MRC Licks Its Chops At Prospect Of GOP Investigations Of Hunter Biden Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has longbeenobsessed with destroying Hunter Biden as a means to destroy President Biden, and Republicans taking control of the House in the midterm elections had it licking its chops at the prospect of investigations designed to further smear him and, by association, the president. Which means it spent a lot of time after the election complaining that people were pointing out this Republican bloodlust. A Nov. 20 post by Kevin Tober lashed out at an ABC reporter for noting this:
After spending the past year cheering on Congressional Democrats in their seemingly never ending quest to investigate former President Donald Trump and his actions on and leading up to the January 6 riots, including the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and presumably prosecute Trump, suddenly investigations and oversight are bad since it’s the GOP’s turn to conduct them.
The leftist media’s blatant and shameless hypocrisy was on full display during Sunday’s This Week on ABC when fill-in host Jon Karl interviewed former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan about his take on politics and his new book which outlines solutions to America’s fiscal problems.
Karl fretted to Ryan that his book “which looks at the financial issues facing the country,” was “not part of this campaign.” Yet if it were part of the 2022 midterms, Karl would’ve tried his hardest behind the ABC News anchor desk to demonize his policy solutions just like the media did in 2012 when Ryan was the GOP Vice Presidential nominee.
Instead, Karl bemoaned how Republicans are talking about oversight investigations into Hunter Biden’s corruption and other reportedly illegal activities by the Biden crime family.
Karl then jumped in to smear the GOP once more before the show ended: “those that are saying hell no, they won't vote for Kevin McCarthy, they like chaos. I mean, that's not an argument against it. I mean, they want chaos.”
Tober didn't disprove anything Karl said.
Mark Finkelstein spent a Nov. 22 post trying to legitimize GOP probes of the Bidens after MSNBC host Joe Scarborough "suggested that today's Republicans are making a similar mistake in investigating what he repeatedly called "Hunter Biden's laptop.'":
That was a blatant mischaracterization. As Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House oversight committee that will be conducting the investigation has made clear, this is an investigation of Joe Biden. The question is whether Biden was indeed "the big guy" who was skimming a share of the ill-gotten proceeds that Hunter obtained through his influence-peddling schemes.
Scarborough told Republicans "they're going to waste two years and lose big in '24."
It's through that lens that we therefore have to ask: why is the liberal media so intent on trying to dissuade the Republicans from investigating Hunter Biden's dealings and the possible connections to Joe Biden? One thing is certain: it's not out of MSM concern that by investigating, the Republicans will be hurting themselves politically! We all know that old adage about not stopping an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself!
Note: as for Scarborough's claim that Republicans are exclusively focused on "Hunter Biden's laptop," to the exclusion of addressing issues of concern like crime, inflation, and the border. Comer made the point that Republicans can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that the great majority of House Republicans are not on the Oversight committee and will be addressing those other issues.
Alex Christy was similarly defensive in a Dec. 7 post: "House Republicans have not even taken the gavels yet and CNN’s Inside Politics warned them Wednesday not step out of line with voters by investigating Hunter Biden or wokeness. If only CNN had this segment when Democrats were pursuing Donald Trump’s taxes.
Finkelstein returned for a Dec. 12 post attacking "Morning Joe" again for questioning the validity of the investigation:
Mika Brzezinski broke out her violin, lamenting that Republicans are "going after Joe Biden's remaining son," and skeptically saying, "we've gone through this. Haven't we gone through this?"
Scarborough claimed "Every time they go down this path, and they want to investigate the investigators, they want to attack the FBI, they want to attack the CIA, they want to attack the intel community. It never pays off for them." So what Team Scarborough is doing now is just mocking the investigators, facts be damned.
Democrat apparatchik Adrienne Elrod even claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop is a "frivolous" and "meritless" matter and claimed Biden's approval rating will go up because he's "delivering for the American people." Question for Adrienne: if the Hunter laptop matter is so "frivolous" and "meritless," why have your fellow Democrats brought in slime merchant David Brock to threaten members of the Republican committee investing the matter with dishing dirt on them?
So, go ahead, liberal media. Keep trying to whistle past the graveyard of Hunter Biden's laptop. We'll see who's laughing when the investigations are done.
Yes, the MRC has previously complained that Brock is fighting back on Hunter's behalf. And if those committee members have nothing to hide, why is Finkelstein complaining about Brock investigating the investigators when it loudlycheered GOP special counsel John Durham for doing basically the same thing?
Apparently remaining in flip-flop mode over polls, Toberhyped one that fit the narrative in a Dec. 15 post:
According to a Fox News poll released late Thursday evening, voters in both parties support an investigation by the Justice Department into Hunter Biden's business dealings with foreign governments.
According to Fox News Digital, "Recent revelations about social media companies tamping down the story in the run-up to the 2020 election have not changed voters' opinions — just as many feel it is important to investigate Hunter Biden now as they did this past August."
The question remains, will the networks eventually cover this poll? Probably not considering the narrative that's been set that only Republicans care about Hunter Biden's crimes. This poll has set another leftist media narrative crumbling to the ground.
As we've documented, the MRC hyped numerous narrative-advancing polls prior to the midterm elections -- despite libelously accusing the media of fabricating polls in the 2020 election -- as evidence that "leftist media narratives" were being crumbled, only to have the midterms reveal much reduced support for Repubican narratives then it thought. And, no, it's not accusing those pollsters of fabricating their numbers like it did in 2020.
How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately? Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's been a while since we checked in on WND columnist Michael Brown spewing hatred at LGBT people while pretending he doesn;t actually hate them. Let's see how that's going, shall we? Going back a bit, he used his Oct. 14 column to complain that churches weren't hating LGBT poeple enough:
For the last 40 years, with rare exception, I have been teaching in (and leading) ministry schools on a weekly basis, having the joy and privilege of pouring into the next generation of leaders. I now spend five days a month in Texas, teaching three days at a school in Dallas and two days at a school in Fort Worth. This week, after speaking about the church and LGBTQ+ issues and people, one of the deans made a striking comment to me: "The church's silence has hurt these people." She was absolutely right.
I devoted the class this past Monday to the subject of the church's calling to make a positive impact on society, to function as salt and light.
An older man said to me with pain in his voice, "Please pray for my daughter. She now identifies as a man. She has changed her name, she is taking hormones, and she had her breasts removed."
He told me she was 23 years old and had the mastectomy at the age of 21. Can you imagine how this father feels?
With his wife, he welcomed their precious daughter into the world, probably bouncing her on his knees and singing songs to her when she was a baby, only to see her make these tragic, self-destructive choices.
She was once their precious little girl, perhaps wearing cute frilly dresses for fun. Now she has mutilated her body and identifies as a man.
I encouraged him to watch the "In His Image" documentary that I had the privilege of hosting for American Family Studios. It gives hope to family members praying for their struggling ones, as well as hope to the struggler. And he gave me a piece of paper with her name on it, asking again for my prayers.
In his Oct. 17 column, Brown complained that right-winger Dennis Prager was too nice to transgender people by saying merely that they are "not necessarily blurring the distinction God made":
To be sure, we should show compassion to those who are genuinely confused about their gender identity. Absolutely.
But it is absurd to think that a bearded man who dresses like a woman has violated the Torah while a biological male who does his best to destroy biological reality and transform himself into a woman has not violated Torah law.
Really now, which is a greater assault on the fundamental distinctions established at creation by God? A man dressing up like a woman, or a man claiming that gender is a mental perception rather than a biological reality? The former makes a mockery of the male-female distinction. The latter seeks to obliterate that distinction entirely.
How about a woman surgically removing the healthy breasts God gave her, then mutilating her private parts and getting a male-looking add-on, then taking hormones for life that will daily fight against her God-given femaleness, now claiming to be a man? How is that not infinitely worse (and more in violation of God's design) than that same woman cross-dressing?
rager ends his article stating, "How God regards an individual who is convinced he or she is living in the wrong body is not addressed here. I believe God both has standards (that we never blur the male-female distinction) and compassion (for those few individuals who do not identify with their biological sex), and so should we."
It would have been far better to say, "While having compassion on those who are confused and pained over their gender identity, we must never affirm transgender ideology, since it undermines the male-female distinction."
Dennis, please do reconsider your position (Proverbs 1:5a).
Brown raged against drag queens in his Oct. 31 column:
Drag queens reading to toddlers in libraries and schools. Drag queens engaging in indecent acts with children in gay bars. Drag queens performing in our churches.
