Liars: MRC Dishonestly Portrays School Board Group's Concern About Violent Threats As Attack On Parents Topic: Media Research Center
When the National School Boards Association sent a letter to President Biden expressing concern over increasingly violent attacks against school board mebers over mask mandates and manufactured right-wing outrage over critical race theory, The Media Research Center knew what it had to do: dishonestly frame the letter as an attack on parents purporting to be concerned about their children. That's the frame Kyle Drennen used in an Oct. 1 post:
On Thursday and Friday, CBS Evening News and NBC’s Today show both hyped an outrageous demand from the left-wing National School Boards Association (NSBA) that the Biden administration treat parents protesting at school board meetings across the country as acts of “domestic terrorism.” Rather than call out the extreme overreaction, the networks eagerly touted the wild attempt to get the federal government to go after concerned citizens.
“Cry for help. A shocking turn in the fight over vaccine and mask mandates in school,” co-host Savannah Guthrie proclaimed at the top of NBC’s Today show Friday morning. She then parroted the incendiary rhetoric coming from the NSBA, a group loaded with Democratic Party donors: “School boards across the country calling on the White House to send federal agents to protect them from angry parents, saying their protests should be treated as domestic terrorism.”
Minutes later, fellow co-host Hoda Kotb declared:“There are some very shocking images of parents and protesters pushing back and now school boards from coast to coast are demanding help.” The footage that ran on screen showed one individual getting into a scuffle with another man at a school board meeting, the rest of the supposedly “shocking images” were of protesters peacefully holding up signs or chanting.
Of course, the NSBA never asked that all parents who spoke at school board meetings, and Drennen is lying by suggesting otherwise. The letter cited specific instances of extremism:
An individual was arrested in Illinois for aggravated battery and disorderly conduct during a school board meeting. During two separate school board meetings in Michigan, an individual yelled a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements, and another individual prompted the board to call a recess because of opposition to critical race theory.
In New Jersey, Ohio, and other states, anti-mask proponents are inciting chaos during board meetings. In Virginia, an individual was arrested, another man was ticketed for trespassing, and a third person was hurt during a school board meeting discussion distinguishing current curricula from critical race theory and regarding equity issues. In other states including Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Tennessee, school boards have been confronted by angry mobs and forced to end meetings abruptly.
In Ohio, an individual mailed a letter to a school board member labeling the return address on the envelope from a local neighborhood association and then enclosing threatening hate mail from another entity. This correspondence states that, “We are coming after you and all the members on the ... BoE [Board of Education].” This hate mail continues by stating, “You are forcing them to wear mask—for no reason in this world other than control. And for that you will pay dearly.” Among other incendiaries, this same threat also calls the school board member a “filthy traitor,” implies loss of pension funds, and labels the school board as Marxist. Earlier this month, a student in Tennessee was mocked during a board meeting for advocating masks in schools after testifying that his grandmother, who was an educator, died because of COVID-19. These threats and acts of violence >are affecting our nation’s democracy at the very foundational levels, causing school board members – many who are not paid – to resign immediately and/or discontinue their service after their respective terms.
It didn't matter that the MRC's potrayal of the letter had no real basis in reality -- it had a narrative, and it could make use of it. Kristine Marsh pumped up the dishonest narrative the same day as Drennen's piece:
As parents protest across the country against school mask mandates and dangerous political ideologies like Critical Race Theory being taught to their children, the liberal media has been out to demonize these concerned parents as menaces to society.
Such was the case Friday morning, as CNN invited the president of the National School Boards Association on to stoke fear against parent protesters, or as CNN called them, “angry mobs.” (Yes, this is the same network that refused to use that word or “riot” during violent left-wing riots last Summer.)
The complete dramatic chyron read on screen, “Intense Threat: Schools Beg Biden for FBI Protection Against Angry Mobs.” Angry parents probably just didn’t sound scary enough.
NSBA President Viola Garcia was on the program after she wrote a letter to President Biden yesterday demanding that the feds treat parent protesters as “domestic terrorists.”New Day host Brianna Keilar was very sympathetic to Garcia, even doing her a favor by hiding that gross part about calling parents “terrorists” from the interview.
The NSBA didn't call all parents "terrorists", and Marsh knows it. Like Drennen, she's lying by suggesting otherwise. Yet she repeated her lie in an Oct. 6 post: "Last week, the National School Board Association president called on President Biden to get the FBI involved in policing parents at school board meetings, labeling them as 'domestic terrorists.' This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland happily gave in to this demand."
So dedicated was the MRC to its bogus narrative that it lashed out when the falsity of it was proven. A curiously anonymous Oct. 6 item ranted:
The Associated Press is being criticized on Twitter for getting a fact-check wrong on a hot topic.
Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, detailed the National School Boards Association’s (NSBA) request that the federal government crackdown on anti-critical race theory. Rufo highlighted the NSBA’s labeling of parental protests as “domestic terrorism.”
The Associated Press quickly pushed back against the story, and issued a fact-check saying the NSBA “is not asking the Biden administration to label parents who protest school policies domestic terrorists.”
“Contrary to false claims circulating online, the National School Boards Association didn’t ask President Joe Biden to label protesting parents ‘domestic terrorists,’ and there’s no indication Biden or the Justice Department called them terrorists, either,” the AP tweeted.
The fact-check is easily disputed by the NSBA’s own letter, however, which suggested to the Biden administration that parent protests "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism." The letter also recommended prosecution of the parents under the "PATRIOT Act."
Attorney General Merrick Garland reportedly responded to the letter and instructed the FBI to monitor such protest, citing violent "threats."
Conservatives on Twitter slammed the AP for the incorrect fact-check.
How dare the AP call out the MRC's dishonesty! But note that the anonymous MRC writer cited no specific instances in which the NSBA letter stated it was calling parents who merely speak out at meetings "domestic terrorists" -- all that was offered up was that the idea was merely "suggested."
