did. But to really make that spin desperate and dishonest, you gotta call in the big guy. So take it away, Joseph Farah, who insisted in his Sept. 30 column that the audit was "good news!":
The media did a number in their announcement last week that the Arizona Senate "affirmed" the results of the November presidential vote in Maricopa County.
It was a blatant attempt to cast aspersions on legislators who were challenging the claim that the BIG STEAL of the 2020 election did not occur.
The "affirmation" was based merely a recount of the total votes cast – illegal and legal – in Maricopa County.
Many who don't watch the news with full discernment didn't understand what was happening. And the reporting mostly was quick to point out the Joe Biden actually picked up a few votes. That was what the media played up big.
Here's what is actually happening in Arizona – and it's all good news!
The next stage of the review by the Arizona's attorney general will look at the illegally cast votes – totaling an unbelievable 57,734 ballots! That was the determination of Cyber Ninjas, who conducted the audit. Compare that with the 10,457 vote differential that gave Biden the "victory."
Maricopa County was ordered to "preserve all documents and data."
Like his WND minions -- indeed, he seemed to be copying-and-pasting from WND's "news" stories -- Farah went on to parrot the lies the audit officials spouted:
Ben Cotton, the founder of the digital forensics firm CyFIR, claimed in his presentation to the senators Friday that he has evidence that Maricopa County workers intentionally deleted data.
He said his team caught the election workers at the keyboards of computers in February purging results from the Election Management System the day before the audit began. His team, he said, captured screen shots and time stamps and has identified the workers.
Farah even invoked the old Zuckerbucks claim: "Further, Facebook's leftist Mark Zuckerberg handed out some $350 million to mostly leftist local and state election officials for them to run their 2020 operations, raising the question of undue influence." Actually, the money was needed -- which was available to any election office, not just "leftist" ones -- because state and federal governments failed to adequately fund elections during a pandemic, and the money had no apparent impact on turnout.But who needs facts when there is fearmongering to be done?
Farah closed by admitting that he's trying to keep Trump's Big Lie alive:
Fake news and its masters in Big Tech, which also played a role in the greatest electoral hoax in American history, are as culpable as the Democrats in the 2020 swindle.
And most of all, we must pray for the country – and to keep Donald Trump at the top of his game!
Trump has chosen to believe and promote a lie. That doesn't sound like a guy who's at "the top of his game" -- unless Trump's "game" is suckering gullible right-wingers like Farah.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's War on Jen Psaki (And Man-Crush On Peter Doocy): July 2021 Topic: Media Research Center
More man-crushing! More Psaki-hating! Hiding another Doocy screw-up! A dash of homophobia! That's how the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck spent his July reviewing White House press briefings. Read more >>