If anything was a sign that God has given America over to depravity, it is this.
Rampant porn addiction is bad enough, as is the redefining of the very meaning of marriage.
adical shouting their abortions and the government openly advocating for the chemical castration and genital mutilation of confused children is yet another telltale sign.
But the drag queen depravity goes one step further.
It celebrates that which is shameful and normalizes that which is perverse. And it does so in the most exaggerated, even overtly demonic form, with Drag Queens wearing Satanic horns while reading to tiny little children.
This is madness. This is depravity. This is perverse.
But this is what happens when God gives people over to their sinful imaginations. A clear and definite line is crossed, as people not only tolerate evil, they celebrate it.
That which is despicable is now honored, and that which is shameful is paraded openly. The conscience is seared and the folly revealed.
It is as if God said, "If that's what you want, then have at it, without restraint and without reserve. The seat belts are off and the brakes do not work. You are in free fall now. I will let the whole world see your folly."
Brown spent his Nov. 23 column denying that right-wing anti-LGBTQ hatred was a factor in a massacre at a Colorado Springs LGBT club and again pretending that he really doesn't hate them:
Although we still do not know if the massacre at a gay bar in Colorado Springs was a hate crime (as of this writing), it is always appropriate to denounce all acts of violence and hatred against the LGBTQ+ community. There is absolutely no justification for such acts no matter how deep the disagreements. You do not murder people because you differ with them.
All the more is this true for followers of Jesus. Acts of murder and hatred are totally antithetical to His character, His example and His teachings.
Unfortunately, before we know for sure what prompted the shooter to slaughter his victims in cold blood, the Washington Post and others are already assigning blame.
[Washington Post reporter Casey] Parks also cites Jay Brown, senior vice president of programs, research and training for the Human Rights Campaign, who claimed "that Americans can't, and shouldn't, separate those acts of violence from state-sanctioned efforts to limit LGBTQ rights."
He said, "We've seen more than 340 anti-LGBTQ bills filed this year alone. We've seen a huge increase in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric online and by politicians, and we've seen real threats."
But herein lies the problem.
If you oppose LGBTQ+ activism in any form, you are not only branded a hater. You are also accused of inciting violence.
If you object to drag queens indoctrinating toddlers, there is blood on your hands.
If you do not want a biological male sharing a locker room with your daughter, you are complicit in the Colorado Springs massacre.
If you oppose the chemical castration and genital mutilation of trans-identifying children, you are a murderer.
If you support your state's efforts to protect religious freedoms, thereby supporting "state-sanctioned efforts to limit LGBTQ rights," you contributed to the bloodshed in Colorado Springs.
Have not leaders like Jay Brown made themselves perfectly clear?
For more than 20 years now, ever since I started preaching on the theme of "Jesus Revolution," I have stated categorically that the Lord calls us to put down our swords and take up our crosses, devoting whole chapters to this subject.
I have shouted from the rooftops that we are called to overcome evil with good, hatred with love and lies with truth.
The Lord's kingdom cannot be advanced with carnal anger, hatred, violence and bloodshed. God forbid.
And as a leader in the culture wars since 2004, when I first felt called to push back against gay activism, I have made clear that all human beings, including those who identify as LGBTQ+, are created in God's image.
I have also stated that Jesus shed the same blood for gays as for straights.
And our mantra has been simple: "Reach out and resist," meaning, reach out to the LGBTQ+ community with compassion; resist the agenda with courage.
But today, if you dare resist the goals of LGBTQ+ activists, you are not just a hater. You are complicit in the shedding of innocent blood.
This leaves us with two choices.
We either sit back and allow LGBTQ+ activists and lawmakers and educators to reshape society, taking away our rights and indoctrinating our children, or we get branded an accessory to murder.
Brown then tried to articulate his dichotomy:
What, then, should we do?
First, we make clear in our words and attitudes that we categorically denounce all acts of violence and hatred against all those who identify as LGBTQ+.
Second, we do our best to demonstrate our love for the LGBTQ+ community on a personal level, letting them know who we really are.
Third, we stand our ground without flinching, knowing that opposing LGBTQ+ activism is a good and righteous thing to do.
To quote Brown, herein lies the problem. He seems oblivious to the fact that "LGBTQ+ activism" is, in part, a desire for basic rights, to not to be discriminated against or murdered. Thus, his purported compassion and "love" will always look phony because he ultimately wants them to be discriminated against and shunned.
MRC's Graham Again Whines That A Republican Narrative Got Fact-Checked Topic: Media Research Center
One of Media Research Center executive Tim Graham's standard complaints (donetodwindlingdegreesof success) involves right-wing falsehoods getting fact-checked. He did it again in a Jan. 11 column:
House Republicans carried out a pledge to vote to repeal a $71 billion increase in spending for the Internal Revenue Service that was included in Joe Biden’s so-called “Inflation Reduction Act.” Reporters called this a “messaging bill,” since there's no chance it will pass a Democrat-controlled Senate or be signed by President Biden.
Chief Washington Post “Fact Checker” Glenn Kessler broke out the “Four Pinocchios” rating under the headline “'87,000 IRS agents’ is the zombie falsehood setting the House agenda.”
The IRS never announced they would hire 87,000 agents to audit your taxes, although a Treasury Department report estimated they could hire 86,852 new full-time employees.
“We originally gave this claim Three Pinocchios because at least Republicans could point to a number in a Treasury report,” Kessler proclaimed. “But now, after repeated fact checks, there is really no excuse, and we are upping the rating to Four Pinocchios.” He called it “untethered from reality.”
Kessler reported the IRS has about 79,000 employees now, and “The Congressional Budget Office assumes, absent additional funding, IRS staffing would keep falling to about 60,000 in 10 years, so the funding would allow a doubling from that base.”
Fun fact: PolitiFact threw a “Mostly False” rating at Sen. Tom Cotton for saying, among other things, the Biden bill “doubles the size of the IRS.”
Doubling the IRS workforce obviously means the government will collect a lot more in taxes.
Note the deception Graham is using here: He's claiming it's correct to claim that IRS employment will double if you use a number from 10 years in the future, not the the current employment number most people assume is the case when Republicans push that talking point.
Graham went on to whine that the right-wing "87,000 IRS agents" was debunked as well:
Many of the “independent fact-checkers” rained fire on the claim the IRS would hire 87,000 new agents. Reporters like Mychael Schnell at The Hill asserted that the money would likely go for “customer service” or “computer science.” Others have suggested the hiring of janitors.
Kessler made a list of his allies in this anti-Republican crusade. PolitiFact threw a flag in August. Actually, it threw at least five “Mostly False” flags, because they couldn’t stand this GOP talking point. The Kessler list also included FactCheck.org, USA Today, Reuters, The New York Times, and Time magazine. He somehow left out the other tilted referees at the Associated Press and Snopes.com.
Graham doesn't actually dispute that debunking, which he tried to hide by attacking the fact-checkers as "tilted." But how "tilted" can they be if you can't dispute the accuracy of the fact-check?
Then, to further distract from the fact that the fact-checkers were correct, he played whataboutism:
By contrast, President Biden uncorked a series of lies and smears that voting laws like those passed by Republicans in Georgia were some version of “Jim Crow,” or made “Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.” All these “fact checkers” took a nap on that hyperbolic excess, even after the voter turnout in Georgia in 2022 set new records.
Apparently, the “Jim Crow” lies result in heavier voter turnout, so “fact checking” in this case is....unhelpful. (Kessler flagged Biden for inaccurately claiming the Georgia bill “ends voting hours early,” but left the Jim Crow junk alone.)
Since Election Day on November 8, Kessler has a “perfect” record of checking only Trump and conservatives – on seven occasions – not counting “year in review” posts. This makes sense, since Kessler’s Twitter page celebrates how the leftist comic strip “Doonesbury” noticed his self-righteous aggression on Trump.
Graham has already admitted that he's trying to discredit fact-checkers by portray ingthe mere act of fact-checking anyone on the right as an inherently biased act, since he can't actually prove the fact-checkers wrong, and it's an narrative he repeated at the end of his column: "These fact-checkers describe themselves as 'independent,' but their seemingly inevitable leftward tilt and herd mentality make a mockery of the word. Even if their checks are factual, they appear to half of Americans as a vital cog in the Democratic Party’s messaging apparatus."
Or, you know, Republicans could simply not lie and deceive. Graham seems not to have thought of that.
