MRC Delcares War On Website Rater NewsGuard With Bogus 'Study' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a dislike for the website credibility rating firm NewsGuard that has only grown more visceral. In 2020, we noted that the MRC tried to tag NewsGuard as "liberal" for no real reason other than that it once fact-checked Rush Limbaugh. Last May, the MRC's Kayla Sargent freaked out over NewsGuard launching a service that would allow advertisers to block its ads on websites that contain misinformation -- weirdly screaming in the headline that this was "DISGUSTING." She huffied that "NewsGuard’s new service to help advertisers fight what it considers to be 'misinformation' could even be dangerous to the idea of free speech, because the organization is so overtly left-leaning." She offered no credible evidence that NewsGuard is "left-leaning."
But when NewsGuard announced it was spreading its ratings system to broadcast news, the MRC decided to declare war. Joseph Vazquez ranted against the "leftist" NewsGuard in a Dec. 3 post, first repeating the MRC previous factually deficient attack on the organzation over its Limbaugh fact-check, then adding:
NewsGuard even went after pro-life organizations like Live Action, giving it a dubious score of “30” out of 100 and accused that it “severely violates basic journalistic standards.” Meanwhile, NewsGuard rates baby slaughter mill Planned Parenthood with a “75” score and claimed its “ website adheres to basic standards of credibility and transparency.” [Emphasis added.]
But that’s not all. NewsGuard’s “Nutrition Label” rating for LifeSiteNews relied on pieces marked as “opinion” to lambast the pro-life website for information that the outlet considers to be not factual, such as the link between breast cancer and abortion. However, leftist Jezebel, a site that appeared to highlight and sympathize with “unlicensed, untrained illegal abortionists,” is considered a good site by NewsGuard.
Note that Vazquez hung political labels on Jezebel but not LifeSite or Live Action, which are unambiguously right-wing. He also forgot to mention that LifeSite is a notorious spreader of misinformation, particulary about COVID; when social media shut down its accounts because of the information it spreads, the MRC conferred victimhood on it.Vazquez also didn't prove that Planned Parenthood is unreliable or that LiveAction is reliable (Live Action got kicked off Instagram for spreading misinformation).Vazquez further whined:
A December 2020 report by NewsGuard illustrated the bias the site has against conservatives. It claimed that organizations listed “published falsehoods about both COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. election.” The list included outlets like Breitbart, The Blaze, The Epoch Times and LifeSiteNews. The “Trustworthy and Trending” list, on the other hand, included liberal propaganda outlets like NBC News, The New York Times, Microsoft’s MSN.com, The Washington Post and the taxpayer-funded National Public Radio.
Vazquez provided no evidence to dispute any specific findings, though.
The gauntlet having apparently been through, the MRC slapped together a so-called "study" in an attempt to tar NewsGaurd as having a liberal bias, which Vazquez hyped in a Dec. 13 post:
A new analysis reveals the extraordinary left-wing bias of website ratings firm NewsGuard, which should concern every American given that it is expanding its reach into cable and broadcast TV news. Liberal outlets were rated 27 points higher on average than news organizations on the right.
MRC Free Speech America analyzed the NewsGuard ratings of media outlets based on a list compiled by AllSides classified by their “bias” on a left-to-right scale. The average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like Jacobin and he Nation — was 93/100. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News, Washington Times and New York Post— was a low 66/100. That’s a 27 point disparity.
According to NewsGuard’s skewed ratings, left-leaning outlets have substantially more “credibility” on average than right-leaning outlets.
But as we've documented, AllSides is a right-leaning fact-checker that uses sloppy labeling, and the MRC has previously praised it for leaning into its "liberal bias" narratives. Nevertheless, Vazquez tried to make a case for AllSides' credibility, claiming that "Even the liberal Poynter Institute cited two media experts who shared 'praise for the stated methods for rating bias' by AllSides." Vazquez did weirdly complain, though, that "AllSides including Deseret News in its “lean right” list is disputed by MRC research; as we've documented, that "dispute" is based solely on coverage on two stories seven years apart in which the paper -- which is owned by a division the Mormon Church, hardly a bastion of liberalism -- dared to accurately report bad news about a Republican.
Vazquez then moved on to cherry-picking attacks on NewsGuard's numbers:
The breakdown of the lists of outlets is even more revealing in terms of their individual grades. Socialist site Jacobin, scored an astonishing "92.5" by NewsGuard. The same outlet published Marxist propaganda in October headlined: “Socialism Isn’t Just About State Ownership — It’s About Redistributing Power.” In April 2020, Jacobin published a piece celebrating how “[s]ocialism is back on the agenda in the United States, thank God. And today’s newly minted socialists shouldn’t be afraid to embrace Marxism.”
That’s not all. The Nation, which also scored a high “92.5,” is the same outlet that published a 2020 piece defending “property destruction” as integral to the success of a left-wing “uprising” following the murder of George Floyd. The piece advocated for property violence: “Given that capitalism largely restricts pleasure to the consumption of goods, we should be able to entertain the idea that this taking of unnecessary things—while not a recognizably political act—is understandable or even a [sic] justifiable.”
Vazquez seems to be arguing that Jacobin and The Nation be rated lower simply for advocating a political viewpoint he gets paid to disagree with. He offered no evidence why those views, in and of themselves, should automatically make a website less credible.He continued:
By comparison, The Federalist, posted in the “right” AllSides list, was scored the worst with a ridiculous “12.5” on NewsGuard. A predominant reason for the abysmal rating, according to NewsGuard, was that The Federalist questioned the efficacy of mask mandates for COVID-19, even though liberal CNBC (not on the AllSides list, but has a “95” NewsGuard rating) cited a study showing that cloth masks were only 37 percent effective at filtering out virus particles. Another August preprint study did not find an “association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”
Only two “lean-right” outlets on the AllSides list were given “100” scores by NewsGuard, both of which happen to be the Democrat-favoring Deseret News and the anti-Trump Reason magazine. Another anti-Trump outlet listed in the “lean right” AllSides list was The Dispatch, which received a “92.5” score from NewsGuard. It appears NewsGuard is more willing to award great scores to “lean right” sites that ironically publish pro-liberal content it approves.
Vazquez is again arguing that only websites that spout the same right-wing views he gets paid to advocate should be considered "credible." He refuses to take into consideration the idea that conservative websites are, in fact, less credible than liberal-leaning ones.
