MRC Ready To Shove Its Hated Jen Psaki Out The Door
Topic: Media Research Center

When it was rumored in February that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was thinking of leaving her position, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck -- whose hatred for Psaki has been reinforced every day he smears her and fluffs Peter Dopocy -- was eager to [pounce in a Feb. 28 post:

According to Puck News’s Dylan Byers on Wednesday, a real Psaki Show could soon become a reality as CNN and MSNBC have been jockeying to hire the current White House press secretary as a full-time host (and not as a commentator, like she did from 2017 to 2020 at CNN).

Byers — formerly of NBCNews.com and the CNN Media team — wrote that, “earlier this month,” Psaki had respective lunch meetings with “CNN interim co-president Amy Entelis and CNN+ programming lead Rebecca Kutler” and then “NBC News Chairman Cesar Conde and MSNBC President Rashida Jones.”

For CNN, they’re hoping to nab “a marquee star” amidst chaos within the company. As for MSNBC, they’re aiming to find someone to fill the void that’ll be left by Rachel Maddow.

Because Houck can't abide anyone saying nice things about Psaki, he grumbled that "Byers gave syrupy praise for Psaki" by putting her in the company of other former White House staffer who have gone on to greater things, then whined that "Of course, Byers left out the affable and widely-respected Dana Perino of Fox News." He then complained that "Byers boasted that 'many of whom credit her with restoring dignity to a lectern that had been ravaged and abused by Sean Spicer, Sarah Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany. And her daily briefing has become appointment viewing for fans who eagerly await her pithy retorts to reporters[.]'"

He did, however, repeat Psaki tweaking Doocy during that day's press briefing:: "On Friday afternoon, Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba asked Psaki about the report, to which she replied with a nod to Fox’s Peter Doocy: 'I have more than enough on my plate here and so, you can't get rid of me quite yet. Sorry, Peter, for you on that.'"

When Psaki's next gig at MSNBC was reported on April 1, Houck made sure to insult her on the way out the door, though no departure date was announced:

Psaki — host of what we’ve referred to as The Psaki Show — has spent the entirety of the Biden presidency as perhaps its most public face (aside from the President himself), left to answer, lie, and spin her way through the many controversies, crises, and gaffes.

And, of course, it’s safe to argue Psaki’s stock wouldn’t be anywhere near where it is without her viral back-and-forths with Fox News’s Peter Doocy, who’s been able to hold the administration accountable without scooping to the juvenile levels we saw with a host of liberal journalists to Trump press secretaries.

So, whether it’ll be called The Psaki Show, Circle Back with Psaki, or Psock It, or Put a Psock in It, White House reporters will soon face a new face on a day-to-day basis at the podium.

Actually, the only juvenile behavior we saw in the White House briefing room during the Trump years were attempts to expel reporters whose aggressive reporting press secretaries like Jim Acosta and Brian Karem.

Since he gets paid to trash Psaki at every opportunity, Houck used his briefing writeup that day to trash her for not confirming reports about her departure and purported ethics questions about negotiating a new job while still in the old one:

Hours after Axios’s Sara Fischer broke news that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki would be joining MSNBC, Psaki faced a slew of questions in Friday’s briefing about the ethics behind such a swift move and negotiating a job while still in government. CBS’s Ed O’Keefe broke the ice, but he was followed by future Psaki colleague Kristen Welker of NBC, who questioned whether she should be allowed to stay at her post.

O’Keefe stepped up after most of the briefing had been dominated by the March jobs report, gas prices, and Russia’s war against Ukraine: “[O]ne little bit of housekeeping. Is it true that you are leaving the White House to work for MSNBC?”

Psaki tried to get away by quipping that “you can’t rid of me yet,” but that fell on deaf ears as she went onto say she couldn’t “confirm” anything “about my length of public service or planned service or anything about consideration about next plans.”

[...]

As Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) correctly noted, it’s all but certain “[e]very reporter in that room knew that Psaki was negotiating with several networks,” so it’s worth pondering a question he raised: “They all just went on with the charade of asking and answering questions from a known future colleague.”

By contrast, Houck was completely silent when his beloved Kayleigh McEnany arguably violated ethical employment practices by refusing to do her job at the end of the Trump administration, holding absolutely no press briefings lest she be forced to answer questions about the Capitol riot her boss helped to incite.

When Psaki's departure date of May 13 was announced, Houck unsurprisingly took a shot at her -- while, of course, engaging in a little Doocy-fluffing -- in a May 5 post, claiming that "ending a 17-month run that saw her become a household name with spin of the administration’s struggles and presidential gaffes and viral exchanges with Fox’s Peter Doocy."

Houck then obsessed over the sex life of Psaki's replacement, Karine Jean-Pierre -- whom he has previously smeared as a diversity hire because she's black and LGBT -- making sure to highlight that "Jean-Pierre is the partner of longtime CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux (with whom they share a daughter)."

WND Won't Define 'Reasonable' Physical Punishment In Criticizing Corporal Punishment Ban
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh complained in a March 21 article:

Starting now, if a parent spanks a disobedient child that action could result in a criminal record in one country.

And it applies to anyone who has responsibility for a child, such as a relative or caretaker when the parent is absent.

And it applies to visitors – and their children – too.

The new law has been implemented in Wales, which followed Scotland in deciding that no corporal punishment on a child is legal, ever.

Physical punishment already was a violation of the law in schools, children's homes, local authority foster care homes and childcare settings.

Even hitting a child already was considered common assault even by a parent or caretaker.

But the law allowed them to raise the defense that it was a reasonable punishment.

Now that option is gone.