CNS' Jeffrey Keeps On Implicitly Blaming Dems For Deficit Spending Topic: CNSNews.com
A partisanjournalistictradition at CNSNews.com is editor Terry Jeffrey implicitly blaming Democrats for deficit spending as he highlights tax collections, even though he refused to blame Republicans for deficit spending when they controlled the presidency and at least one chamber of Congress. Jeffrey made sure to keep up that tradition in the latter months of 2022. He wrote in a Sept. 14 article:
The federal government collected a record $4,408,452,000,000 in total taxes in the first eleven months of fiscal 2022 (October through August), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
That was up $525,658,170,000—or 13.5 percent--from the then-record $3,882,793,830,000 (in constant August 2022 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2021.
The Department of Health and Human Services led the federal government in spending in the first eleven months of fiscal 2022 with outlays of $1,467,475,000,000. The Social Security Administration was second, spending $1,168,870,000,000 in the first eleven months of this fiscal year. The Department of the Treasury was third, spending a total of $1,139,305,000,000—including $677,612,000,000 to pay the interest on Treasury securities and $461,693,000,000 on other expenses.
The Department of Defense-Military Programs was fourth, spending $649,261,000,000.
Jeffrey did a fiscal year roundup for an Oct. 21 article:
The federal government collected a record $4,896,119,000,000 in total taxes in fiscal 2022 (October 2021 through September 2022), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
That was up $518,302,170,000—or 11.8 percent--from the previous record of $4,377,816,830,000 (in constant September 2022 dollars) that the federal government collected in fiscal 2021.
Fiscal 2015—when the federal government collected $4,052,366,920,000 in total taxes (in constant September 2022 dollars)—ranks as the third highest year for total federal tax collections.
Again, Jeffrey complained that HHS and Social Security received a lot of money.
Jeffrey updated his humbers for the first month of the fiscal year in a Nov. 10 article:
The federal government collected a record $318,576,000,000 in total taxes in October, the first month of fiscal 2023, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
The Treasury set the previous record for October tax collections last year, when it brought in $305,918,360,000 in total taxes in constant October 2022 dollars.
The implicit blame came with all three article featuring photos of President Biden, usually with Nancy Pelosi.
Interestingly, Jeffrey stopped doing monthly articles on tax collections, which he had done for years. Instead, he wrote a Feb. 15 article that summarized the first four months of the fiscal year (which included October despite having already devoted an article to it):
Total federal tax collections in October through January, the first four months of fiscal 2023, were down from total tax collections in the October-through-January period of fiscal 2022,according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
The federal fiscal year runs from October through September.
In the October-through-January period of fiscal 2022, the Treasury collected $1,614,169,570,000 in total taxes (in constant January 2023 dollars). In October-through-January of fiscal 2023, the Treasury collected only $1,472,842,000,000 in total taxes.
MRC Cooked Up Outrage Over Talk Of Gas Stove Regulations Topic: Media Research Center
As befits its role as a narrative manufacturer for right-wing political interests, the Media Research Center manufactured outrage over discussions of possible regulation of gas stoves -- then, as befits its role as a hypocritical whiner, complained when that manufactured outrage was called out. Alex Christy set the tone -- which is to say, the tone of a PR hack for the gas-stove industry -- in a Jan. 11 post:
CNN climate correspondent Bill Weir offered up a strange analogy on multiple Wednesday installments of CNN Newsroom when discussing the possibility of a ban on gas stoves. As Weir tells it, having a gas stove, particularly in small apartments, is akin to an idling car.
During the 9 AM Eastern hour reported that, “They’ve banned it in new construction in New York City, out west in California, Washington State, but a lot of states have preemptively banned gas bans and you can imagine they're usually red states and Texas leading the way, they want to stop this because it’s an existential threat to that business.”
However, “the science is showing us having a gas stove, in a small apartment especially with bad ventilation is like having a car idling there. And if you have young kids, it can affect cognitive abilities and, as well as asthma.”
Carbon monoxide from a car running in an enclosed space will eventually kill you. One can be concerned about childhood asthma and still see that they are different and, again, this is mostly a problem with poor ventilation. Other household appliances that emit carbon monoxide include your water heater and older dryer models.
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg took a break from hating drag queens and transgender people to attempt to play gotcha in a Jan. 12 post:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become notorious for being a hypocrite.
Recently she took to Twitter to push for people to ditch their gas stoves, meanwhile she herself owns a gas stove.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has discussed stopping production of new gas appliances and encourage people to discontinue using them if they do have one in their home - supposedly for the environment.
Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) took to Twitter, saying “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”
AOC quote-tweeted Jackson’s tweet and said, “Did you know that ongoing exposure to NO2 from gas stoves is linked to reduced cognitive performance.”
AOC is Capitol Hill’s queen of drama.
What did she say again? That exposure is linked to “reduced cognitive performance?”
Well, well, well, I guess she too has been around gas stoves too much!
Because Mandelburg was more interested in going for the roast than imparting facts, she censored the fact that AOC later pointed out that her apartment is a rental and, thus, she was stuck with a gas stove, adding that "by that logic, these are the same people who would have said we should have never gotten rid of leaded gasoline just because someone may have driven a gasoline car."
Joseph Vazquez rantily insisted that the right-wing freakout was "legitimate" in a Jan. 16 post:
A babbling MSNBC analyst with a history of Trump Derangement Syndrome is in no place to throw the word “addiction” at legitimate concerns of government reaching into American kitchens.
MSNBC National Affairs Analyst John Heilemann kicked off Martin Luther King Jr. Day with a tirade on GOP opposition to gas stove bans. On the Jan. 16 edition of Morning Joe, he said “[The GOP is] addicted to this culture of lies and conspiracy theories that they have fomented, right?” Except, the proposed ban wasn’t fictitious nor conspiratorial.
Vazquez went on to declare that any talk of regulating gas stoves was "dystopian."
Nicholas Fondacaro went on thte warpath in a Jan. 16 post as he laughably tried to play fact-checker by citing a biased right-wing website to support his attacks:
Amid the blow-up last week after an unelected bureaucrat with the Consumer Product Safety Commission floated the idea of a national ban on gas stoves, NBC’s Today came out against your freedom of choice in how you cook your food. During their Friday news show, the liberal journalists pushed the debunked study that purportedly linked gas stoves to asthma and lobbied heavily for people to buy induction stoves, omitting the fact that they could cost over three times as much as a gas stove.
At the top of the segment, wealthy liberal anchors Hoda Kotb, Savannah Guthrie, and Craig Melvin shared a laugh at how people were outraged and decried the floated draconian measure[.]
"Wealthy liberal anchors"? We thought the MRC hated class wars. Fondacaro continued:
The first accusation against gas stoves he addressed in his report was the dubious link between gas stoves and asthma. Claiming there was “mounting research” that confirms the link, he pointed to “a recent peer-reviewed study from a prominent medical journal found nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the U.S., are attributable to gas stove use.”
Brock failed to be honest and note that the study flies in the face of a 2013 study from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood that found “no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis,” as reported by the Washington Examiner.
Yes, Fondacaro is pushing a decade-old study in favor of a newer one. You know where that talking point came from? The American Gas Association, the trade group for the natural gas industry, which opposes any regulation.
Fondacaro further complained:
One of the study authors cited by Brock has even walked back their findings, telling the Examiner that the study “‘does not assume or estimate a causal relationship’ between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.”
But what Brock did have was an anecdotal and non-scientific account from ONE mother who claims her son’s asthma improved after moving out of a house with a gas stove.
We remember that the MRC repeatedlypushed the claim that that a study concluded that Gmail disproprotionately marked political emails from Republican candidates as soam even though one of the researchers explicitly pointed out that was not what his study concluded, so it's hyporitical for Fondacaro to make that argument.
Clay Waters spent a Jan. 16 post whining not only that the New York Times pointed out the right-wing hysteria over gas stoves but also for arguing that it wouldn't be a bad idea to evolve from them:
The federal government banning gas stoves? What a deluded notion, sneered the New York Times. Yet a short time later the paper published articles outlining alternatives to hazardous gas stoves.
Thursday’s dismissive story by Elena Shao and Lisa Friedman appeared under the dismissive print-edition headline: “No, Biden Is Not Trying to Ban Gas Stoves.”
But the Times soon betrayed its own mocking spin with follow-up stories suggesting Biden should be banning gas stoves, despite the actual study (a meta-study sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Institute, which wants everything electrified).
Waters didn't mention that his fellow gas-stove defenders were taking their talking points from natural gas lobbyists.