And of course "Conservatives on Twitter slammed the AP"; that's the mob response the MRC wants to provoke whenever the AP blows up a cherished right-wing narrative. But the AP fact-check was not "wrong" or "incorrect" -- it was very correct, and the MRC was lying. And it lied again in an Oct. 10 post -- also anonymously written -- complaining that 'Facebook is allegedly using a debunked fact-check from The Associated Press to censor posts for criticizing critical race theory." Again, the MRC offered no specific text from the letter explicitly demanding that parents who merely protest be labeled terrorists.
Why did the MRC writer of those posts choose to remain anonymous? Perhaps because he or she didn't want to put their name on an obvious lie.
Once again, the MRC's narrative became more important than the truth. Not a good look for an organization that claims to be all about "media research."
WND's Lively Claims Progressives Are Commanded By Satan Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Satanic agenda is to defile, degrade and destroy human beings individually and collectively because we are made in God's image. We are created "a little lower than the angels" in our bodies of flesh (Psalm 8), but destined to rule over and "judge angels" after our glorification (1 Corinthians 6:3). For this reason Satan seethes with hatred and jealously against us. He wants to hurt us to hurt God, but his ultimate goal is to fully unravel and "void" all the work of God related to human-kind.
We can see that plan at work in the physical realm. Human civilization can be compared to a mature tree whose growth and form reflect the natural laws and rational order of Creation, as described in Genesis. It's roots and trunk represent the most broad and fundamental legal and social foundations, and its ever more refined and delicate outgrowing branches are representative of humanity's spiritual maturation over time.
If we can picture this tree as symbolic of humanity's growth process from the coarse and crude social order of antiquity toward ever greater Christlikeness, then the so-called culture war is like a disease that works in reverse order to kill the tree, starting from the outer tips of the branches and progressing toward the roots, with Christian losses in the "culture war" reflecting a process of steady devolution.
God's plan and purpose is always redemptive: order from chaos. But in typical Satanic style, truth and falsehood are reversed as the demonic realm brings chaos from order, and his regressive process is called "progress" by his army of "progressives."
Smartmatic Sues Newsmax Over Bogus Election Fraud Claims Topic: Newsmax
Last December, Newsmax made an attempt to walk back the bogus conspiracy-mongering about voting-tech companies Dominion and Smartmatic it did in support of Donald Trump's even more bogus claims of election fraud. It didn't work: Not only has Dominion sued Newsmax for defamation over those claims, Smartmatic has joined the lawsuit parade. CNN reported last week:
Smartmatic filed suit against Newsmax Media in Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit charged that Newsmax "published dozens of reports indicating that Smartmatic participated in a criminal conspiracy to rig and steal the 2020 U.S. election and that its technology and software were used to switch votes from former President Trump to now President Biden."
The suit alleged that Newsmax promoted lies about the election "as a tool in its competition against Fox News."
Newsmax's ratings spiked when Fox identified Joe Biden as the president-elect. Newsmax sought to appeal to Trump fans by refusing to acknowledge Biden's win for weeks -- and, the lawsuit alleged, by defaming Smartmatic.
"What Newsmax said about Smartmatic was fake but the damage it caused to Smartmatic is real," Wednesday's filing said.
Smartmatic also sued Newsmax's right-wing competitor, One America News, for making similar claims. CNN also noted that Newsmax tried to play victim in its response to the lawsuit:
"While Newsmax has yet to receive or review the Smartmatic filing, Newsmax reported accurately on allegations made by well-known public figures, including the President, his advisors and members of Congress, as well as reporting on Smartmatic's claims in its defense," Newsmax said in a statement to CNN Business Wednesday. "Smartmatic's action against Newsmax today is a clear attempt to squelch the rights of a free press."
CNS' Anti-LGBT Managing Editor Cheers Like-Minded Folks In Africa Topic: CNSNews.com
Notoriouslyhomophobic CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman has found some more people who share his hatred for LGBT people -- and they're in Africa. So Chapman is writing all about them. He cheered an act of censorship in an Oct. 1 article:
A documentary film entitled I Am Samuel was banned from being shown or distributed in Kenya because it promotes "same-sex marriage as an acceptable way of life," which is in violation of Kenyan laws against homosexuality.
I Am Samuel is a clear and deliberate attempt by the producer to promote same-sex marriage as an acceptable way of life," said Christopher Wambua, chief executive officer of the Kenya Film Classification Board in a Sept. 23 statement.
"This attempt is evident through the repeated confessions by the gay couple that what they feel for each other is normal and should be embraced as a way of life," reads the statement. "The documentary ultimately features marriage of two men, and concludes with the dedication of the family to the gay community."
A description of the film reads, "Samuel, a gay Kenyan man, balances duty to his family with his love for his partner, Alex, in a country where their love is criminalized."
By deliberately advocating gay marriage in Kenya, "the film blatantly violates Article 165 of the Penal Code that outlaws homosexuality," said Wambua, and the rules of the Films and Stage Plays Act of Kenya.
Sexual acts between men constitute a felony in Kenya, punishable by up to five years in prison. In addition, gay marriage is prohibited, as is the adoption of children by homosexual couples.
Unsurprisingly, Chapman offered no dissenting views to the country's act of censorship. His endorsement of censorship would seem to run counter to the the agenda of his employer, the Media Research Center, which insists that conservatives are victims of "censorship" on social media.
In an Oct. 28 article, Chapman seems quite jazzed at the possibility of a different African country jailing people for not being heterosexual:
The Republic of Ghana in West Africa is considering legislation that would strongly punish homosexuality, including prison terms of up to 10 years for people who identify as LGBT, penalties for people who defend them, and prohibitions against the publication of pro-homosexual materials. The legislation is likely to become law, according to various media reports.
Ghana's population is about 77% Christian (Protestant and Catholic) and 16% Muslim. The country already has anti-homosexuality laws on the books from when the British ruled there, but those laws reportedly are rarely enforced.
Sam George, a member of Ghana's parliament who proposed the new legislation, said he was motivated in part to counter the increasing "advocacy" and "propaganda" being peddled by Ghana's LGBT activists.