But Unruh never defines what is supposedly a "reasonable" physical punishment for a child. Instead,  he found a group that actually calls itself Be Reasonable to criticize the ban:

"The smacking ban is an unnecessary, unworkable and undesired law that was pushed through the Senedd by those who think they know better than parents," said Gareth Davies, the Welsh Conservatives' spokesman for social services.

The law was voted on in 2020, and was known as the Children (Abolition of Defense of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act.

A spokesman for pro-parent group Be Reasonable explained the evidence from the National Health Service, the courts, the police and prosecutors all said that removing the "reasonable chastisement defense" would accomplish the criminalization of loving parents.

But lawmakers did it anyway.

And Unruh never did get around to explaining how issuing physical punishment makes for "loving parents." He also no doubtedly thinks the "seriously out of whack" headline on his article is absolutely hilarious.

MRC's Double Standard On Gotcha Questions
Topic: Media Research Center

A week after the Media Research Center enthusiastically embraced a gotcha question to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson about what a woman is, MRC executive Tim Graham apent an April 2 post whining that a similar question was asked of a Republican governor:

The Associated Press reporter in Phoenix and other Arizona reporters want to put Gov. Doug Ducey on the defensive. AP's Bob Christie positioned Ducey exactly where the Left wanted him on his bill on preventing men from women's sports. The headline was "Arizona governor won’t say transgender people exist."

Nobody said transgender activists were like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. But on the left, unless you respect transgenders and accept their gender-bending, you don't "see" them, you "erase" them, like they don't exist.

After an excerpt from thte article that noted Ducey "paused for several seconds before answering" with a non-answer then gave another non-answer after being asked again, Graham huffily played whataboutism: "This is somehow a gaffe. President Biden can say transgenders are 'made in the image of God,' and nobody shouts at him about how transgender people don't accept what God 'assigned' them."

It wasn't a hard question to answer, the AP gave him two chances to do so, and he couldn't do it. Graham made sure to note an after-the-fact tweet by Ducey whining that the question was "absurd and offensive" and finally giving a definitive answer to the question -- raising the question of why he couldn't have done that the first time. But Graham was silent on why this was such a terrible question, and Republicans demanding that Jackson define what a woman is was not absurd and offensive.

CNS Questions Russian Money To 'Anti-Energy Activists,' Censors Russian Money To GOP
Topic: CNSNews.com

Craig Bannister wrote in an April 5 CNSNews.com article:

Twenty congressmen are calling on House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to hold a hearing to investigate potential efforts by Russia to undermine U.S. energy independence by funneling funds to anti-energy-production environmental groups in the U.S.

“Given the current global conflict, it is crucial that the Committee exercise its investigative powers to shine a spotlight on alarming reports of Russia’s attempt to buy influence in U.S. politics through domestic environmental groups,” says the letter sent to Maloney on Thursday.

“Russia’s energy sector plays an important role in facilitating its militaristic ambitions. Russia’s energy sales substantially support the current attack on Ukraine,” the letter explains.

The 20 members of Congress are requesting a hearing on alleged coordinated attempts by Russian entities to buy influence and finance U.S. environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an effort to reduce the energy security of the United States.

Bannister was silent, however, on Russian money being funneled to Republican politicians. For example:

• Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-British citizen with ties to Russia, donated more than $6 million to Republican PACs, many linked to GOP politicians in 2015-15.
• Two Republican operatives were charged last year with funneling money from a Russian national to Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
• Russian oligarch Andrey Muraviev was indicted in March for funneling donations to Trump through two men who had already been accused of making illegal donations.
• A donor to Republican Sen.Tom Cotton has received donations from a hedge fund investor who's making money off Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Donation pleas at the end of every CNS article claim that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor." If that was true, wouldn't Bannister have mentioned all this Russian money going to Republican politicians?

MRC Goes Orgasmic Over Musk's Plan To Buy Twitter
Topic: Media Research Center

If you thought the Media Research Center wasn't squee enough when Elon Musk announced that he had purchased a piece of Twitter, the squee ramped up to positively orgasmic levels when Musk declared he was planning to buy all of Twitter. Joseph Vazquez screamed "IT'S HAPPENING" (to which it was changed from "GAME ON") in the headline of his April 14 article announcing it:

The world’s richest man is officially launching his bid for a hostile takeover of one of the most censorship-obsessed Big Tech platforms in the country!

Bloomberg News reported Thursday morning that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is “saying the company has extraordinary potential and he is the person to unlock it.” The value of the offer, according to Bloomberg, amounts to a whopping $43 billion. Musk announced the move in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk also tweeted that, “I made an offer.”

This follows Musk’s cryptic rejecting of a seat on Twitter’s board of directors after his purchase of a massive 9.2 percent stake in the platform. CNBC reported recently that “[i]f Musk had joined the board, he would not be able to acquire more than 14.9% of the company’s shares.”

He apparently wasn’t satisfied with the shareholder cap and is now looking to buy up the outstanding stock to control the entire platform.

[...]

The game has now changed. Will Twitter finally be made to uphold the values of free speech? Only time will tell. 

Remember, Vazquez and the rest of his MRC buddies thinks you have a right to lie to people and that Twitter has no right to call out those lies.

A few hours later, Vazquez and Dan Gainor cranked out a column peddling the rifht-wing falsehood that Twitter enforcing its terms of service equates to "censorship" (and making sure to please their boss by quoting him):

It was the stock buyout heard ‘round the world. Tesla owner Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter could save the whole concept of online free speech and alter politics and elections globally for years to come. 

Musk’s move might be the biggest political event since the 2020 election. Media Research Center founder and President L. Brent Bozell tweeted about the offer, “Free at last. Free at last. Conservatives may be free at last!”

Leftists and the media were horrified that Musk might interfere with their ability to censor content, not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Twitter was consistently the absolute worst of the social media sites for restricting conservative content. MRC’s CensorTrack database tracked 1,954 examples of Twitter censorship, over half of the total 3,636 entries of Big Tech censorship logged.