This "study" is a complete failure. But you know who loved it? AllSides, the supposedly neutral operation it relied on for its ratings. It devoted a Dec. 14 post to reviewing the findings and giving them credence, once again leaning into the MRC's politically motivated bias narratives: "Journalists tend to lean left, which reflects in their work. It makes sense that NewsGuard would rate them more highly because NewsGuard’s review staff is mostly made up of longtime mainstream journalists."
That, of course, is the ultimate evidence that the MRC's "study" is fatally flawed.
CNS' 'Balance' On Harry Reid's Death Includes 20-Year-Old Attack Topic: CNSNews.com
When longtime Democratic Sen. Harry Reid died, in late Decmeber, CNSNews.com did the right thing with an anonymously written Dec. 29 article quoting Nancy Pelosi praising Reid as "a titan of public service,” adding perhaps unhappily that she also called him "a leader with strong family values."
Because no praise for a Democrat, living or dead, is apparently allowed to stand alone at CNS, this was followed a few hours later with another anonymously written article, this time bashing Reid for something he did 20 years ago:
Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who passed away this week, opposed President George W. Bush’s nomination of former Sen. John Ashcroft (R.-Mo.) to be attorney general of the United States citing, among other things, what he called Ashcroft’s “substantial biases against…gays and lesbians” and calling Ashcroft “a man who prevents women from options to which they should be entitled”—an apparent reference to abortion.
Despite Reid’s opposition, Ashcroft was confirmed as attorney general on 58-42 vote conducted on Feb. 1, 2001.
“I have weighed the facts revealed before the Judiciary Committee to the best of my ability,” Reid said in a Senate floor speech on Jan. 31, 2001.
“The evidence has convinced me that Mr. Ashcroft has demonstrated real and substantial biases against women, people of color, gays and lesbians, and anyone else who does not meet his personal definition of what constitutes an American,” said Reid.
“Not only has he shown that pervasive bias, he has repeatedly acted upon it as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as a member of this body,” Reid said.
“I cannot confirm a man who allows his bias against another's most personal lifestyle choices to effect his decision on whether that individual is fit to enter public service,” said Reid.
“I cannot confirm a man who prevents women from options to which they should be entitled,” he said.
“I cannot confirm as attorney general anyone who will not confer upon that office the impartiality it demands and, most importantly, deserves,” said Reid.
The anonyous writer didn't prove anything that Reid said wrong or even tried to justify Ashcroft's actions; instead, the article is filled out with a copy-and-paste of the entire speech.
We're not sure what the point of this article is. It's clearly meant to be a parting right-wing shot at a dead Democrat by folks who clearlydespiseLGBTpeople, but it ultimately comes off as evidence of Reid's integrity that he was willing to try and block the nomination of Ashcroft based on his anti-LGBT track record.
In that way, CNS' sniping backfired. That's what happens when making partisan political points becomes more important than reporting the news.
UPDATE: That same day, CNS also reposted a 2016 article by Susan Jones about how Reid said that he's "one of the kings of earmarks." Keep it classy, CNS!
Newsmax's Hirsen Gushes Over Kevin Sorbo Topic: Newsmax
How much did Kevin Sorbo pay James Hirsen to write an excessively gushy Dec. 20 Newsmax column about him? Enough for Hirsen to crank out this press-agent-worthy glurge:
Kevin Sorbo is a multi-talented entertainment pro.
He first rose to international fame in 1995, when he landed the lead role as Hercules in “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.” At the time it ranked as one of television’s highest-rated syndicated shows.
Its success yielded the popular 1995 spin-off series called “Xena: Warrior Princess.” Lucy Lawless plays the lead in the TV fantasy offshoot. And the pair of hits allowed for some fun crossover appearances of characters between the two shows.
Kevin also plays main character High Guard Captain Dylan Hunt in the 2000 sci-fi TV series “Andromeda,” which was penned by the creator of the enduring iconic series “Star Trek,” the late, great Gene Roddenberry.
As one of Hollywood’s top celebrities, Kevin’s more recent projects have focused on using his many mighty gifts in spiritually-oriented ways.
As a major co-star in the 2014 watershed faith-based film “God's Not Dead,” he portrays an atheist college professor, who on the first day of class mandates that his students disavow their religious beliefs.
The movie has an astounding profit margin, having grossed more than $62 million on a $2 million budget. It not only succeeded in turning industry heads, but it also ended up launching a whole new film franchise.
Of course, this is all a lead-up to promoting Sorbo's current film project:
His latest project is a new cinematic adaptation of a “Left Behind” work that is part of the bestselling series co-authored by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Kevin produces and stars in the upcoming “Left Behind: Rise of the Antichrist,” which is currently being filmed in Canada. He and co-star Greg Perrow recently provided some insight as to why they are making the movie, and what people can expect in the re-launch of this beloved saga.
Hirsen concluded by bestowing victimhood on Sorbo for being a right-winger in Hollywood:
Like many other faith-filled people in Hollywood, Kevin has borne his share of scorn.
He noted, “There's a negativity towards Christians in Hollywood, and a negativity towards people who believe in God.”
Maybe, just maybe, Kevin, whose efforts in the past helped bring us tales of battling mythical beasts and who is now taking on the biblical ones, will get some folks to crack open the Good Book.
A great place to start at this time of year is Luke chapter 2, verses 1-20. Merry Christmas!
That's not the only gushy promotion Hirsen was handing out over the holiday season. His Dec. 6 column touted "The Chosen," a streaming show that claims to be "the first multi-season series focusing on the life of Jesus Christ," and its success at crowdfunding. And his Jan. 3 column touted the film "American Underdog," a fulm about football playerKurt Warner made by the "modern-day virtuosos of the faith-based genre" that "remained in the top four [movies] over New Year's weekend"; Hirsen concludedthat column with the corny line, "faith is the completed pass into the end zone."
This turn toward the spritual, by the way, came after Hirsen spent the weeks after the 2020 presidential election enthusiasticallyembracing election fraud conspiracy theories, only to apparently be so shaken by the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection that he took a more existential tone. Hirsen has largely stayed away from writing about politics ever since -- which makes sense, given that he's supposed to be Newsmax's entertainment writer -- but he also hasn't apologized to his readers for pushing those bogus conspiracy theories.
Guess what? I already scored big for Christmas. I got my No. 1 gift. Actually, 80 million Trump warriors (aka "deplorables") scored big for Christmas. Because we all asked Santa for a Trump comeback.
Well, we got more than we hoped for. Because Trump has made perhaps the biggest comeback in history. And he did it far faster than anyone imagined possible.
I call it "The Donald Trump Christmas Miracle."