Waters returned for a Jan. 24 post that again complained right-wing gas-stove hysteria was being called out:
National Public Radio’s Morning Edition tried to have it both ways Friday, both mocking right-wing concern over banning gas stoves and also suggesting a ban could be in the works after all.
The set-up was galling. Why would taking the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission seriously when he said a gas stove ban was on the table require the expertise of NPR’s “conspiracy theory” reporter to debunk?
The segment featured climate reporter Jeff Brady and Lisa Hagen, “who reports on how conspiracy theories work.” Co-host A Martinez identified a “cycle of outrage, mostly from the right,” and played a clip of Sean Hannity on Fox News claiming "not only is Biden coming for your paycheck, but he's also coming for your stove. You heard me right. The White House is now attempting to ban all gas ovens and burners."
Martinez actually validated concerns about a ban by assuming gas stoves were dangerous, asking Brady, “What do we know about the risks gas stoves pose to both the environment and public health?”
For evidence, we could always tell Morning Edition about....Morning Edition, which inveighed against gas stoves last October, asking "Will America ever give up the gas stove?" touting leftists who said "the stove is seen as a "gateway appliance" that drives the building of a vast fossil fuel infrastructure from wellhead to home." It's a gateway drug for petroleum addicts.
Suddenly, it’s bad when people pay attention to the news and take it seriously.
Waters didn't explain why it's such an offensive thing to raise questions about gas stoves. Is he on the natural gas industry's payroll too? Apparently so, because he spent a Feb. 3 post once again raging at the Times, this time for pointing that a prominent gas-stove advocate is on the industry payroll:
The New York Times was going all-out with its gas-stove “eliminationist rhetoric,” (to coin a phrase) putting this snotty headline over a front-page story Monday:“Gas Stoves Are Just Fine, Claims the Scientist Paid to Say So.”
The story was written by investigative climate desk reporter Hiroko Tabuchi, who has shown herself hypersensitive to the supposed corporate and even “white supremacist” corruption of scientific research, while ignoring all conflicts of interest on the left-wing, environmental side of the issue.
She’s uncovered a dissenter from the narrative and was trying to wreck her credibility by raising questions of funding or conflict of interest -- questions that never get applied to environmental organizations that could make a profit off of environmental regulations.
Tabuchi tellingly does not analyze that “study” (actually a meta-analysis of many studies) for possible conflicts of interest, even though its sponsor, the Rocky Mountain Institute (according to the Free Beacon) “boasts of its attempt to drive an ‘economy-wide transformation’ away from oil and gas in the name of the ‘climate crisis’ and is led by green energy executives who stand to profit from such a transformation.”
Waters did not dispute the results of that meta-analysis despite attacking its sponsor.
UPDATE: Waters also whined in a Jan. 22 post that on PBS, a correspondent "condescendingly mocked anyone who would dare not throw out their gas stoves and purchase more expensive induction stoves, given the obvious health hazards of natural gas (a danger the liberal press learned about a few days ago and won’t stop shrieking over)" further huffing that "No dissent appeared in the segment, certainly no mention of studies with opposite conclusions," like that decade-old study referenced above.
Newsmax Columnist Tries To Portray Capitol Rioters As Political Prisoners Topic: Newsmax
Jeff Crouere began his Jan. 3 Newsmax column by complaining:
Almost two years after the January 6, 2021, Washington D.C., protests that Democrats and the mainstream news media call an “insurrection,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) is still asking for the public’s help in identifying more people to arrest.
Of then 964 individuals charged with crimes for their participation in the protests of January 6, 2021, “hundreds” are still in Washington D.C. prisons today.
The conditions in these prisons are so horrific that 34 anuary 6th J6) prisoners asked for a transfer to the military terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Gitmo). In their letter pleading for a transfer, the J6 prisoners said that Gitmo would provide what they are lacking in their D.C. prison, namely “nutritional meals, sunlight exposure, top notch medical care” and respect for “religious requirements.”
The fact that Crouere put "hundreds" in scare quotes tells us that he doesn't actually know how many are in jail; he's also blurring the line between how manyare in jail awaiting trial -- likely relatively few, given that most are out on bail -- and how many are serving prison sentences after being found guilty or admitting to guilt for their actions. Crouere also offers no proof that these arrested criminals are being treated any worse in jail than criminals who didn't take part in the riot (and note that he's not complaining about the conditions those poeple face).
Crouere went on to play whataboutism:
The harsh treatment of the J6 prisoners is in sharp contrast to the rioters who burned and looted in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. These criminals destroyed over $2 billion worth of property, attacked countless police officers and participated in 574 violent riots throughout the country.
Some of the worst violence occurred in Minneapolis, where Floyd died. Rioters either partially or completely destroyed or burned 1,000 buildings. As a result of this violence, 520 misdemeanor citations were issued, but 95% were quickly dismissed. Only 17 individuals were charged with federal crimes related to either arson or rioting.
Neither Coruere nor the article he linked to in support of his claim offered any evidence that those whose misdemeanor charges were dismissed actually committed any crime -- indeed, the article points out that the dropped charges were against people who were merely engaging in peaceful protest, which is not illegal. That article also pointed out that many rioters facing charges incriminated themselvesby posting their acts on social media -- just like the Capitol rioters did.
Crouere then served up what he thought was an ideal case of persecution:
While hesitant to act regarding left-wing protesters, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is not restrained on the issue of J6 protesters. It is clearly the top priority for the DOJ.
For example, one J6 protester, Guy Reffittt, was charged with five felony counts and sentenced to seven years in prison. He did not enter the U.S. Capitol on that day, but he was with protesters on the stairs outside of the building.
This harsh approach is typical.
Note that Crouere refused to say what, exactly, Reffitt did. In fact, Reffitt -- a recruiter for a militia called the Three Percenters -- very much earned his prison sentence, as a real media outlet reported:
Reffitt “played a central role” at the head of a vigilante mob that challenged and overran police at a key choke point, a stairway leading up from the Lower West Terrace, before the initial breach of windows near the Capitol’s Senate Wing Doors at 2:13 p.m., prosecutors said. After the riot, Reffitt warned his son and 16-year-old daughter that “if you turn me in, you’re a traitor, and traitors get shot,” his son testified at the trial.
Conventional sentencing rules are of “inadequate scope” to account for the range of Reffitt’s obstruction, witness tampering and weapon offenses, prosecutors wrote in a 58-page sentencing memo.
Reffitt recorded himself at a rally led by President Donald Trump at the Ellipse saying he was ready to drag lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “out kicking and screaming,” with “[Pelosi’s] head hitting every step on the way down.”
A jury found that Reffitt traveled to D.C. from his home in Wylie, Tex., with an AR-style rifle and semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun and repeatedly stated his intention to come armed with a handgun and plastic handcuffs to drag lawmakers out of the building. After returning home from Washington, he threatened his children to ensure they did not turn him in to authorities.
That inconvenient truth interfered with Crouere's victim narrative, which is why he hid it from his readers.
Crouere went on to engage in the usual rigtt-wing defense of Donald Trump's actions befort the riot:
On January 6, 2021, President Trump did not commit or encourage any violence. He did not lead the charge into the U.S. Capitol and was not even present outside the building.
Prior to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, he told a massive crowd of his supporters to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Despite his calls for nonviolence, Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for his actions on January 6, 2021. Fortunately, he was later acquitted by the U.S. Senate.
Crouere censored the fact that Trump also told the crowd to "fight like hell." He then whined about the House committee looking into the riot, using it to further portray Trump as a victim:
Despite his calls for nonviolence, Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for his actions on January 6, 2021. Fortunately, he was later acquitted by the U.S. Senate.
This exoneration did not prevent a U.S. House Select Committee from targeting Trump in their biased activities. The committee was composed of all Democrats and two Never-Trump Republicans. There was never anything close to a fair proceeding in their activities.
In essence, the committee conducted a “Kangaroo Court” by focusing solely on Trump. Their so-called investigations involved 10 public hearings, as well as reviewing thousands of documents, conducting hundreds of interviews, and issuing dozens of subpoenas.
Not surprisingly, the committee recommended to the DOJ that Trump be charged with four crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make false statements, obstruction of an official proceeding and inciting an insurrection.
It remains to be seen what the DOJ will do with these charges, but there is already a Special Prosecutor who has been appointed to investigate Trump’s role in the J6 protests, along with the documents brought to his Mar-a-Lago home.
