Liars, Part 2: The MRC Perpetuates Its School Board Falsehood Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center chose to dishonestly portray a letter written by the National School Boards Association expressing concern over increasingly violent attacks against school board mebers over mask mandates and manufactured right-wing outrage over critical race theory as the group calling all parents terrorist for merely asking questions. The MRC spent the rest of October pushing that false narrative.
Last week, both CBS Evening News and NBC’s Today show peddled a smear against concerned parents protesting and rallying against their local school boards, parroting comments from the National School Boards Association attacking them as taking part in “domestic terrorism.” Now with the Biden Justice Department sicking the FBI’s anti-terrorism assets on American parents, those networks didn’t want to share how the parents they besmirched were fighting back.
But with the federal government this week showing they’re determined to fight against parental rights using lies and smears, the parents weren’t going to put up with it.
“Breaking tonight, the increasing pushback against the Biden administration over its efforts to stifle dissent on the part of parents against school boards disregarding their wishes over the children's education,” announced Fox News fill-in anchor Mike Emanuel on Wednesday’s Special Report.
Fox News correspondent Mark Meredith reported that Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke “says the Justice Department stands by its recent memo directing the government to do more to protect school board members from what it sees as an escalating threat of violence.”
The next day, Scott Whitlock huffed: "All three network newscasts this week buried the move by radical Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate and harass parents who speak out on issues like Critical Race Theory at school board meetings across the country. A Justice Department memo slimed those challenging CRT and other issues as possibly being part of an insurgent 'violent' effort to 'intimidate' schools." But as we detailed, the NSBA cited specific threats of violence and intimidation, and it never portrayed all parenbs who speak out as domestic terrorists.
Fondacaro returned to lie some more on Oct. 18, again giving a cookie to a right-wing outlet that stayed on message with the false narrative:
Over the weekend, a group of parents gathered outside the Department of Justice to protest the suggestion that parents outraged at radical leftist school boards were domestic terrorists. They stayed on message against schools poisoning kids with Critical Race Theory and apparent pornography in school books. Meanwhile, the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC kept silent on the rally as the networks previously backed the smear or remained silent on the topic.
In later September and early October, CBS Evening News and NBC’s Today show hyped a demand from the radical leftist National School Boards Association (NSBA) that demanded concerned parents protesting at school board meetings be declared domestic terrorists and have the terrible power of the federal government brought to bear against them.
As for what actually happened at the weekend rally, we look to Daily Caller education reporter Kendall Tietz. “Frustration at school boards boiled over for some parents and activists who protested outside of the Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C. Sunday,” she reported.
Adding: “A small crowd gathered for the ‘Parents Are Not ‘Domestic Terrorists’ Rally,’ a reference to Merrick Garland’s Oct. 4 memorandum that called on the FBI to “use its authority” in response to the ‘disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.’”
Tim Graham repeated the lie on Oct. 19 about a supposedly softball interview CBS did with first lady Jill Biden: "There were no difficult questions about how Attorney General Merrick Garland wants to investigate angry parents who attend school board meetings (as the National School Boards Association compares them to domestic terrorists). "
Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Biden administration used federal actions in an attempt to chill the exercise of free speech by concerned parents protesting their school boards after they were equated to domestic terrorists by the National School Boards Association. But on Thursday, Garland was held to account by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee in a heated hearing that went unreported by the evening newscast of ABC, CBS, and NBC.
When the NSBA was force to backtrack in the face of the dishonest attacks by the MRC and other right-wingers, Scott Whitlock was still clinging to the lie in an Oct. 25 post:
Late on Friday night, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) belatedly apologized for language that linked concerned parents to domestic terrorists. But all three networks from Friday to Monday morning ignored the organization retreating, “On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter.... There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”
The original letter in question claimed that some actions by parents “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” On the weekend morning and evening newscasts, as well as Monday, the apology went unmentioned. NBC’s Sunday Today, however, offered a new hit piece on parents, falsely claiming that Critical Race Theory is not in schools and also blaming the whole thing on “former Tea Partiers.”
Yet the lie went on. Kyle Drennen huffed in an Oct. 28 post about "the DOJ complying with a now-withdrawn letter from the National School Board Association labeling parents speaking out at local school board meetings 'domestic terrorists.'"
Mark FInkelstein tried to dishonestly frame the letter in an Oct. 29 post, ironically while accusing CNN's Brianna Keilar of dishonesting framing it:
Co-host Brianna Keilar claimed "we should be clear" that there was a letter from the school board association to the Biden administration. But rather than being clear, Keilar was clearly deceptive. She framed the letter as simply "looking for help, because clearly school boards have been suffering a lot of violent threats, and a lot of tumult."
What she failed to disclose was that the school board association letter—signed by its two most senior officials—branded parent protests as " domestic terrorism."