But that's only Trump's remarkable political comeback. His financial comeback is even bigger. Have you heard about that? Of course not.
In only one year's time, after losing the election, nonstop slander by the media and the Jan. 6 debacle, Trump is now richer than ever before.
Trump's new social media venture turned public company Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) has tripled his net worth. According to Bloomberg, Trump was worth $2.5 billion before. But he now owns a 58% stake in DWAC. Bloomberg says that stake is worth as much as $4.8 billion.
Trump just sold his stake in his Washington, D.C., hotel. The Washington Post reports Trump could profit over $100 million from the transaction.
Trump is also selling books like hotcakes. Trump's new book sold 100,000 copies in just 10 days, at $74.99 a copy and $229.99 for signed copies. That means Trump grossed over $10 million in 10 days. Signed copies of Trump's book are reselling on eBay for $1,600.
His speaking tour with Bill O'Reilly is selling out sports stadiums and grossing over $2 million per day. Not a bad day's work!
The title of my book perfectly describes this man: "Trump Rules"!
What lies ahead? Remember, I'm the national radio and television host who suggested to Trump that he should become speaker of the House in 2022, as a springboard to his presidential victory in 2024. Stay tuned.
So, I say to all Trump warriors, "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night."
Root's Dec. 31 column, however, was dedicated to the one issue he disagrees with Trump about. After complaining that the above fanboying was ignored, he lamented:
Then during that same weekend, Trump made some comments about the COVID-19 vaccine that I strongly disagreed with. It is the first issue we have ever disagreed on. I made several national television appearances to make my case. I believe he is a huge favorite to regain the White House in 2024, but the way Trump is speaking about the vaccine could turn off his base and therefore damage his prospects.
Of course, the media took this as a negative. They couldn't wait to scream in headlines about a rift between a high-profile supporter and Trump. That couldn't be further from the truth.
A journalist for Reuters contacted me today. Here was my response:
"This is the first issue I've ever disagreed with him on. It doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for having him back as president one bit.
"He was a great president. He has made one of the greatest political comebacks in history as of right now. A huge majority of the country wants him back. A huge number of voters wish they could have their vote back. Biden is a disaster. I believe Trump is the prohibitive favorite to be back in the White House in 2024. I pray that happens.
"But we do disagree on this one issue: the COVID-19 vaccine. The 'intervention' I spoke of was simply a chance to convince Trump that he should alter his message. He deserves full credit for being a four-star general and coordinating the amazing response to COVID-19. Trump was fantastic. But he should now stress:
"No. 1: The vaccine and booster after booster for everyone was not what was intended. The vaccine was only to fight a holding pattern until therapeutics could be developed. Trump had put therapeutic development on a fast track. Biden and the Dems stopped that.
"No. 2: The vaccine was never intended for those who had already had COVID-19 and have therefore acquired natural immunity. It was only intended for those at high risk and certainly NEVER for children.
"No. 3: He should stress his strong opposition to vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, mask mandates and lockdowns.
"No. 4: And, Trump would never have allowed power-crazed, control-freak politicians to use the vaccine as an excuse to destroy your business or steal your job.
Trump should take credit for making the vaccine available in record time, but also point out that America is about freedom and choice. Those who want it can get it because of his efforts. Those who don't want it are free to never get it. And he must stress he will fight for our rights to freedom and choice.
Here's perhaps the most crucial point of all for Trump to make: If "science" won't respect or allow discussion or debate, then it's no longer science; it's just propaganda.
Root has offered no evidence he's open to any science that disagrees with his conspiratorial propaganda, let alone admit that the COVID conspiracy theories he has peddled have largely been proven wrong.
Did The MRC Get Played By Facebook To Attack Facebook Whistleblower? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's recurringmeltdown over Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen for getting more attention than the MRC has -- repeatedly lashing out at her for supposedly being a "leftist" -- has continued apace:
Catherine Salgado put "whistleblower" in scare quotes when referencing Haugen in a Dec. 9 post. Brian Bradley did the same the next day, adding:
But was Haugen really a whistleblower? After she resigned from Facebook in May, The Wall Street Journal revealed a trove of files, provided by Haugen, which she portrayed as evidence of Facebook’s indifference to so-called right-wing “misinformation” that she perceived, according to Time magazine, as implicating national elections and contributing to the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill Riot. Haugen also called for increased online censorship during a recent Senate hearing.
The public emergence of Haugen’s left-skewed, Orwellian talking points could motivate more whistleblowers to exhibit faux-courage by resigning from their companies and peddling the liberal narrative that curbing free speech is necessary for Americans’ safety. The introduction of financial incentives in Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) FTC Whistleblower Act could also motivate more “whistleblowers” like Haugen to cast blame on social media companies for supposed pro-right-wing bias.
Salgado more fully lashed out at Haugen in a scare-quote-laden Dec. 21 post, pushing her "leftist" talking points and suggesting she came forward for the money:
When Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen came on as a guest of leftist, pro-censorship New York Times podcast host Kara Swisher’s show, Haugen had one core question related to Facebook’s “misinformation” efforts: “Will they go far enough?”
Swisher claimed that Facebook shouldn’t be “choking people in the dark,” which Haugen agreed to, during the podcast. Haugen also advocated for a “free market of ideas” online. In contrast, Haugen said that Facebook subsidizes hate to make money. Her solution? More censorship.
“Facebook has done a really good job of distracting us with the censorship debate,” Haugen complained. She doesn’t appear to be all too concerned about Facebook’s biased censorship, believing discussion of the issue is an obstacle to the changes for which she advocates.
Haugen admitted to Swisher that members of her “comms team” had previously worked for Democratic campaigns and that the nonprofit Luminate, a network member of leftist eBay founder and billionaire Pierre Omidyar, had paid “operational” expenses for her. Yet Swisher mocked reports pointing to the questionable nature of Haugen’s politically leftist advisors.
Haugen also denied that she was incentivized by a potentially large financial reward for her “whistleblowing,” though Haugen then mused over how she would invest the money if she received it. The “whistleblower” even said that she would work for Facebook again if offered, because she still believes its work is important. Haugen wants to start a movement of young people who drive “rituals of governance” around Big Tech.
But it appears that the MRC's repeated "leftist" attacks on Haugen were not only playing into Facebook's agenda, they may have been done at Facebook's request. The Wall Street Journal reported:
The day after former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen went public in October, the company’s team in Washington started working the phones.
To lawmakers and advocacy groups on the right, according to people familiar with the conversations, their message was that Ms. Haugen was trying to help Democrats. Within hours, several conservative news outlets published stories alleging Ms. Haugen was a Democratic activist.