The unrelenting abuse of President Trump by his enemies is obvious. It must be investigated, along with the horrific treatment of the J6 protesters, by the new GOP leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Just like a Trump loyalist to take an investigate-the-investigators stance rather than support a full probe of his hero.
There is nothing left to debate. Anyone who is not brainwashed, or brain dead, can see that the COVID-19 vaccine was the worst mistake in America's history, world history, health-care history and the history of medicine.
The data is in from all over the world. You haven't seen it? I believe that's because the media are guilty of covering up mass death on a scale no one can even imagine. But it's only getting started. Wait for 2023.
But I have all the important data. Write me. I'm glad to send it, for free: WayneRoot@gmail.com.
We've noted that his "important data" is largely from dubious sources like anonymous Substack accounts, discredited "news" sources like LifeSite and the usual misinformer suspects like Steve Kirsch, Ryan Cole and Robert Malone, and it can be presumed that much of it is dubious, if not outright false.He continued with the usual vicious anti-vaxxer ranting:
No, I'm not a doctor, or a scientist. Yes, I'm a conservative TV and radio talk-show host. But I'm not brainwashed, gaslighted, delusional or easily scammed. I only search for raw truth – wherever it leads.
I have seen the data (i.e., factual evidence) from all over the world that the COVID-19 vaccine is the most dangerous and deadly vaccine in history – BY A MILE.
If you're not blind, you've noticed the media headlines of "sudden death." The numbers are shocking. Every day more famous people are "dying suddenly and unexpectedly." That's the tip of the iceberg. They represent thousands per day dying suddenly – a phenomenon never seen in history until the vaccines.
But it's not just death; it's a pandemic of disability. It's heart attacks, myocarditis, strokes, blood clots and an explosion of stage 4 cancer. Millions of Americans will never work again. Who will pay for all this?
This is a tsunami of death and disability – all because these innocent Americans trusted government, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, Big Pharma and Democrat [sic] politicians who mandated the vaccines.
Root then issued a challenge:
So, here's my challenge to all the liars, frauds, peddlers of propaganda, merchants of death and kings and queens of coverup and denial. It's simple ...
I believe the COVID-19 vaccine is deadly. This is now a crime scene. This is mass death on a grand scale. This vaccine death spiral is accelerating at warp speed. I believe we are about to experience the biggest mass die-off in world history, in 2023.
So, prove me wrong. Make me eat crow. Make me look crazy. All you have to do is take a simple lie detector test.
Never mind that lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. And he has a group of loaded questions designed to push his narrative. Among the first ones: "Does it protect against COVID-19?" and "Does it prevent transmission?" In fact, it reduces the risk of contracting and transmission; it also reduces the risk of hospitalization and death, but Root doesn't ask about that.
Another question: "In 1976 the entire swine flu vaccine program was suspended because 32 Americans died. Are you aware the VAERS list shows tens of thousands are dead from the COVID-19 vaccine, more than all other vaccines in modern history COMBINED?" Anti-vaxxers like Root love to deliberately misinterpret VAERS data and ignore the fact that none of the information in VAERS has been independently verified.
Then he moved on to dubious treatments:
No. 9: Were you aware that hundreds of studies show hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin work very effectively versus COVID-19 and other viruses?
No. 10: Are you aware millions of lives could have been saved with HCQ, ivermectin and vitamin D3? However, if Big Pharma admitted any of them were effective versus COVID-19, they could not get emergency authorization to make billions of dollars with their experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
No. 11: Have you or your family ever used ivermectin?
In fact, most credible studies show that neither hydroxychloroquine nor ivermectin are an effective treatment for COVID. There are studies that suggest vitamin D may work as a treatment, while others do not.
Root, of course, knows his questions are loaded, and he's already predicting the results:
If I'm right, and the needle shows they fail every question, this makes them all complicit in fraud and mass murder. They all knew from the start. They all certainly know the truth now – yet they're still pushing the vaccine.
You can take the lie detector test and prove me a fool. I dare you. I double dare you.
But no one will ever take me up on my challenge.
That's because the debate is over. The jig is up. They can't hide it anymore. The "sudden deaths" are piling up. Now it's all about denial and coverup.
P.S. My favorite pronouns are "crimes/against/humanity," "mass/murder" and "prosecute/Fauci/and everyone involved."
That last part is a shoutout to Elon Musk for tweeting, "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci."
Root then spent his Dec. 30 column merging his anti-vaxxer attitudes with his Trump-fluffing, epxlaining why he still supports Donald Trump despite the fact that he still supports vaccines:
Millions of conservatives who follow me on TV, radio, newspaper columns, books, social media (I'm back on Twitter again @RealWayneRoot) know me as "the Paul Revere" of the COVID-19 vaccine. I've warned louder and with more passion, from the highest mountaintops, about the dangerous, deadly COVID-19 jab – literally from the first day.
I believe this vaccine is the biggest disaster in health care history. It's a complete failure. It doesn't prevent COVID-19. It doesn't prevent the spread of COVID-19. And I have data and hard evidence from around the world showing the deaths, injuries, heart attacks, strokes and massive immune damage these vaccines have produced. The mortality rate is skyrocketing across America and around the world to the highest levels in recorded history, but only since the introduction of the jab ... and only among the vaccinated.
But Trump disagrees. He thinks the vaccines are a miracle of modern science. He believes they saved millions of lives.
Two people couldn't be further apart.
So, how can I support Trump for president? Well, I don't just support Trump, I support him 110%. I'm "all in" with Trump, even though we disagree on the COVID-19 vaccine. Why?
First, we agree 100% on every other issue. That puts us on the same team.
After more Trump-fluffing, Root revealed the one vaccine-related issuse where they both agree:
Now to the COVID-19 vaccine. Watch my interview. What's important is that Trump is against any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Trump will never force anyone to take the jab. Period.
No cop will ever have to take the jab ... no fireman ... no nurse ... no private sector employee ... no government employee ... no pilot ... no soldier ... NO ONE. Bravo!
Trump also promised to reinstate any military member who was fired for refusing to take the jab – and give them back all their back pay. Even bigger bravo!
And then there's the children. With Trump as president, no child will ever be forced to take the jab to attend public school, or college. When it comes to children, Trump went further. He said, "Children shouldn't have them. They don't need them. It's terrible what they've done to children." Triple bravo!
That's all I need to hear. It's a free country. Trump can love the vaccine; I can hate it. But as long as no one is forced to take it, it doesn't matter.
If you want it, get it. Good luck. You'll need it. But I will never get it. I will encourage all my family, friends and fans to run away from it. That's freedom. That's what America is all about.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Summer of Hunter Biden Derangement Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent the summer of 2022 pushing right-wing narratives attacking President Biden's son -- and desperately searching for more Hunter sleaze and complaining his ex-wife's memoir lacked sufficient dirt. Read more >>
MRC Served Up More Anti-Trans Hate To Finish Out 2022 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center concluded 2022 by spewing even more hatred at them, just as it had been doing the rest of the year. The MRC's chief hater of all things LGBT, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, complained in a Nov. 21 post that a Canadian bank helped fund gender-affirming treatments for transgender people, causing her to whine: "The overall posture on transgender youth has gone from rare and radical to normal and celebrated. It’s disheartening to see so much money in Canada, and in the states as well, go to something so evil but, that’s what we’re dealing with in this ongoing war against our kids."
That's right -- she thinks transgender people are "evil."
A Dec. 1 post by Jason Cohen -- his second to last before he disappeared from the MRC, presumably because of problematic posts like the one justifying Kanye West's anti-Semitism -- parroted a report from a right-wing group that freaked out over somethinc called the "Transgender Leviathan," whatever that is:
The transgender craze is a “social contagion,” according to a new report called "The Transgender Leviathan" from the American Principles Project Foundation (APPF).
Its stated goal is “to provide a consolidated analysis and understanding of transgenderism with the hope that Americans will do as they have done time and time again in times of cultural crises — to choose the good, to continue to advance human flourishing, and to protect the dignity of the human person.”
The report made clear that so much of this phenomenon is due to misinformation propagated by the mainstream media.
In a sane society, these drastically dangerous gender-affirming measures would be halted. Or at least their severe effects would be exposed to the public so they can make more informed decisions.
But once a narrative is established and there is so much incentive to maintain it (read the report to find out about all the money involved), it is difficult to change.
As much as powerful forces attempt to prevent it, the truth will come out. One example given in the report is the Libs of Tik Tok Twitter account.
Hopefully, this report achieves its goal. If Americans understand this issue, they will do the right thing, regardless of media malpractice.