"We are just bringing our laws up to speed to ensure that so long as our national position has not changed and still homosexuality is an illegality, let's make the laws reflective of that," told Deutsche Welle(DW.com).
Surprisingly, Chapman did mention criticism of the move by human rights groups, but then tried to justify depriving people of their human rights by citing religion and polls of residents:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
Many conservative Protestant and charismatic churches, as well as Islam, hold essentially the same view as the Catholic Church on homosexuality: It is contrary to God's design and will.
A 2016-2018 survey by Afrobarometer asked Ghanians about acceptance of homosexuals as neighbors: 92.54% said they would "not tolerate" it and only 7.17% said they would.
A 2013 survey showed that 96% of Ghanians said society should not accept homosexuality.
Chapman didn't explain why popular opinion or religious views should take precedence over someone's human rights.
MRC Can't Stop Insisting That COVID Misinformation Is 'So-Called' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has continued to push the narrative that there is no objective definition of misinformation, that it's all siubjective and partisan and "so-called." Gabriela Pariseau huffed in an Aug. 19 post:
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told CBS This Morning host Gayle King that his platform has removed over 18 million pieces of so-called “misinformation,” but King appeared to want more. She pressed Zuckerberg to reveal how many people view the content before it is taken down.
Zuckerberg bragged to King about how much content his platform has removed: “We've taken down more than 18 million pieces of misinformation.” King praised the enormous number as “good” and said she thinks “everybody agrees that Facebook has done a lot to combat misinformation.” But she wanted to know how many people have “acted upon” the information viewed and shared. King then said that Facebook announced it has actually removed 20 million pieces of so-called “misinformation” after she conducted the interview.
Alexander Hall took it further by going full anti-vaxxer in a Sept. 29 post, declaring misinformaton to be mere "dissent" and the fact that COVID vaccines are safe and effective as just "the left’s preferred narrative":
Big Tech has been hard at work censoring content that runs afoul of the left’s preferred narrative on COVID-19. Now, YouTube is stepping things up a notch and will reportedly begin removing videos questioning any approved medical vaccine.
COVID-19 turned countless institutions into dystopian enforcers, and YouTube is no exception.
YouTube announced Sept. 29 that it will censor so-called “medical misinformation” concerning vaccinations. The new content purges will cover a wide array of vaccine skepticism: “Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed.”
Hall did not explain why spreading deliberate misinformation is "dissent" instead of the lie that it is.
In an Oct. 12 post, Autumn Johnson declared that "Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that she wants more censorship from Big Tech giants like Facebook," having "joined President Joe Biden and other liberals in calling for more censorship of so-called misinformation online." Johnson went on to put "disinformation" in scare quotes despite offering no evidence that anything that Clinton identified as disinformaton was not.
Hall used an Oct. 19 post to hype that Twitter "reportedly censored Grabien Founder and Editor Tom Elliot for questioning the COVID-19 narrative" -- he offered no proof this was the case, only the ranting of other right-wing activists making the unsupported claim. Nevertheless, he added; "Big Tech has used COVID-19 as a carte-blanche excuse to restrict speech that they have deemed to be dangerous misinformation. Yet, at the same time, some of the tech giants have allowed actual dangerous propaganda from foreign powers."
Catherine Salgado played the "so-called" card in an Oct. 27 post:
It’s not the first time a Big Tech executive bragged about censoring speech online, and it likely won’t be the last. A YouTube executive testified at a Senate hearing yesterday that the platform had removed more than one million videos for so-called COVID-19 “misinformation.”
YouTube Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy Leslie Miller testified at an Oct. 26 U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation hearing that the Google-owned platform had removed over a million videos with alleged “COVID misinfo,” including over 130,000 videos on “Covid vaccine misinfo.” The hearing was titled, “Protecting Kids Online: Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.”
Salgado went on to huff: "YouTube has repeatedly censored users for alleged COVID-19 'misinformation.' YouTube censored a Hoover Institute doctor for challenging the COVID-19 narrative in September 2020." That's a reference to a video of onetime Trump COVID adviser (despite having no expertise in virology) Scott Atlas, which the MRC ranted about when it happened in September 2020. But the MRC censored the fact that the video did, in fact, contain documented misinformation; a YouTube spokesperson pointed out that Atlas' video contained a statement "disputing existing international and local health authority guidance by falsely stating that a certain age group cannot transmit the virus."
CNS Dings Pelosi For Quoting Gospel -- But Links To Wrong Bible Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hates Nancy Pelosi for many reasons, but mainly because -- in the eyes of the uber-Catholics who run the "news" organization -- she's insufficiently Catholic because she doesn't believe in imposing the Catholic Church's anti-abortion agenda upon a country that is mostly non-Catholic. It's been wating a holy war on her, calling in the archbishop of San Francisco as backup, and even gets outraged whenver she says in public that she's Catholic.
CNS has even lashed out at Pelosi for quoting the Bible. This happened in an anonymously written Oct. 21 article:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) participated in a press event on the “Build Back Better Act” in front of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, where she quoted from the Gospel of Matthew.
“Not this past Sunday, but the Sunday before this one, the Gospel was about the children in the Catholic Church,” said Pelosi.
“It was about the children,” she said. “And it talked about the Pharisees–hypocrites that they were--the Pharisees in long robes saying that children of divorced parents and all the rest were not as worthy as other children.
“And that's when Christ said, ‘Suffer little children to come unto me,’” said Pelosi. “All children–all children in our country are about our country's future. And we want to make sure that all children have the opportunity that they deserve.
“They're all blessings containing their spark of divinity,” said Pelosi.
The funny thing about this attack is that the article's link on "Gospel of Matthew" is to a an online King James Version of the Bible. But the Catholic Church does not use the King James Version, which was commissioned by, yes, King James for use in the Church of England -- which was created by King Henry VIII out of the Catholic Church so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon after he was unable to receive an annulment of the marriage in the Catholic Church -- and omits certiain books from the Old Testament that Catholics recognize but Protestants don't. Catholic Masses use a different version, the New American Bible.