Later, Facebook lobbyists warned Democratic staffers that Republicans were focused on the company’s decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who killed two people during unrest in Kenosha, Wis., and who was later acquitted of homicide and other charges.
The company’s goal, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the company’s outreach, was to muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance that was emerging to enact tougher rules on social-media companies in general and Facebook in particular.
The Journal further reported that after Haugen's "60 Minutes" appearance, "the company and its representatives spread word among lawmakers’ offices, advocacy groups and others that she had partisan motives, according to the people familiar with those conversations," and that the Haugen-bashing articles that appeared in right-wing media "variously called Ms. Haugen 'the frontwoman of a PR campaign pushed by the Democratic party,' a 'leftist activist' and someone who is 'part of a broader Democratic initiative.'" That's pretty much how the MRC portrayed her. The Journal also noted that "Facebook representatives alleged in conversations with reporters that she was a proxy for" Omidyar -- which sounds a lot like Salgado's above-noted attack.
Salgado wrote a Dec. 30 post on the Journal article exposing Facebook's use of right-wing media to attack Haugen. But rather than admitting the MRC got played by the organization it's trying to destroy, Salgado simply summarized the Journal's bombshell quickly and without comment, while still repeating those Facebook-directed attack lines:
Facebook has done everything since “whistleblower” Frances Haugen’s revelations except apologize. The company changed its name, denied massive problems, and reportedly even sold different narratives to politicians from different ends of the political spectrum.
The Wall Street Journal, which originally broke the “Facebook Files” revelations from leftist "whistleblower” Frances Haugen, in a new piece that Facebook had intentionally depicted Haugen as a leftist activist to rouse Republicans.
Salgado uniroinically linked to two earlier attack pieces on Haugen's purported "leftist" sympathies, seemingly unaware that this was evidence of the MRC's active participation in Facebook's smear campaign.
And then -- even knowing she's doing Facebook's bidding by making political attacks on Haugen -- Salgado still continued to hype that tainted "leftist" narrative. She huffed in a Jan. 7 post that "Leftist activist turned Facebook 'whistleblower' Frances Haugen has been touring the world to advise lawmakers." She then rehashed the Omidyar talking point in a Jan. 18 post:
Recently, leftist activist turned Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen admitted that she had received monetary aid from the nonprofit Luminate, an Omidyar Network member. While the Tech Oversight Project reportedly strongly opposes Big Tech-funded groups and lobbyists, and seeks antitrust action from lawmakers, the project’s ties to Omidyar should raise concerns for pro-free speech advocates.
Salgado is clearly not afraid to look like a slave to manufactured talking points -- even after they've been exposed as manufactured.
Massie's Muslim Meltdown: WND Columnist Hurls N-Word At Omar, Tlaib Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie likes to take refuge in his black-conservative privilege to sound like a white supremacist. He took that to an extreme in his Dec. 13 column, in which he tarred Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib -- whom he has spewed Islamophobic venom at before -- with the N-word (though at least he knows well enough not to actually say the word out loud):
One of the most highly revered Democratic leaders in history, the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia,, said he had "seen and knew lots of white" ones. In fact, despite the best efforts of liberal apparatchiks masquerading as fact-checkers to claim otherwise, one of those who eulogized Byrd when he died in 2010 epitomizes one of the "white ones" Byrd referenced. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
As a child, both my late grandmother and my late mother explained to me that "a lowdown, common, dirty person" was the definition of the particular "word" the late Democratic senator employed multiple times on cable news programming between 2001 and 2005.
When I employ the "word" the late Sen. Byrd correctly used in referencing the "white ones" he knew, which I argue is descriptive of the Democratic Party at large, I'm not being boorish. I am, however, using the "word" Democrats are responsible for turning into a skin-color pejorative. I sardonically applaud Byrd's words as truth about his fellow Democrats, truth that was long past due.
The "word" I am referencing is the best and most appropriate descriptive of Muslim Democrats Ilhan Omar, Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, Mich; albeit the "word" is extendable to Muslims who are beheading, raping and pillaging every single part of the world they infest.
Without exception, when the truth about the pair is openly voiced in a public forum, they predictably sniffle, feign offense and shed crocodile tears. This is exactly the act Tlaib and Omar put on when Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., truthfully referenced Omar as being akin to a violent foreign terrorist. Rep. Boebert's truthful statement evoked a teary-eyed jeremiad that showcased an acting ability as pathetic as that of Richard (I'll never call that guy Rachel) Levine being made a four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service.
Rushing to the cameras to show support in opposition to the truth being told about Omar were other Democrats who by definition are the "word" the late senator used. They included Reps. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Pramila Payapal, D-Wash. Of course, Nancy Pelosi, who is the dictionary picture of the "word" Democrat Byrd used, wasted no time promising retaliatory action as punishment for truth telling.
Evidence seems to support the allegations that Omar married her brother to gain entrance into the United States. Thus, it is most certainly fair to question how often the godless marriage was consummated and which of the children she has her brother fathered. Tlaib is a godless, uncouth, foulmouthed stain on humanity.
Massie expanded his definition of the "word" to all Muslims (and Democrats):
The "word" Sen. Byrd used most assuredly describes those in the Democratic Party in which he spent his entire life. Those who murdered over 3,000 innocent Americans Sept. 11, 2001, those who murdered Tyrone Woods and others Sept. 11, 2012 in Benghazi and those who beheaded the late reporter Danny Pearl are murderous representatives of the word Byrd used. (See: "'BDS' Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.")
Those who are perverted pedophiles like the satanic heathen Muhammad they call a prophet was by definition the "word" Byrd used. Those Muslims who murder and then sodomize Americans Biden has abandoned in Afghanistan are the epitome of the "word" as well.
Omar and Tlaib are Erebusic and morally opprobrious; identifying them as the poster anti-Semite Muslims representative of the "word" the late Democratic senator said he knew is in perfect keeping with the character of those two and all Muslims like them mentioned here within.
If they like, I'm willing to sit down face-to-face and explain to them in even greater detail, why an eternity of unimaginable suffering awaits them if they don't turn from the ways Byrd's "word" rightly defines.
Massie doesn't seem concerned about the eternity of unimaginable suffering that awaits him for the unhinged hatred and lies he has spread over the years.
