MRC Making A Space As PR Agent For DeSantis' Upcoming Presidential Bid Topic: Media Research Center
After serving as a pressagent for Ron DeSantis' re-election campaign for Florida governor, the Media Research Center has moved on to serving as the press agent for DeSantis' presumed 2024 presidential campaign as part of the rapid-response team to lash out at any perceived criticism. That started on New Year's Day with a post by Kevin tober complaining that "newly elected radical leftist Congressman-elect Maxwell Frost" (a descriptor Tober didn't substantiate) noting how he crashed a DeSantis event, which Tober described as him "accosting" DeSantis with [checks notes] questions:
Frost claimed he “didn't stand up and yell and curse” at DeSantis. “I just stood up and said, Governor, what's your plan to end gun violence? We're dying.”
“So we came to him more with a plea and what I got in return, was nobody wants to hear from you. Getting dragged out by security. Having popcorn thrown at me and people yelling curse words and racial slurs,” Frost added to make himself seem like a victim despite willingly going to a private event where he wasn’t welcome in order to further his radical gun-grabbing agenda.
Instead of challenging Frost and scolding him for his divisive and uncivilized behavior like he would if a Republican candidate for Congress behaved in this manner, [ABC interviewer Jonathan] Karl seemed to approve:
The next day, Tober complained that DeSantis' culture-war obsession was called out, again by Frost:
During the first show of the new year, MSNBC’s The ReidOut host Joy Reid brought on radical leftist Congressman-elect Maxwell Frost to let him smear Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis for daring to protect children from degenerate drag shows. During his rant, he went on to make the outrageously false claim that DeSantis “is more concerned with children going to drag shows than he is with children getting shot in their classrooms.” Reid’s only response to that smear was to smirk, make goofy faces, and nod along as he spewed more bile.
After appeasing Frost’s entitled whining that he’s somehow too poor to afford an apartment despite being less than 24 hours away from starting his $174,000-a-year job, Reid asked him about DeSantis cracking down on delinquent parents who bring their children to sexually explicit drag shows.
“He is now using the resources of the state when he could be fixing the insurance crisis in that state, and the affordability crisis in that state, he's investigating a holiday drag show in my former county,” Reid cried.
Reid added that DeSantis is “threatening the people who take children to a drag show with them can have the kids -- have intervention from child protective services.” She never explained why child protective services shouldn’t be called on parents who bring their children to drag shows.
Again, Tober didn't explain what makesFrost a "radical leftist" -- unless he thinks that anyone who criticizes DeSantis is one.
Alex Christy joined the defense brigade in a Jan. 5 post:
If MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough’s new year’s resolution was to avoid the death of irony, he has already failed. On Thursday’s show, Scarborough took aim at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s inaugural address and wondered what kind of idiot believes him because such talk is what causes Republicans to lose elections. Again, this was in response to an inaugural address after DeSantis won by nearly 20 points.
Scarborough was not deterred by the chyron that read in part, “Gov. Ron DeSantis sworn into second term.” Instead, he brought back the bad impression and alleged, “They're talking to each other. And for most Americans when Ron DeSantis says 'when the rest of the country consigned freedom to the dustbin of history blah, blah, blah,' they're like, what's he talking about? Is he talking about North Korea? Is he talking about Putin's Russia? Is he talking about Belarus? Oh, no, he's talking about California and Texas and Georgia and Kentucky.”
He was clearly referring to COVID lockdowns and other restrictions. When MSNBC and Democrats (but who can tell the difference?) talk about the loss of freedom, are they talking about North Korea, Russia, or Belarus? No, they’re talking about pro-life states, sometimes arguing they make North Korea look good by comparison.
Clay Waters spent a Jan. 15 post complaining that the New York Times pointed out his petulant refusal to talk to a media outlet that won't fawn over him:
New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum pouted about Florida’s governor and potential Republican presidential candidate thumbing his nose at the “national nonpartisan” (!) media, in “Can Ron DeSantis Avoid Meeting the Press?” on Wednesday. None of these people have the faintest idea that skipping a beating from the national press endears you to GOP voters.
Grynbaum sympathized with a poor young ABC News reporter who couldn’t get a DeSantis interview, and actually forwarded praise of Trump to make DeSantis (the new threat to Democrats and their press allies) look bad:
New York Times, please define “national nonpartisan news organization.” They can't be talking about themselves, since they have published the notion that he's an "optical illusion."
Surely they don’t mean CNN and MSNBC, which are partisan in favor of liberal Democrats. Grynbaum found it ominous that DeSantis wasn’t giving the liberal press a target for their typical abuse of any Republican threatening to run for president.