You'd think the uber-Catholics who run CNS would know enough to not make such a basic theological mistake. Apparently not.
NEW ARTICLE: So Nice, The MRC Attacked Them Twice Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Joseph Vazquez bashed a New York Times commentary in two posts a month apart. He also praised a ProPublica story for exposing George Soros' finances -- then attacked it for exposing the finances of other rich people. Read more >>
WND's Losing Battle Against Google Is Its Latest Extinction-Level Event Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been squabbling with Google for years, from an early battle over Google wanting to pull its ads from WND over all the race-baiting it was doing to blaming Google for "censoring" WND content in its searches (when all Google wants to do is improve its product by deprecating factually dubious, conspiracy-driven content). The war between WND and Google's ad services flared up again a few months ago when Google once again refused to host its ads on WND because of the aforementioned low-quality content, and now Google has made its final decision, as a panic-stricken Nov. 2 WND article detailed (though not so panic-stricken that it didn't forget to portray WND as a victim):
Over the last few years, Big Tech has unleashed many different attacks on WND, the pioneering Christian journalism organization now in its 25th year. From classifying WND as an "extremist group," to writing WND out of its search algorithms, to de-monetizing WND's YouTube channel, to confining WND to "Facebook jail" for over a year, the attacks never end.
However, as of this week, Big Tech has upped its game: Google has now officially de-monetized WND – permanently.
That could end up cutting WND's online ad revenue roughly in half, since not only does de-monetization mean the removal of all Google ads, but the removal of ads from alternate advertising services as well, since many of these companies utilize Google Ad Manager to serve their ads. So, what did WND do to merit such a punishment?
According to Google's "Violation Explanation," WND is loaded down with "dangerous or derogatory content," as well as "misrepresentative content" and "unreliable and harmful claims."
WND is misleading here by claiming that Google Ads "demonitized" WND. That's not what happened -- Google and WND had a business agreement, and WND violated the terms of that agreement. Typically, if one party violates the terms of a business deal, the other party has every right to terminate that deal. That's what happened here.
Unspririsingly, WND served up its own factually deficient interpretation of the terms of Google's cutoff:
We do not allow content," explains Google, "that incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." Or which "harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals."
WND's longtime vice president and managing editor, David Kupelian, translated: "That means, dare to report honestly on the transgender agenda – where men can give birth to babies, where boys in dresses raping teenage girls in school restrooms is ignored by the school board, where ‘biological men' can compete in and destroy women's athletics, and where a man who identifies as a woman is proclaimed to be ‘the first female 4-star admiral in history' – and you're ‘inciting hatred' and ‘promoting discrimination.'"
With regard to WND's supposedly "unreliable and harmful claims," Google says that it does "not allow content that makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process." Or which "promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus."
"That," explains Kupelian, "means reporting truthfully and accurately on the Biden administration's insane mismanagement of the COVID pandemic – from imposing vaccine mandates that are shutting down the country right now, to suppressing early outpatient treatment of COVID with inexpensive, proven-safe-and-effective medications that could have prevented hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths in America, to pretending ‘natural immunity' isn't real even though 92 studies prove it's superior to vaccine immunity – is not allowed. Only the official narrative – the one that is failing at every turn to end the pandemic, while introducing a level of tyranny never before seen in America – is allowed."
Thanks, Mr. Kupelian, for demonstrating the transphobic hate that justified Google's monetary cutoff (though that's probably not what he was going for). He's also lying about reporting "truthfully and accurately" on COVID; we've documented exampleafterexample of WND peddling misinformation and outright lies on the subject.
WND finally got around to admitting one key component of Google's ceasing of its business agreement:
Strangely, one key component of WND's supposedly "dangerous, derogatory, unreliable and harmful" content, Google contends, has to do with comments posted by WND readers. If, for example, a reader posts his or her personal views in WND's commenting section, and if those comments are interpreted by Google to be racist or derogatory or unreliable, WND is held responsible.
As a result of being de-monetized by Google, WND has temporarily suspended all commenting on WND stories to give its tech team the time to investigate how best to bring back WND commenting while, hopefully, not losing all the advertising that helps support the site.
"To be clear," comments Kupelian: "Once we bring commenting back online, we will not be censoring comments (unless of course they're pornographic, obscene, openly racist, promoting violence, etc.), but rather, we're working on a technological fix that will allow us to restore commenting while also allowing WND to continue to exist."
Does this purported commitment to non-censorship of comments mean WND will stop blocking us from posting comments? Not likely -- WND doesn't want us telling the truth about it directly to its readers. Meanwhile, the article repeated Kupelian's lie that WND reports "truthfully":
Of course, it is not merely reader comments to which Google objects. A good measure of WND's news reporting published daily currently focuses on the three big topics Google cites as most troubling: "COVID misinformation," allegations of voter fraud, and the transgender issue.
"For the record, WND will not cease, nor slow down in any way, from reporting truthfully on these issues," says Kupelian. "We cannot betray our very reason for existing as a news organization – reporting on the crucial developments that matter most to our readers, and which are currently ripping our country apart and destroying the next generation. We intend to keep on doing what we've done for 25 years, and doing it boldly, accurately and professionally – and with a Christian spirit."
We'vealsobusted WND for spreading lies and misinformation on "allegations of voter fraud." Unsurprisingly, the article ended with begging for money for the "WND News Center," which was begun way too late to make a significant dent in WND's current financial situation.
Editor Joseph Farah somewhat lazily repeated much of this in his Nov. 4 column, with additional counterfactual whining: "What they've done to WND is tyranny – nothing short of it. No business – certainly none with unprecedented profits – has any claim to such powers." (He also begs for money.)
As a private business like WND, Google has every right to run it the way it wants -- which includes giving low priority to WND's low-quality "news" in its searches and terminating business agreements with companies that repeatedly violate its terms. Nobody is obligated to do business with WND, as should be painfully obvious by now to Farah, Kupelian and Co.Only at WND would normal business practices that don't go its way be depicted as "tyranny."