Newsmax's Black Adds COVID Misinfo To His Trump-Fluffing Topic: Newsmax
The first indication that Conrad Black's Dec. 22 Newsmax column -- headlined "The Clouds of Political Madness are Gathering" -- would be quite the trip was the tag that "The author is a non-clinician." We know what that means: lots of COVID misinformation. And, by golly, he didn't disappoint on that front:
Joe Biden and the Democrats are embarking on a new campaign of terror over the Omicron variant, (“a winter of ... death” for the unvaccinated), which is, in fact, a Christmas blessing. There are fewer than 10 fatalities reported in the entire world as a result of this new variant on COVID. It is like a conventional flu, except that 90% of the people afflicted have mild or no symptoms and all of those afflicted benefit from the reinforcement their immune systems are getting against all variants of the disease.
No greater gift to herd immunity from the COVID family of viruses could have been sought or imagined. Yet it is being used to justify a renewed campaign to transform Americans into a nation of cowardly, paranoid, and hypochondriacal moles.
Black also labored to spin the news that Fox News personalities were texting White House officials demanding Trump do something about the Capitol riot he helped incite:
The January 6 commission and Trump-hating nightly media commentators professed to find in the fact that Donald Trump’s family and Fox News Trump personalities Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity warned the then-president of backlash if he didn’t take a strong line against the trespassing and vandalism at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, proof that the melee was a pre-planned insurrection and that Trump’s complaints of election fraud were unfounded. (It confirms merely that like almost everyone, they disapproved of the attack on the Capitol, but did not deny Trump’s and his law-abiding supporters’ grievance.)
After several paragraphs of Biden-bashing, Black returned to sucking up yet again to the guy who gave him a presidential pardon for his financial crimes:
After blithely assuming the swift demise of Trump’s support, they now see the dangers of a Trump/Republican return in 2022 and 2024. But they appear to have an airtight mental block against contemplation of their own role in elevating a U.S. administration that is destabilizing the world by the self-mutilation of America.
They are incapable of contemplating the fact that Trump achieved great successes in sharply curtailing illegal immigration, unemployment, oil imports, Chinese and North Korean provocations and bringing greater prosperity to low-income minorities than any president in history. They are as blind to his accomplishments as to the fraudulence of their claim that he threatens democracy.
The same people who falsely accused Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election, and claimed that an unexceptionable telephone call to the president of Ukraine to ask what happened in the Biden family’s commercial activities there — not to try to dictate the condemnation of the Bidens — was an impeachable offense, are still raving that Trump is a fascist and even putschist mountebank.
As he has before, Black once again attempted to deflect blame from Trump over the insurrection:
For these purposes such hysterics cling more fervently than ever to the myth of the January 6 “insurrection.” There is not a scrap of evidence that Trump approved any illegalities or had any notion of overthrowing the government.
But the blame for this indignity resides clearly with the egregious mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who were repeatedly warned (including by Trump) that some hooligans might attach themselves to the large gathering of Trump voters and try to breach Capitol security, something which Trump himself admonished his supporters to avoid.
Black concluded his column with a vague threat: "The anti-Trump Republicans, or NeverTrumpers, are the most inexcusable wrong-doers: They pretended to support a president they actually conspired to defeat, by illegal means. All who righteously engaged in defamation and skullduggery to remove Trump share in the guilt for the abject failure of Biden. They have sown and they shall reap." Written like a guy who's still trying to justify the pardon Trump gave him.
We've documented how CNSNews.com likes to portray Republcian Sen. Rand Paul as having more practical medical experience regarding COVID than he actually does (he's an optometrist, not a virologist). It loves to promote his tantrums and -- like its Media Research Cener parent -- make him out to be a victim when the situation demands. Craig Bannister found such a situation last August (while, again, falsely inflating his medical credentials):
Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a physician and sitting U.S. senator, is slamming YouTube for removing two videos from his YouTube page, then suspending his ability to upload videos for seven days.
The first video removed by YouTube was an interview in which the senator questioned the science regarding face masks and criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci.
"Apparently, because I dared to contradict Dr. Fauci and the government, YouTube has removed my video," Paul said.
Paul had made a blanket claim in the video that cloth masks don't work against COVID -- in fact, they do, albeit not as well as N95 masks, and the work better than no mask at all. Further, the CDC debunked the two studies Paul cited in his video. Bannister never told his readers any of that, of course.
CNS amplified the victimhood by publishing a column by Jarrett Stepman decrying the "censoring" of "physician" Paul, adding, "This is hardly the first time that YouTube aggressively censored content it disagrees with or banned those it doesn’t like." Stepman refused to concede that YouTube is a private business that has the right to enforce terms of service on its users.
Bannister returned at the end of August to tout another Paul tantrum:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is inviting journalists who have attacked his stance on the value of natural immunity and opposition to COVID mask mandates and vaccine passports to read the results of a new study.
“To every snot-nosed “journalist” who accosted me in the halls of Congress and spouted Fauci-isms denigrating natural immunity— read the science!” Sen Paul tweeted Monday, citing an article titled “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished”by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
But hat article featured claims made by Martin Kulldorff, who helped create theGreat Barrington Declaration, an anti-vaxx-adjacent document that recklessly advocated herd immunity prior to the development of COVID vaccines.
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman served another Rand rant in an October 4 article:
During a hearing about COVID and school reopenings, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a medical doctor, criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra for ignoring the science on natural immunity, and for smearing millions of Americans who rely on their natural immunity -- after recovering from COVID -- as "flat-Earthers."
Senator Paul also criticized Becerra, a pro-abortion lawyer, for presuming "to tell over 100 million Americans who have survived COVID that we have no right to determine our own medical care."
"You alone are on high, and you've made these decisions, a lawyer with no scientific background, no medical degree," said Paul. "This is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American. You, sir, are the one ignoring the science."
Chapman, needless to say, didn't mention that Paul's "medical doctor" optometry degree is irrelevant to virology.
Bannister touted Rand ranting again in a Nov. 30 article: "Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Biden Administration’s COVID czar, has declared himself the 'all-high priest of science' who, like 'the Great and Powerful Oz' can never be questioned – and that’s a very dangerous thing, physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) warns." Bannister served up even more anti-science ravings from Paul in a Dec. 10 article:
“Sorry, Tony,” physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Biden Administration COVID czar Dr. Anthony after Fauci advised Americans hosting holiday celebrations to “require that people show evidence they are vaccinated.”
On Thursday, Rep. Paul responded to Fauci’s advice by tweeting that he will host a Christmas celebration of “57 strong” and none of them will have to show proof of vaccination.
However, there will be one (and only one) requirement for attendance, Paul explained:
“Sorry Tony, at the Paul household Christmas (57 strong) the only requirement is having read the Constitution.”