[...]

Musk’s purchase could lift the veil of censorship that hangs like a shroud over the conservative movement. The pending purchase could also mean former President Donald Trump’s long-awaited return to Twitter. The former president used his social media superpower to beat former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in 2016. It helped offset the overwhelming bias against him in the legacy media. 

They also rehashed an old MRC talking point: "Other platforms were 'offended' too and were determined to destroy Trump’s social media presence going into the 2020 election. Twitter in particular censored Trump and his campaign a whopping 625 times between May 31, 2018 and Jan. 4, 2021. President Joe Biden and his campaign weren’t censored at all during that time period." The correct way to state that is that Trump violated Twitter's terms of service 625 times while Biden did not.

Vazquez and Gainor just couldn't stop drooling over Trump's use of Twitter:

Trump wielded social media like a Twitter version of the Incredible Hulk. It gave him the power to virtually smash critics and leftist journalists alike — defining the campaign. The Washington Post noted at the time that, “Trump used social media, and Twitter in particular, to build relationships with voters and create a word-of-mouth buzz for his brand.” The paper added, “this strategy helped Trump build attitudinal loyalty, the degree to which a customer prefers or likes a brand, rather than behavioral loyalty, when a customer buys a product out of habit.”

Ohio University Social Media Analytics Research Team Lab Director Laqeeq Khan also noted in 2016 that “Trump won social media. Simply put, Trump’s campaign was more engaged with voters.” Khan added that Trump “mastered Twitter by embracing immediacy (right now), transparency (unvarnished expression), and risk (rather than caution).”

[...]

Trump built that Twitter army up to 88 million followers during his presidential term and used it to influence major news organizations. Even journalists who hated him hung on every tweet, eager for Trump to make news. 

Now Musk has an opportunity to hit a reset and journalists and leftists in Big Tech are going to try to stop him.

Speaking of making the boss happy, Bozell appeared on Fox Business later that day to spout his talking points, and an anonyous MRC blogger was made to document it:

Appearing on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Co. late Thursday morning, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell declared that billionaire Elon Musk possibly buying out Twitter would both restore free speech to the social media platform and change “the entire dynamics of politics” across the globe. He also blasted the left-wing co-hosts of ABC’s The View for using the New York City subway shooting to attack gun rights.

“Elon Musk offering to buy 100% of Twitter in an all-cash deal. He says Twitter should go private....Brent, this is all about free speech, right?,” fill-in host Ashley Webster asked Bozell at the top of the segment. Bozell declared: “You know, I’m gonna suggest to you that this is the biggest story since the 2020 elections. It may be even bigger than the 2020 elections.”

Bozell went on to falsely overstate his case: "Consider, Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States in 2016 because he was able to use Twitter. In 2020, one reason, a major reason he lost the presidential campaign is because Twitter censored him and wouldn’t allow him." In fact, Twitter did not suspend Trump until after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot he helped to instigate (and in which Bozell's son participated), meaning it did not affect the 2020 election. And even then, the MRC itself could find few instances of Trump getting "censored" (read: violating its terms of service) only 65 times by "big tech" as of a few weeks before the eleciton.

The MRC then flooded the zone with mocking reaction pieces:

• Apple HELP! Stelter Desperately Wants to Keep Musk from Buying Twitter
• MEDIA REACT! Twitter Freaks Out over Elon Musk Going ‘Full Goblin Mode’
• MSNBC Warns of 'Devastating Consequences' If Elon Musk Buys Twitter, Allows Free Speech
• Editor’s Pick: Townhall on Axios Freak-Out Over ‘Supervillain’ Musk
• Tom Brady Asks Elon Musk To Remove Combine Photo From Twitter

There were a couple of positive reaction pieces too:

• Maher Praises Elon, SLAMS Big Tech Censorship in Rogan Interview
• EXCLUSIVE: Cruz, Gaetz, Blackburn Weigh in on Elon Musk’s Twitter Offer

There were also a couple posts on the takeover process:

• WATCH: Elon Musk Outlines Plan B If $43 Billion Twitter Bid Rejected
• NEW: Twitter Implements ‘Poison Pill’ to Thwart Musk’s Offer

Vazquez returned to whine that "A left-wing outlet funded by liberal billionaire George Soros whined that the world’s richest man’s plan to purchase Twitter was a threat to democracy." He then rehashed an old complaint that the group, Free Press, "tried to get the Federal Communications Commission to censor former President Donald Trump’s coronavirus briefings as 'hoaxes.'" Given that Trump was using those pressers to spread misinformation, that's not too extreme of a question to raise.

Vazquez concluded with his own censorship demand: "Take a seat, Free Press." Just like the MRC to not practice what it preaches.

WND's Brown Melts Down Over Caitlyn Jenner Joining Fox News
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Every once in a while, WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown likes to remind us of just how homophobic and transphobic he is. When Fox News hired Caitlyn Jenner as a commentator, Brown used his April 1 column to demand that conservatives reject Fox News:

For those who have watched Fox News over the years, it is no surprise that they announced the hiring of Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner with great fanfare and hype. In the words of CEO Suzanne Scott, "Caitlyn's story is an inspiration to us all. She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community, and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience."

Perhaps these words could be used as an epitaph on Fox's legacy. Mark the day carefully.

All the talking points are in order in Scott's short, effusive statement: Jenner's transition from Bruce to Caitlyn is "an inspiration to us all." This famous biological male is "she." And LGBTQ+ activism is something to celebrate. You go, girl!

Surely this is the death knell for Fox, even if it remains large and influential for decades to come. It has lost its voice and sold its soul. And with what moral authority can Fox call on Jenner to speak against "Lia" Thomas competing against women? Is this Fox's new message? "Transitioning is fine and sex and gender are whatever you perceive them to be. Just play fair!"