Actually, Libs of TikTok -- run by homophobe Chaya Raichik -- is better known for inciting threats against LGBT people and even hospitals that perform gender-affirming procedures for transgender people (threats that, by the way, the MRC is totally cool with).
The MRC's chief hater of all things LGBT, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, spent a Dec. 8 post raging that the American Girl doll brand won't spew hate at transgender people:
The popular children's toy brand, American Girl, is under scrutiny, as it should be, for releasing a book called “A Smart Girl’s Guide: Body Image” that promotes transgenderism.
American Girl rebranded itself from its former name, Pleasant Company, back around the year 2000 when Mattel purchased the brand. Since then, the company has spiraled in terms of quality of products.
Previously, the company focused on 18-inch dolls with some minor accessories and clothing changes. They have also produced books that accompany dolls with different historical backgrounds. Each doll had a different history and heritage that young girls would learn about with the purchase of each toy and her story.
Now however, American Girl has an agenda and it is far from hidden.
Their “Body Image” book has a passage that says “If you haven't gone through puberty yet, the doctor might offer medicine to delay your body's changes, giving you more time to think about your gender identity,” according to a note from Daily Mail.
“Body Image” also listed resources for kids to turn to “if you don’t have an adult you trust.” Oh great! Another group that encourages keeping important things hidden from parents.
This isn’t the first time (and it’s probably not the last) that a Mattel product has pushed the LGBTQ agenda to children that innocently enjoy their products. Earlier this year the company released a transgender Barbie doll.
Why Mattel had to take something so pure and good and make it bad is unbeknownst to me but that’s what we’re dealing with these days.
RIP to American Girl.
Only in the homophobic world of right-wing media is accurate medical information -- accuracy Mandelburg does not dispute -- considered an "agenda."
A Dec. 21 post by Mandelburg complained that an isolated incident in a school in Oklahoma wasn't blown up into a national excuse to hate transgender people:
Here’s the story:
A transgender girl (ie. guy) got mad at another girl because she was ignoring him. As a result, he followed her to the girls bathroom and asked her if she “wanted to fight.” He proceeded to come at her with “clenched fists, pulled her hair and threw her on the ground.” A witness said the boy kicked the girl in the head and twice in the back. Said witness tried to stop the attacker but was punched in the face twice, resulting in a possible concussion.
The media had barely even mentioned this story.
Non-transgender boys arguably do this to girls much more often, unfortunately, but Mandelburg would never demand that those incidents be reported by national media. That's because her hatred for transgender people is so great that she is quite desperate to make an example here; indeed, she went on to sneer that "Public Schools, which are increasingly a target of the woke left’s agenda, focus more on “inclusivity” and pushing wokeism than about the actual well-being of students."
That wasn't enough transgender hate from her that day. She wrote in another post:
My sister is a teacher and I can assure you she, like most normal teachers, has never been stressed about telling her students her gender.
In a recently viral video a teacher expressed his (I think) worries and anxiety about alerting his class that he’s transgender. The teacher sought advice from his TikTok followers on how to address questions of confused children in his class.
Right off the bat, it's important to note that this video is just another example of how much people like this put themselves on a pedestal. They think they should have special treatment due to their “struggles” as they often call it for being trans which, mind you, is something they did to themselves.
Kids are not little pawns in a scheme to help you validate your feelings, emotions or gender identity. This teacher needs a reality check and to have his teaching license revoked.
Here's my advice for you to come out to your kids ... DON'T!
That's Mandelburg's (and the MRC's) approach to transgender people -- she wants them to disappear, seemingly by any means possible.
Farah's Trump Restoration Plan Moved Briefly Closer During House Speaker Vote Topic: WorldNetDaily
For the past couple of years, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has beenintermittentlyobsessed with the idea that Donald Trump could sneak back into the presidency by Republicans winning the House and then naming him House Speaker, then impeaching President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, thus elevating Trump back into office. That was never a realistic plan, of course, but when has Farah been tethered to reality when it comes to anything related to Trump? (See: election fraud conspiracy theories.)
Last month's Republican infighting over picking a new House speaker, though, gave Farah a glimmer of hope, when Trump's name was put into nomination duyring one round of voting. Bob Unruh sycophantically wrote in a Jan. 5 article:
President Trump already has announced his candidacy for the office of president in 2024.
But now his name is appearing in the fight inside the GOP in the U.S. House over the new House speaker, and the idea, although unlikely, could get him back to the White House even sooner.
It's because Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has voted for Trump to be the next House speaker, a position that requires being elected by the House, but does not require the winner to be a House member.
The Washington Examiner said Gaetz has been leading a GOP revolt against having Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., a party leader for many years, installed in the post.
The GOP already has gone through multiple votes this week without a winner for the job.
Unruh went on to note others who had advanced the idea, including WND columnist Wayne Allyn Root, but surely pleased his boss by claiming that "originating the plan was WND Founder Joseph Farah."
Farah, meanwhile, devoted his Jan. 5 column to taking credit for Gaetz putting Trump's name into nomination:
He said it – finally.
Steve Bannon said it. It was more than a question. It was a PLEA!
Regarding the failure to elect a House speaker, Bannon said: "Why not Trump? Why not Trump?"
This is where it all started: me asking the question on Jan. 3, 2021, and Steve Bannon backing me up a few days later. I couldn't let go of the idea. Other people picked it up.
It sounded as good as it originally sounded to me in 2021.
Will he do it? Yes, if he's asked. If he has the people's support. He cannot say no to the American people. He'll do it if he's needed. And boy is he needed.
It can be done – Donald Trump will answer the bell.
Trump is listening. He's weighing the options. Obviously, he's not in it to lose. He wants to see a path to victory.
Will you give it to him, America?
Is he still the greatest president whoever served this country? Do we need him now? Will anyone else do?
The answers to that last paragraph are no, no, and yes, but Farah is too wrapped up in Trump worship to care about the facts.
Neither Unruh nor Farah mention that the only vote Trump got in that round of voting was from Gaetz. And never miind that, just a day earlier, a WND article by Joe Kovacs quoted Trump making it clear that he supported McCarthy as speaker.
Nevertheless, Unruh wrote an article the next day touting Trump posting on social media a Photoshopped picture of himself making a goofy face inserted into an image of Biden speaking at a State of the Union-style address, which Unruh soberly portrayed as Trump responding to speculation about him being House speaker. Again, Unruh made sure to credit his boss for coming up with the idea.
Meanwhile, Trump's name never came up for nomination again, and Gaetz's vote was the only one Trump received in all 15 rounds of voting, after which McCarthy finally won the speakership. But Farah didn't seem to want to talk about afterward; his Jan. 6 column hyping how debt-limit concerns played into the speaker vote didn't mention Trump at all.
How is Newsmax's campaign of victimhood over getting dropped by DirecTV in a dispute over licensing fees going? Here's how it began its third week of complaining about and rooting for government interference into private business decisions:
Newsmax also republished "an urgent email to Republican members" by Republican national Committee chair Ronna McDaniel "just days ago urging them to oppose AT&T DirecTV's censorship of Newsmax." The article is headlined "See Ronna McDaniel's Email That Shocked AT&T," but no evidence of "shock" on AT&T's part is provided.
With these 34 articles, Newsmax has now published at least 145 "news" articles attacking DirecTV since the deplatforming happened on Jan. 25.
Newsmax columnist were advancing the narrative as well. A Feb. 6 column by Michael Abramson demanded that the Republican National Committee offer preferential treatment for businesses who adhere to its partisan narratives:
The Republican National Committee (RNC), the voice of the nation's Republicans, should lead Republicans in condemning those who take actions against companies which support Republican causes.
The RNC should make public statements denouncing the behavior, conduct a public relations campaign, and, if the situation warrants, call for a boycott. The RNC must support and defend other Republicans when they are attacked. If the RNC does not do so, Republicans will continue to be targeted.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, DirecTV cut off Newsmax's signal from DirecTV, DirecTV Stream, and U-Verse. One year earlier, in January 2022, DirecTV chose to not renew its contract with another Republican-leaning news station, One America News Network (OANN).
DirecTV is a company and can decide, free from government interference, the stations that it wishes to carry. It is clear that the absence of Newsmax from DirecTV, DirecTV Stream, and U-Verse decreases the amount of people who can view Newsmax's Republican-leaning news coverage and opinion.