We're sorry we missed out on getting invited to Paul's superspreader event.
Paul returned to ranting about his "snot-nosed" critics again, and Bannister dedicated a Jan. 17 post to detailing it:
Physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wonders if the “snot-nosed censors at YouTube” will now come to his office and perform an act of apology now that The New York Times and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have admitted that his comments about cloth COVID masks are not so-called “misinformation.”
“Does this mean snot-nosed censors at YouTube will come to my office and kiss my … and admit I was right?” Senator Paul asked on Twitter Saturday, embedding a New York Times story, titled “The C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.”The article reports that, as Paul has claimed, cloth COVID masks are less effective than other types:
YouTube actively censors and labels what it and liberal media declare “misinformation” regarding COVID.
But insisting that cloth masks offer no protection whatsoever -- which has been the simplisitc claim Paul has been pushing -- is objectively misinformation, and it doesn't take the "liberal media" to make that determination (and, no, Craig, that's not how fact-checking works). Paul is not right, since everyone pretty much knew that N95 masks offered greater protection than cloth masks do, so he deserves no apology.
MRC Turns Joe Rogan Into A Victim Over Getting Caught Spreading COVID Misinfo Topic: Media Research Center
If you're a conservative who spreads misinformation, the Media Research Center not only doesn't think you should ever face consequences for doing so, it will create a victim narrative around those consequences and help you deny that you're spreading information -- or, even better, deny that "misinformation" even has an objective definition.
The MRC's manufactured victim du jour is right-leaning podcaster Joe Rogan, whom the MRC is a major fan of, in no small part because he once called CNN's Brian Stelter a "motherfucker." In a December podcast, Rogan had on notorious COVID misinformer (and, therefore, a WND favorite) Peter McCullough, who took advantage of the opportunity to spread even more COVID misinfo without any serious challenge or questioning. When YouTube pulled the plug on a copy of that podcast, Alexander Hall rushed to play the "censorship" card (never mind that the podcast was still available and uncensored on Spotify) in a Dec. 15 post:
YouTube censored an interview between world famous podcaster Joe Rogan and Texas-based cardiologist Peter McCullough about the COVID-19 pandemic.
If the so-called experts are so sure that they have managed the COVID-19 pandemic well, they seem a bit over concerned about allowing commentators to contradict them. Dr. McCullough explained to Joe Rogan there was a “suppression of early treatment” in order to “create acceptance for, and then promote, mass vaccination.” The unverified Twitter account ostensibly representing McCulloughposted a link to what appears to be his entire interview with Rogan on YouTube. A tweet from the account, prophetically quipped, “Alright, we'll see how long this lasts up, great chat with @JoeRogan on health & C19 #PeterMcCulloughMD.”
Sure enough, the video linked in the tweet has been censored by YouTube with a statement that reads: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.” The “learn more” link routed to a Community Guidelines overview, including a link to YouTube’s so-called COVID-19 medical misinformation policy.
This being the MRC, Hall will not admit there was any misinformation whatsover in the podcast, whcyis why he stuck "so-called" in there -- never mind that fact-checkers found at least 18 instances of false or misleading statements by McCullough in his Rogan appearance.
Later that day, Brian Bradley cited the "censored" interview with "world famous podcaster Joe Rogan" in a post under the hyperbolic headline "New AUTHORITARIAN Twitter Policy to Ban Users for COVID-19 Wrongthink."
Later that month, McCullough's compadre in spreading COVID misinfo, Robert Malone (another WND favorite), got banned from Twitter. Cue the victimhood from Catherine Salgado in a Dec. 30 post:
mRNA vaccine inventor Robert Malone was suspended by Twitter for alleged “misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.”
Dr. Malone is an innovator in the field of mRNA vaccine technology used in COVID vaccines. Twitter did not warn Dr. Malone before the suspension, according to The Epoch Times. Malone told The Epoch Times that Twitter previously notified him that users complained about his posts but no action had been taken.
According to Malone andThe Epoch Times, Twitter suspended the scientist’s 500,000-follower account for the vague reason: “Violating our policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. You may not use Twitter’s services to share false or misleading information about COVID-19 which may lead to harm.”
Malone has repeatedly voiced his concerns over the COVID-19 vaccines, based on his own scientific knowledge of the interaction between vaccines and viruses as well as independent studies. He expressed particular concern about COVID vaccines for children based on studies, including one from Hong Kong that said 1 in every 2,700 boys vaccinated with Pfizer’s Comirnaty would develop myocarditis. Malone further told The Epoch Times that natural immunity is better protection from COVID than vaccines. His last tweet reportedly included a video saying Pfizer vaccines cause more illness than they prevent.
Salgado overstates Malone's involvement by calling him an "mRNA vaccine inventor," though she's somewhat closer to the truth whwen she later called him "an innovator in the field of mRNA vaccine technology used in COVID vaccines." That last video Malone tweeted out -- released by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, an anti-vaxxer group -- has been discredited. As for that Hong Kong study Malone is apparently referring to regarding purportedly high instanes of myocarditis in young men from the Pfizer vaccine -- Salgado linked to an appearance by Malone on the video show hosted by sleazy far-right activist Steve Bannon, which doesn't exactly help his credibility -- Health Feedback reported that "Malone cherry-picked this particular study that found one of the highest incidences of heart inflammation reported so far" and that the study has limitations in the data that undermine any definitive finding of a link between the vaccine and the myocarditis. Health Feedback added: "Malone also didn’t mention that all the cases reported in the study were mild and resolved after simple treatment."
After establishing himself as a victim, Malone knew where to go to capitalize on it: Rogan's podcast. Autumn Johnson wrote all about the victimization lovefest in a Dec. 31 post:
Vaccine scientist Dr. Robert Malone spoke with podcaster Joe Rogan about his ban from Twitter.
Malone is an innovator in the mRNA vaccine technology used in COVID-19 vaccines and was suspended for alleged “misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.”
Rogan called Malone “one of the most qualified people in the world to talk about vaccines.”
“Tech clearly has a censorship agenda when it comes to COVID,” Rogan said, referencing the bans on “misinformation” about the virus and treatments.
Malone said his tweets were about informing people about the science behind the COVID-19 vaccines and added that he has been contacted by multiple attorneys about the ban.
“I try really hard to give people the information and help them how to think–not to tell them what to think,” he said.