WND created the financial hole it has found itself in for the past few years. It has no one to blame but itself for what may be the endgame it now faces.
MRC Promotes More Right-Wing Meltdowns From Washed-Up Musicians Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a bit of a thing for washed-up rock stars who go all right-wing and/or anti-vaxxer, despite the fact that they no longer have much of an audience that anyone cares about. Nevertheless, Gabriel Hays promoted one in a Sept. 15 post:
Biden’s blunder in Afghanistan was so disastrous that it has already inspired musicians to write songs about it.
One artist moved to create out of anger and disappointment in the 46th president’s braindead pullout of Afghanistan was lead singer/songwriter of the group “Five For Fighting,” John Ondrasik.
Ondrasik, who wrote the unofficial 9/11 anthem “Superman (It’s Not Easy)" composed the new 2021 track “Blood On My Hands” after the suicide blast which killed 13 U.S. service members outside Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan less than three weeks ago.
Talking to conservative outlet On Balance, Ondrasik remarked, “I was angry and frustrated. And did what songwriters do. I went to my piano and banged out some chords.”
Hays even helped Ondrasik -- who is essentially a one-hit wonder and hasn't had a major hit in close to 20 years -- play victim by hyping his claim that his Facebook ads promoting the song were flagged for divisve political content: "Yep, so now you can’t post songs slamming dumb*ss politicians on Facebook. Sounds like a convenient ploy to keep the heat off of heads of state who totally deserve it from mainstream artists."
Two days later, Hays found another largely irrelevant oldster to gush over:
The lead singer and guitarist from Megadeth, and one of the founding members of Metallica, Dave Mustaine is actually embracing the spirit of metal and sticking it straight to the freaking man. During a recent concert in New Jersey, Mustaine gave a speech about how Americans are living in “tyranny” right now.
Mustaine has been writing songs about government tyranny, the military industrial complex, and the new world order for more than thirty years, so this not a big stretch.
In a set on September 15, a show featuring blistering metal classics and some new tracks, Mustaine made a point to share a moment with the crowd and bask in the unity that we’ve all been missing since the outbreak of the Wuhan virus.
He remarked about the power of being in a raucous crowd of like-minded people away from the bureaucratic nags who demand that we stop the fun because it risks spreading Coronavirus.
Mustaine began by asking, “is there anybody here besides me who’s having a great fucking time?!” The crowd roared back affirmatively, flashing devil horns signs and cheering him on. For both the metalhead and crowd, it’s clear it had been too long without a show.
“But I just wanna tell you how great it is. Look around you guys. Look to your right, look to your left and look how wonderful it is,” he said. “We’re all here together, we’re not in fucking bags, you know? We’re not freaking out and we’re not yelling at people, ‘Where’s your fucking mask?’” he added.
Funny how the MRC is suddenly cool with obscene language and flashing of devil's horns when it's done in service of right-wing narratives.H ays continued to gush:
It became more clear that the Megadeth frontman was speaking to the political moment we are facing with the leftist authoritarians in our society, especially when he dropped that big “T” word. “See the thing right now -- what’s going on is tyranny. This is called tyranny. Look it up when you get home,” he urged his fans.
“And tyranny isn’t only in government. Tyranny right now is in the schools and tyranny is in the medical business,” he explained. He's correct. As Americans, seeing critical race theory and enforced mandates burdening our kids in public school, and seeing any semblance of open debate about vaccinations being absolutely crushed in the public square, we recognize the tyranny.
Mustaine continued: “We have the power, especially us … heavy metal fans, we have the power to change things.” Well as long as Mustaine and others like him are sticking out their middle fingers to the ambitious authoritarians in office, there’s plenty of hope.
But as Rolling Stone noted, the state in which Mustaine made his rant has seen 27,000 people die from COVID, and Mustaine himself is a survivor of throat cancer, a pre-existing condition that makes him more susceptible to catching COVID. That "tyranny" he's raging against just might keep him alive -- not that Hays cares about Mustaine's health.
Further, by contrast, the lead singer of the band co-eadlining with Megadeth on this tour, Lamb of God, urged concertgoers to get vaccinated and "wear a fucking mask." Hays somehow forgot to mention that.
So, which singer cares more about the health and safety of himself and his audience? Who's more likely to be alive at the end of this tour? Care to speculate, Gabe?
By contrast, Hays was much, much harsher to an old musician who failed to spout right-wing talking points. He sneered in a July 28 post:
Musician and peace and love enthusiast David Crosby is currently moonlighting as a bloodthirsty fascist who thinks about shooting people who promote politics he doesn’t believe in. Yeah sure, the first member of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young embodies that hippy lifestyle, though today it seems in a way less reminiscent of John Lennon and more akin to Charles Manson.
In a recent interview with The Daily Beast, the songwriter who inflicted “Almost Cut My Hair” on the world had some brutal words for the creator of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, saying that he should be “ taken out and shot” because of all the fake news being pushed out of his network. Oh he also went on about how evil Trump is.
Geez, Another has-been with a negative opinion of right-wingers? Ooooooh, Daily Beast., talk about exclusive scoop!
But yes, how’s that for partisan journalism? Begin your interview with the mustachioed musician talking about his music and then switch right into talking about Trump. Readers could see that Crosby knew that this was going into cheap political clickbait, when he responded to the Trump pivot, with a simple, exhausted, “Ah, jeez.”
Yeah we hear you, Croz. No one wants to do this.
Yet Hays did it anyway. Go figure.
Hays' headline called Crosby a "cranky old hippie," even though he's no more cranky than Ondrasik or Mustaine. Also note that Hays didn't describe the right-wing rants from Ondrasik and Mustaine as "cheap political clickbait" the way he did Crosby's, even though it is by virtue of the fact that Hays fell for it and ate it up.