Waters even defended a member of DeSantis' comm staff after making a statement suggesting she wanted violence against journalists:
He misled in his attack on former DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw, who sparred very effectively with the press on social media, by pretending that a piece of urban slang Pushaw slung online was somehow dangerous. ... “Drag them” is in fact a slang term.
Mark Finkelstein got mad that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough mocked DeSantis' presidential ambitions in a Jan. 20 post:
Are we in 2023? Or are we back in 2015? Because Joe Scarborough is back to touting Donald Trump as a juggernaut, as the heavyweight boxing champ of Republicans. This is the same pundit who couldn't stop calling Trump a "fascist" not too long ago.
On today's Morning Joe,Joe Scarborough suggested that DeSantis and his appeal is akin to Jeb Bush in 2015: someone loved by the big-business donor class, but who can't stand up to Trump. Scarborough predicted that DeSantis will decide not to run in '24 and skip the Trump "meat grinder," and instead finish his gubernatorial term with sky-high approval ratings, then start preparing a run in 2026 when he doesn't have to worry about facing Trump.
People would line up to bet Joe that DeSantis will run for the 2024 nomination. The reasons are obvious: this is DeSantis's moment. He's just coming off a tremendous re-election victory. He's got a ton of money in the campaign bank, with donors lining up to give more. He's established himself as the unquestionable leader in pushing back against the woke establishment. It looks like strike-while-the-iron-is-hot time for Ron DeSantis.
Finkelstein then appeared on Tim Graham's podcast later that day to repeat his criticism.
While the MRC hasn't given up on fluffing and defending Trump, it's definitely making sure it has a space on the DeSantis bandwagon as well.
WND Played Whataboutism To Deflect From Santos' Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
Much like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily played whataboutism to try and distract from how newly elected Republican Rep. George Santo's claimed resume was pretty much a total fabrication. Laura Hollis piled on the whataboutism in her Dec. 29 column:
Once upon a time, this would have produced outrage. Now, it barely registers. A "senior GOP leadership aide" reported to the New York Post that Santos' – ahem – "embellishments" of his background were well-known and a "running joke" with Republicans.
Democrats, of course, are demanding that Santos resign. But they are in no position to point fingers. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, infamously claimed to be a "native American" on the basis of her family stories. She continues to serve as a United States senator and even ran for president.
Speaking of presidents, Joe Biden has made a career out of lying. He has said he graduated at the top of his law school class at Syracuse University (he graduated in the bottom 10%); that he was the Outstanding Political Science student at the University of Delaware (he wasn't); that he received a commission to the Naval Academy (nope). He plagiarized a paper in law school. He later plagiarized a speech originally given by former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. He claimed to be the first in his family to go to college (he wasn't). He said he got arrested in South Africa in the 1970s trying to see Nelson Mandela (he didn't). He exploits public sympathy for the tragic deaths in his family, claiming that his son Beau died in Iraq (he died of cancer in a Maryland hospital) and that a drunk driver killed his first wife, Neilia, and their 1-year-old daughter, Naomi (the other driver was not drunk, and Neilia Biden was at fault in the crash).
His press secretaries lie. His appointees lie.
This is how American politics devolves. Although Republicans have played their share of dirty pool, the Democratic Party has taken the lead eroding political standards, after which Republicans scramble to play along.
This somehow ended up with Simpson spouting discredited election fraud conspiracy theories:
The latest rule changes involve not just mailed-in ballots but "ballot harvesting," which must be viewed in tandem with the Biden administration's allowing millions of illegals to enter the country. Why? Because Democrat activists and lawyers are also busy fighting election-integrity laws in state after state. When identity and citizenship cannot be verified, improper ballots will not be able to be disqualified.
Do the math.
Or take Maricopa County, Arizona, where anywhere from 20% to 48% of voting machines jammed on Election Day, affected by ballots that had – inexplicably – irregular-sized images and text, creating long lines and wait times of hours for voters – disproportionately Republicans – who opted to vote on Election Day. Thousands of people were impacted. But apparently, as long as it looks like just stupidity and incompetence, again, no consequences.
Nicholas Waddy complained in his Jan. 3 column that Republicans were held accountable for their role in instigating the Capitol riot while not explaining what that had to do with Santos:
What Democrats forget is that lying, while unethical, is protected speech in these United States, and, if we were ever to criminalize lying, or throw everyone out of Congress who has prevaricated, its halls would be empty – of Democrats, in particular.