A week later, Malone got banned for LinkedIn. Johnson was joined by Gabriel Pariseau to bestow victimhood status on Malone again in a Jan. 8 post, hyping how "Malone told Joe Rogan that he believes the government is conspiring against him because of his dissenting views." Johnson and Pariseau refused to admit that Malone spreads misinformation -- his victimhood must be preserved, after all.
James Bovard used a Nov. 29 CNSNews.com column to complain that Biden administration efforts to neutralize political extremism and conspiracy theories are too harsh, insisting that said extremists are"guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism":
The Biden Administration is seeking to radically narrow the boundaries of respectable American political thought. The administration has repeatedly issued statements and reports that could automatically castigate citizens who distrust the federal government. We may eventually learn that the new Biden guidelines spurred a vast increase in federal surveillance and other abuses against Americans who were guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism.
The Biden team is expanding the federal Enemies List perhaps faster than any time since the Nixon Administration. In June, the Biden Administration asserted that guys who are unable to score with women may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation was included in the administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which identified legions of new potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate.
The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that…infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to revile disapproved beliefs. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election…will almost certainly spur some [domestic violent extremists] to try to engage in violence this year .” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech in fall 2020 to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election? And how can Biden be trusted to be the judge after he effectively accused Facebook of mass murder for refusing to totally censor anyone who raised doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine?
Bovard omitted the fact that incel extremism has resulted in violence, and that "accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans" have not only been proven wrong, they did result in violence in the form of the Capitol riot.
Bovard went on to defend conspiracy theorists, admitting that "In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government," but taht the Warren report on John Kennedy's assassination undermined that, accusing Lyndon Johnson of purportedly having "browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubber-stamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination." And like any good conspiracy theory defender, Bovard brought up the specter of the CIA:
The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.”
The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out…parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”
Bovard then argued that any criticism of cosnspiracy theories was itself a conspiracy theory, and the Biden administration is currently pushing it:
“Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the political-media elite. In 2018, the New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “there is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law….They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “the deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington. After Biden was elected, references to the “Deep State” were once again labeled paranoid ravings.
Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled to intellectual passive obedience. The same lèse-majesté mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history.
Permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify new government crackdowns. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?
While being interviewed by Fox News Digital on Monday, Apple’s virtual assistant Siri just happened to interrupt Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). And just what was he talking about when Siri interjected? Big Tech, of course.
"Big Tech, they are hard left. They're not just Democrats. They're to the left of the Democratic Party. And they're trying to drive the Democratic Party left," said Cruz while speaking to Fox at the Turning Point USA conference AmericaFest. "And, you know, listen, I'm someone who believes in free speech."
"Something went wrong. Please try again," Siri said from Cruz’s iPhone.
"Well, Big Tech is getting mad," Cruz joked while holding his phone. "Siri just said, ‘Something went wrong. Please try again.’"
"I'm actually perfectly happy that Siri got mad. Sorry there, Siri," he added, laughing.
Johnson gave no indication this was meant as a lighthearted post, so it appears she's serious about her suggestion that Apple was acting nefariously by intentionally having Siri interrupt Cruz, instead of the most logical explanation of Cruz accidentally turning it on (or perhaps intentionally so to create this situation).
So, yeah, we'll call this peddling a conspiracy theory. That's apparently the direction the MRC wants to go.
NEW ARTICLE: WND Brings Back A Dishonest Reporter Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is republishing freelance work from former reporter Leo Hohmann -- which is just as terrible as the work he did when he was on WND's payroll. Read more >>
MRC Makes An Anti-Biden, Pro-Oil Propaganda Film Topic: Media Research Center
At the end of last year, the Media Rsearch Center released a short propaganda film with the unsubtle title "Killing Keystone XL: How Biden Destroyed American Energy Independence." The MRC describes it thusly:
On his first day in office, President Biden revoked the Keystone XL Pipeline permit via Executive Order 13990. With the stroke of a pen, Biden canceled a project that would have boosted U.S. GDP by more than 3 billion dollars, carried 830,000 barrels of oil daily from Canada to the U.S., and directly and indirectly provided up to 26,000 jobs — 11,000 of which were instantly lost. Climate Czar John Kerry, lent a sympathetic voice to the plight of the newly laid-off workers, “Go to work to make the solar panels.” President Trump greenlit the project in 2017, after years of delay from the Obama administration.
Though the Keystone Pipeline project received a favorable environmental review from the State Department, and construction had already started (crossing the Canadian/U.S Border), the Biden administration bowed to radical environmentalists and the religion of climate change, leaving hard-working Americans in the cold. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy and critical to our energy security, but the personal toll may be the highest cost of all. Livelihoods, hopes, and dreams dashed in an instant.
That number of 26,000 jobs is wildly inflated. Only about 4,000 jobs could be credited to construction of the pipeline -- nearly all of which would have been temporary -- and numbers of "indirect" jobs are speculative at best. One clip in the film uncritically shows Donald Trump even more wildly claiming that the pipeline would create "48,000 jobs."
That sets the tone of the film, which is little more than an anti-Biden, pro-oil industry propaganda piece. The MRC has taken funding from fossil-fuel interests.
Nearly the entire first half of the 14-minute film is news clips purporting to detail the history of the pipeline. It's heavy on Fox News clips, as you'd expect, but interestingly, there are also selected ciips from other "liberal media" outlets that the MRC spends millions of dollars a year to inculcate mistrust in. There are also clips of Trump adminsitration officials declaring that the U.S. became an "net exporter" of oil under Trump -- another slippery, misleading claim. And all the talk about the pipeline purportedly bringing energy independence to the U.S. ignores the fact that it has been argued that a significant amount of the oil products generated from crude transported through the pipeline would be exported.
The latter half of the film briefly features the product of MRC employees Eric Scheiner and Ben Graham (son of MRC executive Tim Graham) visiting "hard-hit towns in South Dakota and Montana to interview residents and business owners to learn first-hand how Biden’s callous decision to shut down the pipeline has negatively impacted these communities." The first clip of of anofficial from a local electric cooperative complaining about "stranded assets" of electrical equipment left behind after the pipeline was halted -- but there was no mention of the fact that this equipment can easily be repurposed or sold. There were also complaints from local businesses and political officials about job and spending losses from the pipeline -- but that money was going to stop even if the pipeline continued because construction jobs would have moved on and eventually stopped after the pipeline was built.
The film concluded with another package of news clips that pushed the bogus narrative that the pipeline's cancellation led directly to higher gas prices.