[...]

The cat has long been out of the bag when it comes to Fox's core values.

In fact, without mentioning specific names here, a friend of mine who is a publicity agent told me a few years ago that, while he wanted to land me an interview on one of the biggest shows on Fox, it would be hard for him to get past some of the show's gay producers.

In short, just because Fox was pro-Trump doesn't mean Fox was (and is) pro-Bible (as if support for Trump equated with support for the Bible).

And just because Fox is more conservative politically and fiscally than CNN or MSNBC doesn't mean that Fox is conservative morally or spiritually.

But again, this should not come as a surprise.

So, if you want biblically based views, go to people who base their lives on the Word of God. If you want news that is more conservative on some issues than the left-leaning networks, go to Fox (and some others). But by all means, do not confuse the two, especially at a time when trans activism threatens to undermine the very nature of male and female, not to mention threatens women's sports and even our fundamental freedoms of speech.

He concluded with one more rant: "Ironically, despite Fox's incessant (and often well-placed) criticisms of President Biden and his administration, Fox made its unfortunate announcement on the same day the Biden administration announced its aggressive support for radical trans activism – beginning with the transitioning of children. Mark the day."

NEW ARTICLE: The Peter Doocy Protection Center
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went into full defense mode after President Biden muttered an insult at him -- then laughably denied it was obsessed with the story even after generating days of content about it. Read more >>

CNS Publishes Men's Rights Activist
Topic: CNSNews.com

In February and March, CNSNews.com published a trio of columns by Edward E. Bartlett with a curious theme. Bartlett's Feb. 7 column was dedicated to deflating the "hoax" that domestic violence against women increases during the Super Bowl, declaring, "So on Sunday, Feb. 13, let’s invite everyone to relax, enjoy the big game, and not be distracted by dishonest claims of a 'spike' in domestic violence or human trafficking."

In his March 8 column, Bartlett complained that the Violence Against Women Act violated the constitution and insisted that "men and women were equally likely to engage in domestic violence" and that VAWA became "a feminist crusade to stereotype men as abusers, weaken the family, and expand the power of the state."

Barrett ranted in his March 11 column:

With the federal Violence Against Women Act currently being considered in Congress, one would expect that all forms of domestic violence, including female-on-female abuse, would be the focus of vigorous debate. But it’s not. For example, during the recent Oct. 5 Senate hearing on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, not a peep was said about abuse in same-sex relationships.

So what’s going on?

The Centers for Disease Control suggests that among all partners, female-initiated physical (not sexual) violence is more widespread than the male-perpetrated variety. Each year in relationships, 4.2 million men suffer from physical violence, compared to 3.5 million women.

When you zero in on abuse rates in same-sex lesbian couples, the numbers fly off the charts.

[...]

The typical framing of partner abuse as men abusing women does an enormous disservice to persons in abusive lesbian relationships. Each year, half a billion dollars of taxpayer money goes to the Violence Against Women Act. Republican and Democratic lawmakers should join together to assure this milestone law is rooted in science and fact, not gender ideology.

Bartlett clearly wants to push the idea that women are aggressors and liars and that men are docile victims. The CNS bio of Everett describes him only  as "president of the Coalition to End Domestic Violence." But there's much more going on.

As the Nation documented, Bartlett is a so-call men's rights activist who is also the head of a group called Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, part of a group of right-wing organizations that claim there is a crisis of false rape allegations against male college students. (Interestingly, the Nation identifies SAVE's primary funder as Hans Bader, an attorney who is also a CNS columnist.) Bartlett also works in the Department of Health and Human Services, and he used his position as well as his presidency of SAVE to help nudge Trump Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to develop new rules for handling sexual assaults on college campuses that narrowed the scope of what colleges are allowed to investigate, increased the evidentiary bar that must be met for colleges to take action and removed some protections from victims.

Even more interestingly, SAVE has been affiliated with an organization that procures mail-order brides from Russia. A woman who worked at both SAVE and the bride service, Natasha Spivack, fought to strip protection for immigrant women under a 2012 revision of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that they were supposedly abusing the system by making false claims of abuse -- presumably in part because her mail-order bride company was ordered to pay $434,000 in damages to a Russian immigrant woman who was abused by the man who paid the firm to procure her.

Again: The guy who runs this organization is a person CNS has decided would make a great columnist.

CNS Questions Russian Money To 'Anti-Energy Activists,' Silent On Russian Money To GOP
Topic: CNSNews.com

Craig Bannister wrote in an April 5 CNSNews.com article:

Twenty congressmen are calling on House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to hold a hearing to investigate potential efforts by Russia to undermine U.S. energy independence by funneling funds to anti-energy-production environmental groups in the U.S.

“Given the current global conflict, it is crucial that the Committee exercise its investigative powers to shine a spotlight on alarming reports of Russia’s attempt to buy influence in U.S. politics through domestic environmental groups,” says the letter sent to Maloney on Thursday.

“Russia’s energy sector plays an important role in facilitating its militaristic ambitions. Russia’s energy sales substantially support the current attack on Ukraine,” the letter explains.

The 20 members of Congress are requesting a hearing on alleged coordinated attempts by Russian entities to buy influence and finance U.S. environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an effort to reduce the energy security of the United States.

Bannister was silent, however, on Russian money being funneled to Republican politicians. For example:

• Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-British citizen with ties to Russia, donated more than $6 million to Republican PACs, many linked to GOP politicians in 2015-15.
• Two Republican operatives were charged last year with funneling money from a Russian national to Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
• Russian oligarch Andrey Muraviev was indicted in March for funneling donations to Trump through two men who had already been accused of making illegal donations.
• A donor to Republican Sen.Tom Cotton has received donations from a hedge fund investor who's making money off Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Donation pleas at the end of every CNS article claim that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor." If that was true, wouldn't Bannister have mentioned all this Russian money going to Republican politicians?