CNS Still Playing Mask Gotcha With Biden Topic: CNSNews.com
One of thte pettiest, nitpickiest fronts of CNSNews.com's war on President Biden is its juvenile need to play mask gotcha -- loudly calling out any time, however brief, that Biden is not wearing a mask in public. That pettiness has continued. Susan Jones did the deed in a Sept. 30 article:
A maskless President Joe Biden strolled into Nationals Park on Wednesday evening, briefly interrupting the annual congressional baseball game during the second inning.
The unmasked president leaned in to kiss an unmasked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; then he mingled closely with unmasked Democrats, both at the edge of the field and in their dugout.
As he made the rounds, he was greeted with cheers and some boos.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, Biden also greeted (unmasked) Republicans on the other side of the field. Republicans won the game, 13-12.
Biden received his COVID booster shot on Monday. In fact, he was wearing a black face mask when he rolled up his sleeve.
The city-owned Nationals Park says all ticketed fans are required to wear an approved face covering at all times when in an indoor area, regardless of vaccination status, unless they are actively eating or drinking.
Melanie Arter served up her dose of gotcha in an Oct. 18 article:
President Joe Biden and the first lady were caught on camera walking maskless through a D.C. restaurant on Saturday, despite the city’s indoor mask mandate.
The incident took place at the Fiola Mare restaurant in Georgetown.
When asked to explain why, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki downplayed it, saying, “there are moments when we all don’t put masks back on as quickly as we should.”
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked Psaki, “There’s a mask requirement inside D.C. restaurants. Yet, President Biden and the first lady were not wearing masks while walking around a D.C. restaurant on Saturday. Why?”
Over at CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, Curtis Houck gushed over Doocy's mask gotcha, proving that it's a right-wing talking point and not actual news. And that, of course, is why CNS has repeatedly pushed this pettiness.
MRC Gets Mad When People Said Biden Speech Didn't Suck Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so filled with hate for President Biden that it even lashes out at him for simply giving a speech and that anyone would dare praise him for giving one. Tim Graham complained in a Sept. 21 post:
MSNBC launched right out of President Biden’s speech at the United Nations with praise from “objective” newspaper journalists about it hit “all the right notes,” that “you couldn’t get the words, the sheet of music much better than this.”
New York Times diplomatic correspondent Michael Crowley seized on how Biden could say America is no longer at war, which is at contrast with 20 years of American war-making after 9/11...including (ahem) eight years of Obama-Biden:
Notice that they're saying Biden's globalist rhetoric is music to the ears of the United Nations audience, and liberals don't question whether the aspirations of the United Nations audience can be quite a contrast with what a domestic audience wants.
No one said "Biden uncorked a lot of empty platitudes about inflection points in history and global challenges, and no one will remember this by next Tuesday." Because MSNBC would find that too cynical....when Democrats are in charge.
Joe Biden hit the low standards that NBC apparently has for the Democrat on Tuesday, politely praising his speech to the United Nations as “normal,” “standard” and “good.” The reporters were clearly doing their best to offer the standard liberal media talking points expected for a Democratic President. However, Richard Engel and Andrea Mitchell also offered some concern and doubt in the wake of the Afghanistan disaster.
This was a normal speech. We can disagree on some of the points. But this was a normal, standard outlining of American priorities about democracy, about internationalism, working with our allies.” He contrasted, “Last time, President Trump said, ‘No other president has gotten more done in two years.’ And people started laughing.”
That's right -- on just over an hour's time, the MRC cranked out two posts about a speech. That's because in the MRC's highly skewed right-wing bubble, it is forbidden to praise a liberal.
Because Joseph Farah needs to create another supposed victim of President Biden, he wrote in an Oct. 4 column:
You know the signature picture from the Afghanistan debacle.
It was the Marine who helped hoist a baby over the walls of the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul last month.
Well now he's under investigation for making a cameo appearance with Donald Trump at a rally in Georgia Sept. 25.
His name is Lance Cpl. Hunter Clark, and he was simply helping guard the Afghanistan airport in August. A picture of him went viral as he helped save a baby lifted up by an Afghani parent outside of the airport walls.
Later, Trump invited Clark, who is from Georgia, up on stage to say a few words.
"We're also honored to be joined by one of the Marines who bravely served in Kabul during the withdrawal and helped evacuate children over the airport and over the airport wall," Trump told the crowd. "You saw him, he did a great job, Lance Corporal Hunter Ian Clark. Lance Corporal, get up here!"
Clark introduced himself as "the guy that pulled the baby over the wall," and said it was "definitely, probably one of the greatest things I've done in my entire life."
The Marine choked up as he said: "I just want to thank all the support from y'all. It really means a lot and I'm glad to be home now."
He then shook Trump's hand as the crowd chanted: "USA!"
Clark didn't endorse Trump. Nothing else was said about the appearance. But he became another enemy of the people to Biden – another American soldier who maybe likes Trump.
"Maybe" likes Trump? If Clark was not a Trump superfan -- who perhaps was summoned by Trump himself -- there would be no reason for him to be there.
Farah went on to complain: "Clark did not wear his Marine uniform while on stage with Trump, and he did not campaign for any political candidate – even though the former president was there to rally for three different Republican candidates in Georgia." Sure is strange that Trump knew Clark would be there even though he was wearing his civvies, isn't it? It's as if Clark was actively taking part in a political event -- which active-duty military members aren't allowed to do.
Farah finally got around to mentioning the even bigger reason Clark is in trouble:
[Capt. Kelton Cochran, a spokesman for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit that Clark beongs to] also said that Clark was not the Marine shown in the viral photo from Aug. 19 of an infant being pulled over the wall. Multiple Marines were seen helping desperate Afghans to safety during the airlift, and Clark did not provide specific details of when he helped the child.
You can see what a big offense this is in today's military.
He'll probably be charged with treason for claiming credit for the baby hoist. Who knows?
Yes, the military does tend to not take it well when members are caught lying. It's not necessarily treason as Farah insists, but it does look like a recipe for a dishonorable discharge.
Of course, Farah concludes by inventing a conspiracy, blaming Biden for the misbehavior of a low-ranking member of thte military:
Do you see a pattern here?