So, yes, a propaganda film. So much so, in fact, that it got an airing on pro-Trump propaganda outlet One America News. And the propaganda appears to extend to how popular it is. A Jan. 5 email claims the film has "over 1 million views," but the YouTube version of the film to which the email links states its has slightly more than 11,600 views, and the version on right-wing video site Rumble claims only 4,881 views as of this writing. That's roughly 986,000 viewings that MRC hasn't accounted for and are likely not made up by the OAN airing, where ratings are apparently so miniscule that its main distributor, DirecTV, is dropping the channel.
CNSNews.com is verymuchinto advancing the right-wing narrative that President Biden is, or is going, senile. It has continued to do that over the past few months. One way it does that is by cherry-picking remarks out of context and putting them in the headline to make him sound crazy:
CNS also hypes explicit attacks on Biden's mental health, like this Nov. 23 article by Megan Williams:
Veteran journalist and commentator Brit Hume said it is a “far cry from certain” that President Joe Biden will run for reelection in 2024, and added that, health-wise, Biden is “clearly deteriorating, he’s clearly senile.”
On Monday’s Special Report w/Brett Baier, Hume was asked about Biden’s comment that he plans to run again in 2024.
“I don’t think it’s at all clear that he intends to run again, but I do think that as a political matter, you have to say that,” replied Hume.
“He’s clearly deteriorating, he’s clearly senile, and his health is -- despite his doctor’s comments to the contrary,” said Hume. “When you’re falling down stairs and so on, as he did climbing the stairs to Air Force One, that’s worrisome.”
Williams made no effort to balance her article with the point of view of a medical expert.
Columnist Pat Buchanan -- for whom CNS editor Terry Jeffrey during both of his 1990s presidential campaigns -- has gotten into the act as well. In his Dec. 17 column, he sneered at the idea of Biden running for re-election: "Does Biden look like a signal-calling quarterback with seven years of playing days ahead of him?" He then added:
When one views his diminished mental capacities and the issues menu before him, it seems a certainty that we are not looking at a two-term president.
So where will we and Biden be at New Year's Eve 2023?
We will have an octogenarian president, in even more visible cognitive decline, faced with intractable issues of crime, a bleeding border, a pandemic and an inflation with which he has been unable to cope.
Hovering over all of the above is the gnawing and growing concern among the American people about the physical and mental capacities of their president.
A month ago, a Politico poll found that while 46% of Americans believe Biden is mentally fit for his office, 48% disagree. In the same poll, only about one-half of all Americans felt Biden was "in good health."
That's how CNS helps to keep malicious right-wing narratives going.
MRC Continues To Love J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center used to hate "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling for things like admitting that Dumbledore is gay, but has since bonded with her over their shared hatred for transgender peopple. As Rowling has continued to say transphobic things, the MRC's love for her has only grown.
Last January, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg complained that Rowling's transphobia was brought up in response to rumors of a "Harry Potter" TV series in the works, unironically declaring that "Holding a grudge is one area the left thrives" -- forgetting that she's employed by the MRC, which has held a grudge against Anita Hill for 30 years. In March, Mandelburg hyped how the actor who played "the villianous Lord Voldemort" in the "Harry Potter" movies, Ralph Fiennes, defended Rowling against criticism of her, adding, "Thank heavens Fiennes stood up to the blasphemy of cancel culture but he should be warned that he may face it too."
Veronica Hays grumbled in May about how a book festival in New Zealand "removed a popular Harry Potter segment from the event because of author J.K. Rowling’s“transphobia.'" going on to sneer, "It certainly is madness when a popular event is removed just to appease the delicate sensibilities of some mentally-ill individuals; even to the detriment of the festival’s overall success."
It was Abigail Streetman's turn to gush over Rowling in a July post, repeating the malicious narrative that transgender people are mentally ill:
J.K. Rowling can now be deemed the queen of owning (a certain segment of) libs on Twitter. The liberal author's sarcasm and refusal to back down to the far-left trans nuts has made them even crazier, but she is firing back once again.
When Rowling shared her thoughts on only women being able to menstruate in a tweet last year hard-core trans Twitter was fuming. Despite the hatred she still managed to avoid being cancelled and continues to sell millions of copies of her Harry Potter books -- even announcing plans for a Harry Potter TV series.
The Rowling hate train never stopped although it did slow down for a bit. But there's apparently a new Tweet jihad against her.
Rowling pretty cagy, though. She screenshotted a comment on the post and quoted it in an epic clap back to the authoritarian mob that works to silence her voice but claims to support “feminism”:
Thankfully Rowling actually has a backbone, unlike most of the celebrities who have caved to the social justice warriors and embraced the idea of mutilating your body in support of mental illness. She may be a fiction, author but when it comes to transgenderism she isn’t afraid to speak the truth.
It’s no wonder her books have done so well, Rowling really has a way with words.
Catherine Salgado helped Rowling play victim in a Nov. 22 post, lamenting how "The renowned author said she has been doxxed on Twitter for not agreeing with the left’s narrative on gender and sexuality," though thealleged "doxxing" came only from a photo on social media from people "who allegedly deliberately photographed themselves in front of her house so as to include the address."
When a group of quidditch players decided to change the name of the sport, Matt Philbin was on hand to be a jerk about it in a Dec. 20 post:
You’re an adult playing a game adapted from a children’s fantasy book about witches and magic. But you don’t want to be associated with the woman who invented the game in her children’s fantasy book about witches and magic because she’s not willing to indulge in your magic fantasies about human biology.
This really is the Gold Age of Stupid.
According to an article on CNN.com, there are enough lonely, directionless people in the U.S. to form two Quidditch leagues. Yes, Quidditch from J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series. The one where they fly around on brooms in scenes that stretch 10 - 12 hours in the movies.
And while it’s nice that people who would otherwise be shut-ins are getting fresh air and exercise, there’s trouble in Hogwarts. US Quidditch (USQ) and Major League Quidditch (MLQ) are going to change their names, “due to trademark issues and concerns over the ‘anti-trans positions’ of the series' author, J.K. Rowling,” according to CNN.
More importantly, the move is about cancelling Rowling, "who has increasingly come under scrutiny for her anti-trans positions in recent years," according to a statement from the leagues. Rowling’s heresy is believing the women are women and men who say they’re women aren’t. The otherwise exquisitely liberal author is concerned that the trans fad and it’s demands that the owners of wedding tackle be called women will eventually erase actual women (“people who menstruate,” as woke phrasing would have it).
So Rowling is a "renowned author" but fans who show her renown by re-enacting scenes from her books are suddenly "lonely, directionless people" because they chose to reject the author's hate? We're confused.