MRC Writer Frets Over Those Poor, Canceled Russian Athletes
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center sports blogger John Simmons started writing about the  Russian war on Ukraine the right way, with a Feb. 22 post cheeriing European soccer officials for pulling a tournament final out of St. Petersburg -- though he couldn't resist getting in a needless partisan dig, sneering that moving it "would be more nerve than President Biden had when he had the choice to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics, but chose not to." That was followed by a Feb. 28 post on how "more and more Ukrainian athletes have chosen to take up arms to defend their homeland, then a March 3 post on Riussian oligarch Roman Abramovich deciding to sell his Chelsea soccer team in Britain.

Since then, however, Simmons' focus has been on how unfair it allegedly is that Russian athletes have been barred from competing in various world events. He lamented in a March 8 post:

The ostracism of a Russian presence from sports leagues continues.

On Monday, the NHL announced they cut ties with the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), a professional hockey league based in Russia, making it nearly impossible for the NHL to sign anyone playing in that league.

[...]

Unfortunately, Russian businesses have not been the only ones to suffer because their globally ambitious government decided to launch an invasion.

At the start of the 2021-2022 NHL season, five percent of all players on opening day rosters were Russian. That's not a lot, but it seems many of these athletes have received an unjust amount of abuse and ridicule in recent weeks.

Thanks to the invasion, Russian and Belarusian-born hockey players who play in both the NHL and other professional and amateur leagues in North America have received numerous discriminatory comments based solely on their origin.

Simmons tried to walk a fine line on the issue:

While the sports world was right to remove numerous international competitions from taking place in Russia, this level of hatred towards the players specifically is way out of line. The majority of these players and organizations (like the KHL) do not support Putin’s actions and have no power over their leaders or what they decide to do. As long as they do not post “Down With Ukraine” messages on social media or say anything that would imply that they are happy with what is going on, they should not receive this level of hatred.

The day after, though, Simmons cheered former NHL star Jaromir Jagr for raising money to help Ukranian victims of the war.  On March 10, though, he was back to lamenting that the Chelsea soccer team was facing sanctions due to Abramovich's ownership:

So basically, a soccer team that had nothing to do with Abramovich's potentially shady business dealings or status within Russia now has their traveling funds slashed, their revenue stream strangled, and the ability to keep their players under contract stripped from them. This begs a question: how much of this is a serious attempt to hold Putin and his cronies to account and how much is simple cancel culture?

In this particular case, no one within the Chelsea organization has supported the war or condoned Russia’s actions, and yet everyone in Chelsea’s camp is suffering major consequences -- right down to the fans.

Well, yes, shady dealings tend to have a lot of collateral damage involving innocent people. Simmons lamented some more about collateral damage in a March 18 post:

The future of Russian soccer just took a massive blow.

Russia had been suspended and prevented from competing in World Cup qualifiers, and the nation appealed and pleaded for FIFA’s (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) ban to be removed. But on Friday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) denied Russia’s request,meaning that Russia will still be suspended.

[...]

Just like the economic sanctions placed on Premier League team Chelsea F.C., it's difficult to know if these measures are really all that effective in holding Vladimir Putin accountable. Most Russian athletes have not supported Putin, so punishing the players and sports teams who have nothing to do with him seems like an overreach.

Simmons' whining on behalf of Russian athletes continued in an April 20 post:

Apparently, the sports world still has a thing for banning Russian athletes from competitions.

Wimbledon announced that Russian and Belarusian tennis athletes will not be allowed to compete in the iconic tournament, but those same athletes can compete in the French Open as neutral athletes.

"In the circumstances of such unjustified and unprecedented military aggression, it would be unacceptable for the Russian regime to derive any benefits from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with The Championships. It is therefore our intention, with deep regret, to decline entries from Russian and Belarusian players to The Championships 2022," the All England Club said in a statement.

The desire to hold Russia accountable for their actions is noble, but punishing athletes that have nothing to do with the war seems to be a miscalculation of what will solve the problem.

Simmons whined somemore about the decision in a post the next day:

Wimbledon's senseless decision to ban Russian athletes from the iconic tournament has drawn lots of backlash from the tennis community at large.

Novak Djokovic, who knows a thing or two about being on the receiving end of stupid decisions from governing tennis bodies, blasted the decision as "crazy."

[...]

?Nearly all Russian athletes across sports have said they do not support any actions from the Russian government involving the invasion of Ukraine, and are being treated unfairly for something they are not involved in. No athlete, regardless of the country, should be held to that standard.

Yes, Simmons still thinks that it was a "stupid decision" to bar a selfish unvaccinated athlete from playing a tournament in the middle of a disease surge that wash killing hundreds of people a day during a raging pandemic.

The complaining continued in an April 26 post about how Wimbledon decided to let unvaccinated athletes like Djokovic play but not Russian athletes: "Logic would suggest that you should not hold athletes who have nothing to do with a major conflict accountable for a country’s decision. But then again, logic is in short supply these days." Logic would also suggest that athletes who choose to remain affiliated with a warmongering authoritarian leader should have to feel the consequences of that decision, but that seems lacking on Simmons' side.

Simmons was at it again in an April 29 post:

At least one tennis player is disgusted with Wimbledon’s decision to ban Russian athletes from this summer’s tournament.

Victoria Azarenka, who at one point in her career was the No. 1 tennis player in the world, wants the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to protest and combat the ban.

"If you are asking me if I agree with Wimbledon or see their reasoning after being on a personal call with them, I don't see their reasoning,” Azarenka said. “It does not make sense and it does not connect to what they are saying. I have made my stance very clear on the issue. I will never, ever support war.”