I can't believe it! Who would have thought it would come to this in America?
Can Joe Biden be this petty? Is there anybody safe from his jealousy, this rage against Trump?
Where will it end?
If Clark hadn't try to steal glory he didn't earn at a rally held by a man who tried to foment an insurrection against the United States, he wouldn't be in this predicament. He's simply being held accountable for his behavior, all of which was proscribed against in military conduct procedures long before Biden became president. Why is Farah so mad about that?
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck was a Doocy-gasm mood for his summary of the Oct. 18 White House press briefing with a round of mask gotcha:
On Monday’s Psaki Show, Fox News’s Peter Doocy returned to the Briefing Room (after colleague Jacqui Heinrich took a turn last week) and, as usual, he didn’t make it easy on Press Secretary Jen Psaki as they went toe-to-toe over President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden walking maskless in a Washington D.C. restaurant despite a citywide mandate and the President’s hypocrisy in calling for prosecution of those who defy January 6-related subpoenas.
As always, Doocy immediately cut to the chase with a short but biting question “There is mask requirement inside D.C. restaurants, yet President Biden and the First Lady were not wearing masks while walking around a D.C. restaurant on Saturday. Why?”
Psaki brushed it off as images from when they were “walking out of a restaurant after they had eaten, masks in hand where they had not yet put them back on yet, so I would say, of course, there are moments when we all don't put mask back on as quickly as we should.”
She added that people shouldn’t “lose the forest through the trees here” when the real focus should be on both vaccinating people and instituting mass vaccine mandates.
Given the level of mask hypocrisy over the past year and a half, Doocy wasn’t having it:
Needless to say, Doocy (and Houck) would never have treated Kayleigh McEnany the same way or played a similar gotcha game with Donald Trump, and Houck would never concede that a hated "liberal media" reporter "wasn't having it" regarding anything McEnany ever said. But Houck devoted his entire post to fawning over Doocy, going on to gush over his badgering Psaki aboutthe idea of prosecutingTrump administration officials and various hangers-on who are defying subpoenas from the congressional committee invesigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
On Oct. 19, Houck cheered that Doocy was pushing more right-wing talking points:
On Tuesday, it was a spicy day inside the White House Briefing Room as Fox’s Peter Doocy brought the heat against Press Secretary Jen Psaki on coronavirus vaccine mandates, flights for illegal immigrants, and the Treasury Department monitoring our bank accounts. And as we’ve seen plenty of times, Doocy received help as other reporters tackling Biden’s influence on the Justice Department, his Build Back Better plan, and the supply chain crisis.
Doocy started with new reporting from the New York Post that government flights of illegal immigrants were landing in places like Westchester County, New York in the dead of night: “Why is the administration flying thousands of migrants from the border to Florida and New York in the middle of the night?”
Psaki went the condescending route, quipping that she’s “not sure that it's in the middle of the night, but let me tell you what's happening here.”
Did Houck ever criticize McEnany for being "condescending"? Not that we recall -- heck, he probably loved her condescension.
Houck quicky added at the end: "At the back end of the briefing, the penultimate exchange featured Newsmax’s Emerald Robinson talking about Buttigieg’s unannounced paternity leave, but instead of engaging, Psaki made clear that she, at best, loathes her. But as a less biased reporter pointed out, the reason Psaki didn't "engage" with Robinson was that she continued to shout questions after her allotted time had ended while Psaki moved on to another reporter. And, really, Robinson has amply earned the contempt of people by spewing COVID conspiracy theories, which means she has never earned the respect Houck demands she receive simply for being a right-wing reporter.
For the Oct. 21 hearing, Houck had a different target in deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, but was having the same old Doocy-gasms over his slavish recitation of right-0wing talking points -- mixed in with praise for Doocy's wife, also a biased Fox News reporter, which sounds a bit awkward:
With The Psaki Show off on Thursday, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary and former MSNBCer Karine Jean-Pierre filled in, but it wasn’t an easy day as she faced incoming fire from not only Fox’s Peter Doocy, but Doocy’s other half in wife Hillary Vaughn of the Fox Business Network as the two brought the heat with hardballs on inflation, the supply chain crisis, and our country’s overall economic malaise.
Doocy began with immigration and wanted to know whether it’s that “the year Joe Biden was sworn in as President promising more a humane immigration system is the same year that an all-time record 1.7 million migrants have been detained at the southern border.”
Houck gave Doocy and Vaughn more cookies for spouting right-wing narratives in the Oct. 22 briefing:
After a day off and a guest appearance by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, The Psaki Show was back with a new episode on Friday and, for the second day in a row, the Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy and wife Hillary Vaughn of the Fox Business Network applied the heat to the Briefing Room podium.
Other reporters asked insightful questions about Biden’s poll numbers, the DHS investigation into the fake whips story, gas prices, press access, but it was Doocy who battled Psaki over vaccine mandates and President Biden not having visited the U.S. southern border while Vaughn focused on the economic pinch Americans have found themselves in ahead of the holiday season.
Most of Doocy’s time focused on immigration, but he led off with news that “[t]he leader of the union representing FedEx, UPS, and DHL is saying that supply chain problems are going to get worse with labor shortages right before the holidays unless the President postpones the requirement to get vaccinated by December 8.”
With that said, Doocy wanted to know: “[W]hat is more important to this President: The vaccine mandates or fixing the supply chain as fast as possible?”
Psaki deflected, arguing that’s “not actually what we've seen at companies that have implemented these vaccine requirements” and instead the labor market would be in worse shape if the Covid vaccine wasn’t mandated.
Houck did cheer other right-wing messaging as well: "In two other notable moments, the New York Post's Steven Nelson called out the White House's ongoing curtailing of press access for Biden events in the East Room and the Daily Caller's Shelby Talcott inquired about the Department of Homeland Security investigation into the (fake) whips story that's now a month late." Cookies all around for staying on message!