Yes, when parents reacted with outrage to the accusation, the association subsequently withdrew the letter. But that "domestic terrorism" bell couldn't be un-rung. It was that accusation that Garland responded to with his memo to federal law enforcement.
Of course, Finkelstein can't point to any wording in the letter that specifically accused all parents of taking part in "domestic terrorism" -- because it doesn't exist.
One other thing worth noting: By embracing the false narrative that the NSBA letter called all parents domestic terrorists, the MRC absolved itself from ever criticizing the specific examples of intimidation and violence the letter cited -- thus suggesting it endorses that intimidftion and violence in furtherance of its right-wing agenda. When you're dealing with liars, would you expect anything different?
The MRC has clearly decided that pounding right-wing narratives is more important than telling the truth. It may be politically expedient, but the ultimate result is that nobody will be able to trust anything the MRC puts out. Is that what they really want?
Posted by Terry K.
at 8:29 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:12 PM EST
On Sept. 24, CNSNews.com published part of a rant by Chris Jacobs headlined "Politico Published 20 Stories About Trump’s Taxes And Only 1 About Joe Biden’s." CNS only published the first few paragraphs, but the rest is at right-wing site The Federalist, where Jacobs' thinking goes awry:
I examined Politico, a publication many “inside-the-Beltway” types read. It showed a yawning gap between coverage of Joe Biden’s tax affairs compared to coverage of his predecessor.
Between January 21 and August 9 of this year, Politico ran at least 20 separate stories about Donald Trump’s taxes. By contrast, during the same period this year, Politico appears to have run only a single story related to Biden’s taxes, when the Bidens released their returns in May.
That story spent many more paragraphs talking about Trump not releasing his taxes (seven) than it did about Biden’s questionable use of this tax loophole (one). Therefore, some may consider what initially looks like a 20-to-1 disparity of stories about Trump’s taxes vis-à-vis Biden’s more like a 21-to-1, or 21-to-0, gap.
As Jacobs seems to conced but won't explicitly admit, the lesson here is that Trump's refusal to release his taxes made news outlets want to report on them, whereas Biden made his taxes public like every other presidential candidate of the past 40-plus years, thus making it a non-issue for him.Yet Jacobs made an attempt to justify his double standard:
I won’t argue the legal controversies about Trump’s taxes aren’t newsworthy—they clearly are. I have also previously stated that Trump should have released his taxes as president, and should get held to the same legal standard as everyone else if he did in fact violate any tax laws.
But Biden’s taxes are just as relevant as Trump’s, if not more so, given a combination of factors. Those include that Biden is the current president, as opposed to the former president. Also, unlike Trump, Biden has publicly advertised himself as a paragon of virtue regarding his taxes and financial affairs.
Jacobs went on to complain that Biden was a hypocrite for taking advantage of tax deductions and loopholes he has proposed eliminating. But that's just a lame gotcha -- rich right-wingers will tell you that nobody is legally obligated to pay more taxes than mandated. Indeed, other rich people have used the same loophole that Biden did, and Jacobs isn't lashing out at them. That's the real hypocrisy -- Jacobs can't prove Biden broke the law (because he didn't), so he has to attack Biden on something, anything.
We're willing to bet that Jacobs has never complained about Trump's absolute refusal to release his taxes the way he has nitpicked Biden's actual release.
Newsmax Columnist Won't Apologize For Being A Right-Wing Anti-Vaxxer Jerk Topic: Newsmax
In his Oct. 4 Newsmax column, Judd Dunning serves up some curious definitions of when it's a good thing to be "unapologetic." Like being like a right-wing anti-vaxxer:
The solution to apology-obsessed leftist rage is to be unapologetic.
So what does it mean to be unapologetic?
Being unapologetic does not mean callousness for its own sake. We all make mistakes.
Apologies are righteous when appropriate. Being unapologetic means rejecting any need to make inappropriate apologies.
Guilty people should apologize. The innocent should remain unapologetic.
Being unapologetic means owing no apology to cancel or consequence culture for merely existing. Unabashedly free Americans with rock-solid conservative values rarely have to apologize.
Being unapologetic means not joining the cult.
Cultists wear “I’m vaccinated” necklaces as an apostle of vaccine messiahs and crazed leftists. Cultist New York Governor Kathy Hochul said "God is telling you to get vaccinated."
Unapologetic authentic Americans won’t shut up, comply, or be silenced when government comes with their needles, for your guns, at your children, or to shut down your businesses and take your money and rights. Being unapologetic means supporting innovative drug makers like Merck, who just developed a COVID pill that could render all vaccines irrelevant.
Being unapologetic means forcefully rejecting the twin liberal narratives that any speech a liberal disagrees with is hate speech, and therefore not free speech.
Just as Christ flipped a few tables in the temple (John 2:13-16), a healthy rebuke to having your rights violated is more than only OK. It's an obligation to reject violations thrust upon our American way of life by the cultural Marxists of our day.