Azarenka gets it. It’s not like any Russian or Belarusian tennis player is a sellout for Vladimir Putin and his political actions, so it doesn’t make sense that anyone born in those countries should have to face this wacky form of punishment.

Simmons didn't mention that Azarenka is from Belarus.

CNS Sneers At New NFL Hiring Requirement
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman sneered in an April 1 article:

The National Football League (NFL) announced this week that it is requiring all 32 teams in the league to hire an offensive coach who is either "a female or a member of an ethnic or racial minority" to help enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion, reported ABC News.

In other words, they must hire someone based on their genitalia or their skin color -- but not any white males.

But Chapman largely ignored or buried why the NFL is instituting this policy, as reported in the ABC article he cited: the NFL's players are 70 percent black, but there have been only five black NFL head coaches, including the two current ones, and only two NFL teams have non-white owners. NFL head coaches tend to be former offensive coaches.

Nevertheless, Chapman felt the need to end his article:

In his famous "I Have a Dream Speech" of Aug. 28, 1963, then-Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."

Chapman was silent on the fact that the existence of so few black NFL head coaches suggests they continue to be judged by their skin and not their ability. Conservatives love to claim King as their own based on that speech but forget the fact that they hated him back in the day.

Newsmax Portrays Fired Radio Host As Victim, Censors Previous Inflammatory Tweets
Topic: Newsmax

An anonymously written April 5 Newsmax article ramped uyp the victimhood for a fired right-wing radio host:

A talk show host claims she was fired from a Washington radio station because she deigned to make light of an outfit worn by Vice President Kamala Harris during last month's State of the Union address.

As reported by The Daily Mail, Amber Athey also works for conservative magazine The Spectator.

Athey is a conservative host with a job on a morning show at news station WMAL.

She got into hot water, she said, when she wrote a light tweet about the color of the suit Harris was wearing -- a brownish hue.

'Kamala looks like a UPS employee — what can brown do for you? Nothing good, apparently,' Athey wrote in the March 1 tweet, making reference to a longtime UPS tagline.

She said there was no sign of any offense for days. But in time, she said, some comments about transgender issues earned her the wrath of left-leaning activists and the tweet was recast as racist.

Just because nobody was immediately offended doesn't mean Athey's tweet wasn't offensive. The "left-leaning activists" who purportedly "recast" Athey's tweet weren't identified; again, there's no need to "recast" something as offensive when it was always that way.

Newsmax also censored the fact that this is not the first time Athey has gotten in trouble for offensive tweets. In 2019, Athey issued an apology over racist and anti-Semitic tweets which she tried to dismiss as having been made "when I was in high school," adding that "I understand now that they are not funny and are in fact extremely harmful." Of course, the vast majority of high school students graduate without ever making racist or anti-Semitic tweets.

WND's Mercer Keeps Taking Russia's Side Against Ukraine
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've already noted that Ilana Mercer is among the WorldNetDaily columnists who have embraced Russian disinformation in the form of allegations that the U.S. is operating biolabs in Ukraine. That's not the only time she has taken Russia's side against the U.S. in Russia's war against Ukraine. Mercer suggested in her March 3 column that it was "reasonable" for Russia to invade Ukraine because of its "security concerns":

America is still the undisputed leader in attacking sovereign nations and killing their kids. Russia's foreign meddling since the early 1990s is insignificant by comparison.

[...]

We were warned. Surround Russia with NATO members, refuse to negotiate in good faith and Putin will go to war. Yet, the stance on both sides of the Atlantic has been dismissive, even contemptuous, of Putin's reasonable, long-standing security concerns.

Mercer linked to a version of her Jan. 27 column, in which she insisted that "'the struggle for Ukraine' is a chapter in a series of U.S. orchestrated provocations, which began with the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) eastward to abut Russia's borders" and declared that "Russia finds itself between Scylla and Charybdis – allow a buildup on its border, or act, for it has legitimate security concerns."

Mercer then argued that Ukraine should simply have capituated to Russia's demands:

Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky – who is the toast of the town simply because he did not skedaddle from the mess in which he mired his country – to this ass with ears goes a special award for recklessness. Not fleeing a situation largely of your making does not a hero make. Curiously, we Americans have offered Zelensky the coward's way out, when we ought to have forced him to sit down with his foes.

[...]

Ukrainians, for their part, are tireless and wily lobbyists in Washington, way more cunning than their American counterparts. For all intents and purposes, Zelensky, head of the corrupt American client statelet that is Ukraine, had tethered the fate of his country to America, NATO and the EU, constantly trying to bend these foolish and feckless entities to his will – too much of a clown to look out for his countrymen's safety, rather than his own popularity in the West.

In her March 24 column, Mercer dismissed Zelensky as a "failed leader" because he didn't capituate to Russia to stop its invasion:

To normies, a leader who doesn't plead for the lives of his people is a failed leader. Diplomacy, negotiations, a cease-fire: that's the nomenclature clear-thinking people ought to wish instinctively to hear when they see the immiseration of Ukrainians and their cities. To my knowledge, not before the war and not now has Zelensky initiated, or partaken in, or been urged to pursue serious, high-level talks with Putin.

And while there is some indication that Zelensky might be inching closer to acceding "neutrality for Kyiv and security guarantees for Moscow," publicly, Zelensky has done nothing but snarl his contempt for Russia, roaring at the Kremlin to "hold peace talks now or suffer for generations." This is not diplomacy, but yet more political posturing and provocation. (But then Zelensky, an actor, could be prepping to appear before the central, universal seat of asininity: Hollywood's Oscars.)