DirecTV's action, therefore, while constitutional, is a silencing of Republican views. Republicans are free to respond by cancelling their subscriptions to DirecTV and/or its parent company, AT&T.
Abramson failed to tell his reader that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel, The First, which means there isno "silencing of Republican views" happening. Robert Zapesochny similarly failed to disclose that narrative-busting fact in his Feb. 8 column wailing about a purported "blacklist" against right-wing media:
In 1996, Fox News was founded. In 1998, Christopher Ruddy founded Newsmax.
In February 2021, two Democrats in Congress, Jerry McNerney and Anna Eshoo, sent a letter to the CEO of AT&T John T. Stankey to cancel Newsmax, Fox News, and OANN.
At the time, McNerney and Eshoo were both members of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which has oversight over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This subcommittee also has jurisdiction over interstate communication.
Because AT&T owns 70% of DirectTV, these two members of Congress thought they could pressure this company to cancel Newsmax. In January 2022, DirectTV dropped OANN and it recently dropped Newsmax.
McNerney retired from Congress last month, but Eshoo is still there. Conservatives must fight for the First Amendment as hard as they have fought for the Second Amendment.
This will not just stop with Newsmax.
Zapesochny also refused to tell his reader why Eschoo and McNerney sent that letter: it was in response to the fact that Newsmax, Fox News, and OAN spread falsehoods and misinformation abopuit the 2020 presidential election that helped incite the Capitol riot. But Zapesochny has no interest in holding his fellow right-wingers accountable for their falsehoods and misinformation -- he has a narrative to push.
CNS Continues Its Pro-Musk Stenography Over 'Twitter Files' Topic: CNSNews.com
After the initial rush of parroting its Media Research Center parent on hyping the selectively released "Twitter files" that Elon Musk gave to handpicked reporters, CNSNews.com slowed the pace and move toward reaction pieces/. A Dec. 9 article by Craig Bannister featured a right-wing radio hosdt:
After proof that Twitter had shadow banned him was revealed, conservative commentator Dan Bongino said the liberal media, that had adamantly denied the censorship, will never apologize.
“The press completely lied about this. Now, they've got this whole, ‘All of this is a big nothing- burger; Twitter can do what they want’ That's not what they said,” Bongino noted an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Friday:
On Thursday, Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk released tweets showing that Twitter had previously censored and suppressed the posts and accounts of conservatives, including Dan Bongino.
“When's the apology come for me? The answer is never,” Bongino said, explaining that apologizing is not what communists, fascists, and others who relish in the abuse of power, do:
A Dec. 13 article by Bannister noted that "Three-fourths all U.S. likely voters think that social media companies like Facebook are censoring content because of political bias, and three-fourths of Democrat voters [sic] agree, but Democrats are much less likely to want Congress to do anything about it – and much more concerned about so-called 'misinformation' posted on social media sites." It w as a biased Rasmussen Reports poll, so "misinformation" was in scare quotes throughout without an explanation of why.
Bannister cheered the mean-spirited crassness from a Fox News host in a Dec. 16 article:
On Tuesday, late-night television Host Greg Gutfeld defended the decision by Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, to end the social media company’s $13 million dollar a year free lunch program for employees.
While Musk has been vilified by liberal media for cancelling free lunches, comedian/commentator Gutfeld sided with him, while simultaneously taking a shot at Joy Behar, co-host of the rabid, left-wing talk television show, “The View”:
“On Sunday, he announced plans to end free lunches at Twitter headquarters, saying the meals cost the company $13 million bucks a year. That’s still $2 million less than ‘The View’ spends on feeding Joy Behar.”
It says a lot about Bannister as a person that he thought Gutfeld's ugly smear was worth amplification.
The Musk stenography cobntinued as well. A Dec. 12 article by Susan Jones hyped that "Before the 2020 election, Twitter executives were 'clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content,' according to Friday's dump of the 'Twitter files,' as reported by Matt Taibbi."
The fluff continued: A Dec. 18 article by Patrick Goodenough noted that Musk "posted a poll asking users whether or not they want him to stay on at the helm, and promising to accept the outcome," then updated it to show that a majority of users want him gone. A Dec. 21 article by Bannister noted another poll Musk posted on whether Congress should approve an omnibus spending bill, adding that "more than seventy percent of the 3.1 million Twitter users who voted said 'No.'"
Jones returned to Musk stenography for a Dec. 27 article hyping how "The latest edition of the "Twitter Files," a saga of censorship and shadow-banning, shows that Twitter, with input from the White House, 'rigged' the debate over COVID -- a debate that continues to this day." Managing editor Michael W. Chapman did stenography for Republicans in an article the next day:
Two prominent House Republicans, who will be in the majority come January, sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray stating that new information shows the agency "coordinated extensively with Twitter to censor or otherwise affect content on Twitter's platform."
The letter also demands that the law-enforcement agency turn over all records, communications between FBI agents and Twitter employees or contractors, as well as "all documents and communications" between FBI agents and 23 specific Twitter employees who are named in the letter, such as Yoel Roth, Jack Dorsey, and Vijaya Gadde.
CNs' "commentary" side weighed in as well. A Dec. 15 column by R. Emmett Tyrrell gushed over Musk for being the richest man in the world and, thus, brilliant, which somehow means we should trust whatever he does with Twitter.A Dec. 16 column by Josh Hammer was simiarly gushy over the "promising new path forward" Musk established and how he is "answering the call of his civic duty as the world's wealthiest man," but also argued that "concerted public policy and legal changes are still needed to wrest control away from powerful Silicon Valley bureaucrats and to restore that control to its rightful place: with the American people." We thought conservatives opposed the taking of private property.
Ron Paul, meanwhile, decided in a Dec. 20 column that the FBI working with Twitter to counter extremism and misinformation means that the FBI must be dismantgled:
As we learn more and more from the “Twitter Files,” it is becoming all too obvious that Federal agencies such as the FBI viewed the First Amendment of our Constitution as an annoyance and an impediment. In Friday’s release from the pre-Musk era, journalist Matt Taibbi makes an astute observation: Twitter was essentially an FBI subsidiary.
The FBI, we now know, was obsessed with Twitter. We learned that agents sent Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth some 150 emails between 2020 and 2022. Those emails regularly featured demands from US government officials for the “private” social media company to censor comments and ban commenters they did not like.
We do not need the FBI and CIA and other federal agencies viewing us as the enemy and attacking our Constitution. End the Fed…and End the Federal Bureau of Investigation!
Tyrrell penned a Dec. 22 column again fawning over Musk:
As of this week, Musk is proving himself to be quite possibly the most refreshing force in American politics in years. All he really has to do is keep Twitter -- as he has said -- really neutral. That means open it to conservative voices that have been shut out of Twitter for years.
One of the aspects of modern-day America is that it is so boring. Musk quite possibly could make it lively again. Let us give him a chance.
MRC's Vazquez Obsesses Over George Soros' Donations Topic: Media Research Center
Another part of the Media Research Center's recent round of attacks on George Soros has been a series of so-called studies that boil down to complaining that Soros funds things like any billionaire does. This was kicked off in an Dec. 6 post by the MRC's point man on hating Soros, Joseph Vazquez, and Dan Schneider who runs the MRC's Free Speech America program:
Leftist billionaire George Soros used his charities to build ties with hundreds of media organizations around the world involved in news and activist media. The journalism and activist media groups Soros supports mold public opinion on practically every continent and in many languages. They also insulate him from inquiry because reporters see him as an ally, not a target for investigation.
The 92-year-old philanthropist’s multimillion-dollar efforts promoting his bizarre “open society” agenda encompass some of the most radical leftist ideas on abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism.
His global media clout is massive. An extensive analysis by MRC Business discovered at least 253 news and activist media organizations across the world financed by Soros’ philanthropic organizations. These groups wield massive power over information in international politics.
This report is the first in a three-part series that reveals the extent of the reach Soros wields over international media to influence the world population. Soros once told The New York Times that he was working to “bend” the arc of history “in the right direction.” He means it.
Which makes Soros no different than the right-wing billionaires that fund the paychecks of Vazquez and Schneider, such as the Mercers.