Hate speech is the very speech deserving of the most protection. Liberals declared opposition to COVID vaccines, voting for Donald Trump and questioning climate activism as hate speech. When that fails, the inevitable race card is played, since nothing is more truly hateful than real racism.
Or, apparently, believing that right-wing violence like the Jan. 6 Capitol riot deserve to be "unapologetic" when non-right-wing violence is not:
Hate, the necessary shadow side of love, is at the heart of free speech. Nobody is allowed under the Constitution to instigate violence or riots. This includes BLM and Antifa.
Note, again, that Dunning does not explicitly call out the Jan. 6 rioters.
And you should especially be "unapologetic," Dunning claims, for staying in your right-wing bubble and being resistant to the change happening around you:
The revolution always eats its own, just as all empires fall. When everyone has been conquered, turning inward is inevitable. Until that inevitable conclusion, we must know there is no safe space. We must accept an imperfect world with bad people saying bad things. “Toughen up, buttercup.”
The far worse alternative is a world where even one innocent person is wrongly shunned, jailed or killed over misunderstood innocent free speech.
Undocumented workers? I say illegal aliens. Workplace violence? I label it radical Islam. Handi-capable? I say handicapped. African-Americans? I call them blacks, just as Rev. Jesse Jackson agrees. You call them LGBTQIASANDEVERYOTHER ACRONYMINTHEBOOK.
I call them Dave or Bill or Janice or whatever first name they claim.
Actually, Dunning is the one who's retreating to his safe space by declaring he shouldn't have to apologize for being a jerk.
WND Still Trying To Turn Capitol Rioter Into A Martyr Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily remainsdedicated to sanitizing the Jan. 6 pro-Trump Capitol riot and portraying domestic terrorist Ashli Babbitt -- who was killed by police after breaking through a window along with a mob at the Capitol -- as a martyr who died unjustly even as she was in the midst of committing a crime. Bob Unruh used an Oct. 3 article to downplay not only Babbitt's actions but those of the entire mob of insurrectionists:
The Department of Justice has been hit with a lawsuit for failing to provide public access to its records about the "killing" of Ashli Babbitt.
She was the California woman, unarmed, a 14-year Air Force veteran, who was shot and killed by Capitol police last January when dozens of protesters got rowdy, broke windows and doors, and vandalized parts of the building.
Democrats over and over have claimed the events that day as worse than 9/11 and a true threat to the future of American government.
Babbitt was shot and killed as she climbed through a broken interior window.
Congress and federal and local authorities kept secret for months before finally revealing that her killer was U.S. Capitol Officer Michael Byrd, and then they quickly confirmed he would face no punishment for killing her.
Now government watchdog Judicial Watch has confirmed it filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for its records relating to her death.
Unruh went on to effectively endorse death threats against the law enforcement officer who shot her, Michael Byrd, by uncritically quoting Babbitt's widow lashing out at Byrd for notiong he's gotten death threats from far-right activsts of the kind that invaded the Capitol. He even served up some boilerplate seeking to justify all the violence:
It happened when Congress was scheduled to – and did – adopt the electoral results that turned over the White House to Joe Biden. Those results raised enough questions that there were lawsuits in dozens of states, and there continue to be audits, or plans for them, in several states.
What is not in question, however, is that local and state officials during the 2020 count violated the U.S. Constitution by arbitrarily ignoring or changing state laws regarding elections. The Constitution allows only state lawmakers to do that. One state investigation already has produced evidence that supports that concern.
Further, that there were outside influences on those counts is without doubt, as leftist Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook wealth turned over some $350 million to mostly leftist election officials to help them "run" their operations.
But as actual news organizaitons have noted, Zucerkberg's money was available to any election agency who wanted it, and many took advantage given how chronically underfunded they are and even more so during a pandemic.
Unruh pushed the bogus martyr narrative again in an Oct. 14 article uncritically repeating claims from the highly biased Judicial Watch that there was "no good reason" for anyone to shoot Babbitt -- never mind that she was part of a mob that had broken through a door and was trying to advance. Unruh again tried to justify mob violence:
Babbitt was among those who entered the building, sometimes through broken doors and windows, sometimes through doors held open by security officers, that day. They were protesting the plans for Congress to adopt the suspicious 2020 presidential election race results that gave the White House to Joe Biden.
Those results still remain the subject of various audits that focus on, among other allegations, the fact that state and local officials sometimes changed state law for ballots even though they were not authorized to do that. Further, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg handed out nearly $420 million to two activist groups that then turned the money over to local elections officials with instructions that they use it mostly for recruiting voters from Democrat neighborhoods, an investigation revealed.
Unruh won't even accurately call what happened on Jan. 6 a riot or even an insurrection; instead, he laughably underplayed things by describing it as a "ruckus."
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.