The Hebrew Testament (though "Old," it's never out-of-date) is bedecked with examples of leaders pleading, even bargaining, for the lives of the Stiff-Necked People. Abraham haggled ingeniously with The Almighty over Sodom and Gomorrah. Queen Esther petitioned mighty King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) on behalf of Persian Jews, and Moses did the same for his enslaved people before Pharaoh. Another Hebrew has written that "he who saves you from war is better than he who sends you to war." That's what real leadership is about – uphold and fight for the people's natural right to live peacefully.

By these reasonable and rational criteria, Zelensky and Biden are failed leaders for doing nothing but bait and goad the Russian Bear.

Mercer continued to lament poor Russia in her April 7 column:

All nations now are expected to have found religion on Ukraine. As I pointed out at the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, from COVID submission, we the zombie subjects of the new, global order – for citizens we are not – were directed to shuffle along, shipshape, into a new compliance, this time over Ukraine.

In other words, agree with the U.S.'s Disneyfied, angels-and-demons foreign policy, which has now thoroughly infected the world, or face the consequences.

And, unless Russia is made over in the cloying, sloganeering, self-righteously woke image of America – it will not be allowed to stand. Not in its current iteration. That's the message transmitted by the Biden administration, echoed by the Republican Party.

After smearing Zelensky as a "puppet President," Mercer cheered how Ukranian refugees are largely stayingin countries of similar ethnic makeup:

From the elephantine impact of the United States around the world, to the elephant in the proverbial room: Before our very eyes we see a peaceful, almost-seamless integration of millions-upon-millions of Ukrainian refugees into Poland, predominantly, as well as into surrounding countries such as Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. How so? No one will say what is so plain to see.

Those fleeing and those welcoming them with open arms are all almost exclusively of the same Slavic European racial groups, sharing similar habits, habitat and history. It's both natural and easy to welcome people so like you into your midst. For their part, grateful Ukrainians are already begging their benefactors not for handouts but for … jobs. Clearly, in homogeneous, smaller societies, the trust quotient and fellow feeling among people is high.

"Social capital" is how social scientist Robert Putnam termed this. Social connectedness, as in the "networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity," is high in these similar, smaller societies. If you doubt this statement of reality, just imagine the uproar that would have ensued if 3 million Syrian and Libyan refugees were preparing to flood Poland.

As befits someone who laments the end of apartheid, Mercer is not a big fan of swarhy, dark-skinned people hanging out with her fellow white Christians.

Mercer framed her May 5 column around a writer named Boyd Cathey -- a far-right activist who helped racists take over the Sons of Confederate Veterans -- who is defending Putin as a traditionalist:

Vladimir Putin, argues Dr. Cathey, has rejected the West's culturally, racially and sexually decadent ways. For this reason, the Russian president has been targeted by the United States for an excruciatingly slow demise. Led by the U.S., the West is destined to bleed Russia dry, the eventual outcome being "regime change" in Moscow (yet another "color revolution").

A trickier question for those of us on the Old Right is this: Putin is a Russian patriot. This, in-depth interviews with the Russian president amply evince. He adores and is deeply acquainted with the nation's "ancient faith," its history and traditions. But could it be that we of the Old Russell Kirk Right, nostalgic for the very same things absent in our own societies, are romanticizing the Russian people? This writer shares Dr. Cathey's love of Tsarist Russia's great culture before communism.[...]

Finally, although it is possible to justify Putin's war with reference to the more statist scholastic Just War Theory – the libertarian axiom of non-aggression won't permit such justification. Putin's war in Ukraine is a war for which there are plenty of reasons, all of them vindicating Russia; Russia is in the right! Reasons for war, however, are not the same as justification for war. A war of aggression is seldom justified.

Yes, Mercer really thinks that Russia is perfectly justified in trying to destroy Ukraine.It's telling that of thes columns, her other ConWeb outlet, CNSNews.com, has published only the April 7 column.

MRC's Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome: The So-Called Study
Topic: Media Research Center

Of course, the Media Research Center had to work a misleading "study" into its Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome, and Geoffrey Dickens did the honors in an April 18 post:

It was a bombshell story that could have swayed the 2020 presidential election. 

Just weeks before Election Day, the New York Post printed an explosive story on the morning of October 14, 2020, that alleged Hunter Biden had corrupt business dealings with Ukraine and Joe Biden knew about them.

The Post story was full of stunning revelations. The “No.3 exec” of the Ukrainian firm Burisma (the firm that was paying Hunter $50,000 a month) asked Hunter Biden for “advice on how you could use your influence” to help the company. “The blockbuster correspondence&rdquo countered Joe Biden’s assertion that he “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” The “correspondence” came from emails found in a laptop dropped off at a Delaware computer store. Also found in the laptop was video evidence of Hunter’s “raunchy” sexual behavior and drug use.

[...]

Broadcast networks systematically buried the devastating laptop story. From October 14, 2020 (the day the New York Post broke the laptop story) through the morning of April 18, 2022 — a period of 18 months — MRC analysts looked at the ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs. That analysis found the total amount of time spent on the Hunter Biden laptop story came to a miniscule 25 minutes, 6 seconds.

LIke his MRC co-workers, Dickens convenient omits the fact that the Post offered no independent verification of the laptop or the information on it, and the fact it is a pro-Trump, anti-Biden media outlet repeating information from pro-Trump, anti-Biden activists like Rudy Giuliani. Those factors made it easy for media outlets outside of the MRC's right-wing bubble to ignore the story. The fact that information on the laptop couldn't be confirmed until just a couple months ago further demonstrates how questionable the original sourcing was.

As usual for an MRC "study," there was no attempt to document how much time Fox News spent on the story, let alone the amount of time Dickens and the MRC believe should have been an adequate amount for non-right-wing outlets to spend on the story. After all, if you're complaining that too little time was spent covering a story, you need a metric to determine what, exactly, "too little" actually means.