WND's Brown Wimps Out, Defends Anti-Vaxx Misinformers In The Name Of 'Freedom Of Speech' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Michael Brown did his best to sound ominous in his Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily column:
The Sept. 29 lead headline on DrudgeReport was even more apocalyptic and alarming than normal, featuring a giant YouTube logo, front and center, covered by a red "cancel" circle. The headline declared, "YOUTUBE BANS ALL 'ANTI-VAX' CONTENT.'"
Secondary headlines also sounded ominous tones: "Sydney warns unvaccinated face total social isolation IDEFINITELY when lockdown ends …"; "UNITED AIRLINES firing employees who refuse shot"; "Biden Order Mandate Enforcement With Up To $700,000 Fine …" – and more.
Are things really as bad as they seem? In a word, yes.
At this point, Brown had the opportunity to tone things down and stand with reality against anti-vaxxers and partisan alarmists who want to maliciously frame public health measures as issues of freedom. But he turned wishy-washy in explaining his own position on COVId vaccines:
But let me say at the outset that I am not an anti-vaxxer myself. My official, oft-stated, public position on the COVID vaccines is this: Do the research, pray for wisdom, and make an informed decision. As for my personal choices, I'm keeping those personal, since I do not have the health expertise to influence others in either direction.
If he's not an anti-vaxxer, why is he afraid to admit wether or not he has gotten the vaccine? Because he's virtue-signaling -- he apparently believes he has a significant number of anti-vaxxers in his target audience, and he doesn't want to offend anyone, which is why he took the "do the research" copout (which is an anti-vaxxer trope).
So, unsurprisingly, he goes on to frame anti-vaxxer misinformation and disinformation as just another viewpoint that deserves ewual treatment:
The rationale behind the decision is this: "Misinformation researchers have for years said the popularity of anti-vaccine content on YouTube was contributing to growing skepticism of lifesaving vaccines in the United States and around the world. Vaccination rates have slowed and about 56 percent of the U.S. population has had two shots, compared with 71 percent in Canada and 67 percent in the United Kingdom."
But what if it is not just misinformation? What if there are genuine scientific concerns? What if there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence supporting those concerns? And, in any case, who decides what is and is not "misinformation"? More importantly, who decides which "misinformation" is permitted and which is forbidden?
Should a video with blatant misinformation about the Bible be permitted on YouTube, even if it will lead many people astray spiritually? (The answer is yes, it should be permitted.)
What about a video with misleading information about UFOs? Should that be permitted? (Again, the answer is yes.)
But if you have genuine, well-researched, carefully considered issues with vaccines in general, not to mention COVID vaccines in particular, your content will be banned on YouTube.
This really is ominous.
That's a bizarre argument. "Misinformation" about the Bible or UFOs doesn't kill people -- but misinformation about vaccines does.
He then hearkened back to a 2018 commentary defending misinformer and liar Alex Jones to argue that nobody should ever face accountability for spreading lils and misinformation, then concluding with the mention of one more right-wing martyr:
In the past, a major newspaper like USA Today may have had 2-3 million subscribers, while, to this day, major network news shows may draw 5-7 million viewers per network. In contrast, YouTube currently has 2.29 billion users, meaning that when YouTube bans you, it really hurts.
Add to this the fact that we began this year with Twitter banning the most powerful man on the planet from its platform – the sitting president of the United States – and you realize that things are quickly spiraling out of control.
Let us, then, push back with wisdom, with truth, with courage, with strategic action and – for people of faith – with prayer.
Seems like Brown ought to be praying for the courage to call out those who spread misinformation -- and the courage to tell people whether or not he's vaccinated.
MRC Invents Conspiracy Over Fox News Drone Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro was quick to go conspiratorial in a Sept. 16 post:
In an apparent attempt to cover up the border crisis, the Biden administration has shut down Fox News’s ability to fly their drone over the U.S.-Mexico border to report on the border crisis, which swelled in August and again in the last 24-hours.
On Thursday’s Special Report, national correspondent Bill Melugin showed the over 9,000-person crowd of illegals under the international bridge. But on Tucker Carlson Tonight, two hours later, he was forced to report that the FAA had issued a temporary flight restrictionor TFR over the entire area.
While on with Carlson, he broke the news that the FAA was shutting them down. “What does that mean? It means our drone can no longer fly and show those images,” he said. “It is a two-week TFR, and according to the FAA, it is for special security reasons. We’ve reached out to the FAA to get a little clarification on what the heck that means.”
Noting that the “timing on this, the location, a little bit curious,” Melugin explained that they’ve been there almost “seven months now” and there’s “never been an issue” with them flying the drone. “All of a sudden, the last 24-hours, we start showing images at this bridge and a TFR goes up, we can no longer fly. When we can update from the FAA we will be sure to let you know.”
Because he is a dishonest right-wing hack who is effectively moonlights as a Fox News PR person, Fondacaro offered no actual evidence that the ban was designed to specifically retaliate against Fox News. He waited until nearly the end of his piece before mentioning that the FAA had responded to all the right-wing conspiracy-mongering by issuing a statement that everyone's drones -- not just those from Fox News -- were grounded because they were interfering with law enforcement and that the "media is able to call the FAA to make requests to operate in the area." Fondacaro sneered in response: "Now, given that the FAA says that the media can make a request for flight clearance, we have to wait and see if Fox News gets granted that access."
Because the entirety of the MRC is effectively the PR division of Fox News, Tim Graham devoted his Sept. 17 podcast to trying to advance the nonexistent conspiracy theory, summarized in the post promoting it as "Team Biden trying to shut down the Fox News camera exposing their maladministration of the border." Graham went on to rant: "It is one of those things where you say, hmmm, I think we can all imagine if we flip the script on this how this would be handled," playing imaginary whataboutism speculating how a Trump administration would be treated had it done something similar.
The funny thing is that Fox News followed pricedure, applied for flight clearance and was granted it the same day Graham went on a tirade about it. And the MRC never mentioned it again -- so it's yet another situation where the MRC hyped something that turned out not to have thepartisan legs it hoped so it just went silent without bothering to tell readers that the situation essentially resolved itself.