This particular segment complained about a website called Project Syndicate that Vazquez and Schneider hyperbolically describe as "A Global Soros-Funded Behemoth" and a "Global Propaganda Operation" despite few in the U.S. even being aware of it.They also laughably called the Poynter Institute "A Global Soros-Backed Ministry of Truth" mainly becuse it fact-checks right-wing falsehoods and misinformation, and bashed the group Free Press as "anti-American" despite quoting co-founder Robert McChesney saying that that group engage in things like "democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism," none of which sound particularly anti-America. They go on to apply more overheated language to the Media Demnocracy Fund, declaring it "A Soros-Funded Gargantuan Dedicated to Woke ‘Social Justice’" and "a Money-Spewing Cog in Soros’ Sphere of Influence," then describe National Public Radio as "Soros and State Media" and "Soros’ Taxpayer-Funded Radio Propaganda Mill."
Language like this makes Vazquez sound like they're cranking out a partisan hack job, not engaging in sober or legitimate "media research." But that is the tone they use throughout. Because this is, in fact, a partisan hack job, exposure in the right-wing media bubble is the coin of the realm, not reasoned debate -- so MRC chief Brent Bozell ran to Fox News to promote it and spew hate at Soros: "He hates the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is out to destroy the underpinnings of Western civilization and he’s using $36 billion that he is spending on it. ...This is a dangerous man.” Keeping the promotion in-house, Tim Graham parroted the study on his Dec. 7 podcast, and Vazquez plugged it on Paiten Iselin's Dec. 9 "CensorTrack" podcast. Even the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews, performed an act of whoredom and reprinted Vazquez's hit job.
Vazquez took a break from hyping his own work to note a complementary finding in a Dec. 8 post:
Liberal billionaire George Soros is upping his accolade as the “largest donor” for the 2022 midterm elections to the next level by reportedly signaling that he’s ready to buy the 2024 presidential election.
Politico revealed Dec. 7 that Soros pumped a whopping $50 million into his leftist super PAC — Democracy PAC — “building on an already large investment in Democratic groups and candidates for the 2024 election cycle and beyond.” This is on top of the $128 million he spent during the 2022 midterm elections. Politico noted that it’s “the latest sign that Soros will continue to play an enormous role in the Democratic campaign finance ecosystem, particularly ahead of the next presidential election.” The talking heads at the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows predictably ignored the report during their Dec. 7 broadcasts.
It looks like he’s not done yet as he bids to buy the presidency in 2024.
Vazquez failed to mention the right-wing billionaires who are similarly trying to "buy the presidency in 2024."
Vazquez had another Soros donation spree to complain about in a Dec. 22 post:
Leftist billionaire George Soros apparently kept himself very busy last year by funneling millions into groups and causes spreading anti-police hatred across the country.
Fox News Digital reporter Joe Schoffstall reported Dec. 21 that Soros’ Open Society Foundations “dropped at least $35 million into anti-police groups and initiatives in 2021,” according to reviewed tax forms.
Overhauling the American criminal justice system is a “high priority” for Soros, wrote Schoffstall. Soros’ millions went toward “groups that back defunding police, hubs used by progressive activists aiming to dismantle law enforcement, and even funding databases to track donations to police department foundations and unions.” Schoffstall also mentioned Soros’ record of financially backing “dozens of far-left prosecutor candidates as part of the efforts.”
Open Society-U.S. co-director Laleh Ispahani apparently didn’t mind using Schoffstall’s discovery to smear police officers across the country and push defunding police departments in comments to Fox News.
“The level of police violence, particularly impacting communities of color, has spurred reform efforts across the country,” Ispahani reportedly said. “Open Society supports the exploration and development of policies that actually work to reduce crime and defers to communities regarding what alternatives make sense to them. Whether that includes shifting funding currently allocated to policing into services that actually work to address crime and improve public safety is up to them.” [Emphasis added.]
As Ispahani's statement makes clear, Open Society favors more effective policing and not defunding -- which would seem to be the oppposite of the "anti-police" pejorative Vazquez and Schofstall are trying to hang on the group -- and Vazquez did not explain how seeking more effective policing equates to "smearing police officers." But for these two, clinging to this right-wing narrative -- no matter how it's been debunked -- is more important than reporting facts.
(Vazquez also didn't disclose that Schofstall is a former MRC employee who, like so many others, have entered the pipeline to work for Fox News.)
Forhis latest tirade, none other than CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman chose to serve up servile stenpgraphy for Paul in a Jan. 11 article, with added boldface:
In a tweet of a video showing Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Americans in May 2021 that if they "are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected" with COVID, Sen. Rand Paul remarked, "so many lies," and added that he would "hold Fauci accountable."
Dr. Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, made his remarks on the May 17, 2021 edition of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
During the discussion, Hayes mentioned cases of COVID infection among members of the New York Yankees who were fully vaccinated but still "tested positive for COVID." These included three coaches, five staff members, and shortstop Gleyber Torres.
Explaining why this happened, Fauci said "these are certainly breakthrough cases," and added, "Breakthrough infections mean, you have been vaccinated, but you still get infected." He also said that even if infected with COVID while vaccinated against COVID, the symptoms in most cases are minor or "no symptoms at all."
"If you do get infected, the chances are that you're going to be without symptoms, and the chances are very likely that you'll not be able to transmit it to other people," said the doctor.
Fauci further said, for the vaccinated, "when you do get infected [with COVID], the chances are, you're going to be without symptoms. And because of that -- that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation -- that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they're outdoors or indoors. That's the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate: you get vaccinated and you're really quite safe from getting infected." (Emphasis added.)
Commenting on the video-clip of Fauci, Senator Paul tweeted, "How many vaccinated people do you know who still got Covid? So many lies. I will hold Fauci accountable."
But neither Chapman nor Paul offered any evidence that Fauci was telling "lies," a word that means a specific thing that is not defined as Fauci not exactly matching CDC guidance. Neither mentioned the fact that the COVID virus has mutated in a way that makes older vaccines less effective, the updated bivalent boosters protect against infection, hospitalization and death. Boosters are necessary because the nature of the virus means that efficacy of the vaccines wear off over time -- just like protection from a previous case of COVID (which anti-vaxx enthusiasts like Paul like to romanticize as "natural immunity") wears off over time.
Chapman managed to refrain from doing so here , but CNS has previously tried to privilege his rants on COVID-related issues by touting that he is a "medical doctor" -- even though he's actually just an eye doctor with no demonstrated expertise in virology or epidemiology.
MRC Doesn't Understand What Metaphors Are, So It Smears 'View' Co-Host As 'Racist' Topic: Media Research Center
Nicholas Fondacaro -- whose Media Research Center job is to hate-watch "The View" -- put quite the inflammatory headline on a Nov. 3 post: "Rampant Racism: Sunny Calls White Women 'Roaches' for Voting GOP." Despite this framing, the truth was actually quite different:
For a while now, NewsBusters has been documenting and calling out the racism of Sunny Hostin, a co-host of ABC’s The View. But even we were shocked Thursday when she suggested white women were “roaches” if they voted Republican. And being the wealthy elitist that she is, Hostin suggested they “were voting against their own self-interest” and supposedly wanted to live in the dystopian world of The Handmaid’s Tale.
Citing “the abortion issue,” Hostin recalled reading “a poll just yesterday that white Republican suburban women are now going to vote Republican.” “It's almost like roaches voting for Raid,” she proclaimed.
This drew immediate applause from the radical liberal audience and pushback from self-proclaimed conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who called the comment “insulting to the voter.” Hostin responded by shouting about how “They're voting against their own self-interest! Do they want to leave it in Gilead? Do they want to be in The Handmaid’s Tale?”
Hostin did not call white women "roaches" -- she used a metaphor. Fondacaro has apparently never heard of metaphors, so he dishonestly decided to take Hostin out of context as an excuse to treat her statement as literal.
Tim Graham tried to further things in a Nov. 8 post:
In her Daily Mail column for Election Day, Meghan McCain responded directly to her old friend (and co-host of The View) Sunny Hostin, who characterized white women voting for Republicans to “roaches voting for Raid”– voting for their own demise.
In fact, McCain wasn't directly responding to Hostin at all -- her column didn't even reference Hostin by name, and she following Fondacaro in taking one word outof context ("we've heard women described as 'roaches' and 'Nazis' for valuing their best judgement over the orders of Democrats and the liberal media"). It seems McCain is just as shaky on metaphors as Fondacaro is.
This is fairly run-of-the-mill incompetence on the part of serialliar Fondacaro and the MRC. So why revisit this now? Because in pretty much every hate-watching post Fondacaro has written about "The View" since then, he has described Hostin as a "racist" and linked back to the above post as evidence.
That's right -- Fondacaro is smearing Hostin as a "racist" because he doesn't understand metaphors. How does such a fundamentally dishonst guy continue to be employed at the MRC?