He went on to huff:

It all worked. Research conducted by The Polling Company for the Media Research Center after the 2020 election found that the media’s censorship of Biden scandals had a significant impact on the election. The survey found that 45.1% of Biden voters in seven key swing states said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter. According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, which would have given the former president 311 electoral votes.

Dickens didn't disclose the fact that, as we've noted, The Polling Company was founded by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, raising the issue of another conflict of interest and throws doubt on the accuracy of the poll.

In short, yet another shoddy, biased, incomplete MRC "study." Did anyone expect anything different?

WND Defends Conspiracy-Mongering Over Biden 'New World Order' Reference
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Leave it to the conspiracy-mongerers at WorldNetDaily to defend conspiracy-mongering. Art Moore wrote in a March 22 article:

Twitter is among the media platforms taking to task "conspiracy theorists" who spotlighted President Biden's mention in a speech that "there's going to be a new world order."

The Big Tech giant said "New World Order" is a trending term on the platform as "unfounded claims" are being spread.

At a meeting Monday in Washington of the Business Roundtable lobbying organization, Biden declared: "Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it."

The Independent newspaper of London reported Biden "has inadvertently drawn the attention of conspiracy theorists with remarks he made at the end of a speech about the implications of Russia's assault on Ukraine."

The paper said the "'new world order' conspiracy theory dates back decades." The British stated that the theory "holds that a nefarious elite led by the United Nations and other shadowy forces is planning to install a single transnational global government via the use of force – possibly with the involvement of US agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which some believe is preparing to put Americans in concentration camps."

However, regardless of what Biden meant when he used the term on Monday, his administration is an advocate of the World Economic Forum, the globalist organization that calls for a "Great Reset" of capitalism and national sovereignty while boasting of regularly assembling "the world's most powerful decision-makers."

Biden has adopted WEF's term "Build Back Better," which captures the idea of a "Great Reset" of the world order in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Moore then rehashed purported evidence that claims to support such conspiracy-mongering:

Fact-checkers have dismissed the "Great Reset conspiracy theory," but WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab made it clear in June 2020 that the COVID-19 pandemic should be exploited as an opportunity to advance the globalist agenda promoted by his Davos conferences, which have pushed for numerous proposals, such as a worldwide carbon tax, to redistribute wealth and shift sovereignty from nation states to global entities.

[...]

One year ago, Pope Francis called for a "new world order" in a book titled "God and the World to Come." He described the new order as a shift from financial speculation, fossil fuels and military build-up to a green economy based on inclusiveness.

After the coronavirus pandemic, the pope said in an excerpt of the book released by the Vatican, "the world will never be the same again."

Did Moore think the world would remain the same after a global pandemic that killed millions of people?

Moore pushed the conspiracy theory again in a March 31 article:

Considerable attention recently has been drawn to the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" initiative, which regards the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to accelerate the globalist objective of increasingly exchanging national sovereignty for international governance.

A lesser known entity, the starkly named World Government Summit, met this week in the ultramodern Gulf emirate Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates.

Its 2022 meeting opened Wednesday with British journalist and CNN Abu Dhabi-based anchor Becky Anderson asking, "Are we ready for a new world order?"

Anderson said "the organizers here are nothing, if not ambitious" for tackling the subject, warning that the world "has hit an inflection point."

Moore then rehashed his complaints about conspiracy theorists like himself getting called out for latching onto Biden's "new world order" reference.

WND's columnist joined in the conspiracy-mongering as well. Oliver North and David Goetch wrote in their April 4 column:

On March 21, shortly before leaving for his NATO summit in Europe, President Joe Biden told the Business Roundtable about "a new world order out there, and we've got to lead it." Unlike so many of Biden's other jaw-dropping comments made before, during and after the summit, nobody raced to "clean up" or "correct" this one. White House, State Department and Pentagon officials and staffers tried to set the record straight about sending the 82nd Airborne into Ukraine, regime change in Russia and an "in-kind" response if Russia used chemical weapons against Ukraine and other Biden gaffes.

Yet no Washington or media elites tried to "walk back" Biden's "new world order" comment. Why? Because far-left globalists have been pressing for a new world order since 1940, when prolific British writer H.G. Wells published his nonfiction work, "The New World Order."

North and Goetsch went on to detail their imagined, hateful version of Biden's "new world order" to instill fear in their readers:

By allowing himself to be controlled, manipulated and scripted by the far left, Biden's new world order is one where the U.S. suffers spiraling inflation, undependable, unaffordable energy, second-class status on the world stage, out-of-control crime, increasing racial discord, food shortages, supply chain tie-ups and millions of immigrants illegally flooding our country.

In Biden's new world order, our federal government will dictate whether Americans must foreswear fossil fuels while our "elites" fly around in private jets – without wearing masks. The Bidenistas apparently believe we will allow the left to pack the Supreme Court, federalize voting laws, eliminate the Electoral College and – lest we forget – replace traditional energy sources with wind, solar and battery power. Do they really believe the eco-loons can control how hard the wind blows and how long the sun shines?

In the Biden new world order, the Peoples' Republic of China will remain ascendent in economic and military power. Through its global Belt and Road Initiative, the PRC will soon attain control over the world's most precious mineral resources and seize control over Taiwan's invaluable scientific microchip production.

[...]

Biden's pusillanimous vision of a new world order should not be America's future. We can still turn our country around before it goes over the cliff behind our bumbling, cognitively impaired, ethically miasmic and timorous president. Preventing the Biden administration's dreams of a new world order from coming to fruition is still possible, but it will require a "regime change" in Washington. 

Of course -- the whoie point of "new world order" conspiracies are to instill fear, no matter how far from reality they are.