Many have already exhaustively documented the countless misrepresentations Joe Biden has made about his record, his family background and his opponents. Biden routinely says things that aren't true. Either Biden is deliberately lying, or his mind is so addled by senility or self-regard that he lacks the ability to discern what is true and what is false. Either way, Biden would seem to be disqualified as a potential public figure, much less as the leader of the free world. And yet, according to progressives, Biden is a true American hero! None of this adds up.
Democrats' hypocrisy on matters of truth and falsehood goes far beyond their high regard for the serial liar Joe Biden, however. The modern Democratic Party and the progressive movement are built on a tissue of lies. This can be seen with ample clarity in their disingenuous claims and tactics in the recent midterm elections, which even CNN has criticized.
For starters, Democrats castigated their Republican opponents as "insurrectionists" and traitors, even though no insurrection took place in January 2021 and not a single person has been charged with, or been convicted of, insurrection. The sole purpose of the January 6 committee was to misrepresent what happened on that fateful day in order to vilify Republicans, to conceal the share of responsibility borne by congressional Democrats for the frightful lack of security on Capitol Hill, to conflate honest questions about the conduct of the 2020 election with violent opposition to American "democracy" and to capitalize politically on a national tragedy. Nancy Pelosi excluded Republicans nominated by the Republican leadership in the House from the committee precisely because she did not want anyone on it who might challenge the falsehoods and misrepresentations that would pervade its work. (Presumably, Democrats and progressives everywhere adore censorship for the same reason: They hate it when anyone points out that they are wrong.)
All in all, George Santos' résumé-building fabrications pale in comparison to the complex web of falsehoods that undergirds the Democratic Party and its progressive ideology. Santos should apologize every chance he gets – and he should stay in office, to join in the work of rebuilding the public's trust in the effectiveness and integrity of the federal government. It is the Democrats who, over the last two years, have left this trust hanging by a thread.
James Zumwalt cranked out Biden whataboutism in his Jan. 4 column:
Whether it was embellishment or lying, what Santos did was clearly wrong. However, what is disingenuous is the reaction of Democrats who mercilessly attack Santos for lies that pale in comparison to the whoppers that have poured out of Joe Biden's mouth during a political career spanning a half century and that continue on through today.
Biden became such a proficient liar he really seemed to believe he could get away with it. Yet, even after learning he could not, he continued to try. The plagiarism he committed in law school failed to discourage his later plagiarism as a senator in using others' speeches as his own. He took this to the extreme of even using the original speaker's words to falsely make claims about his own life simply because those words appeared in the original text – words such as he was the first member of his family to go to college. (Biden lied as his grandfather had gone to college.) Biden later had to drop out of his 1988 presidential campaign for lying about having graduated in the top half of his law school class when he really graduated 76 out of 85.
Now occupying the Oval Office and still undeterred about telling untruths, Biden can claim the title of Liar-in-Chief. While some may choose to dismiss his lies as the result of an 80-year-old mind lacking clarity on issues, it ignores the fact he has followed this pattern since age 29.
But what is astounding is to hear Democratic voices rant against Santos that have been woefully silent about Biden. Nor, for that matter, did we hear those voices speak out about Sen. Elizabeth Warren's, D-Mass., false claim of Native American ancestry. The claim put her on an inside career track both to get a teaching opportunity and to run for the U.S. Senate.
In fact, there's no evidence Warren knowingly lied when she claimed Native American ancestry,
As an aspiring senator in 2004, the greatest bamboozler of them all punched his ticket into the club, telling America in his breakthrough speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, "My parents shared not only an improbable love. They shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation." Not a word of this was true.
At the 2008 Democratic convention, Sen. Barack Obama once again mined the apocryphal family saga. "Four years ago," he told his audience, "I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to."
Obama knew he was living a lie, but he had no choice other than to persist. He had built a highly successful campaign around what biographer David Remnick called his "signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal."
Obama finessed that life story to suit his purposes. Even on his most delusional day, Santos would not have told a whopper like the nearly blasphemous one Obama told on a March 2007 day in Selma, Alabama.
Obama had just declared for the presidency a month earlier. The fact that veterans of the celebrated 1965 Selma civil rights march were in attendance did not rein in his conscience.
In his best faux black preacher cadence – better, at least, than Hillary's – Obama wove his own corrupted life story into the larger narrative of the black struggle. Said Obama for the ages:
"But something stirred across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. And so they got together, and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home when I come to Selma, Alabama. I'm here because somebody marched for our freedom."
As Obama explained, the Kennedys were so moved by the march they organized an airlift "to start bringing young Africans over to this country." His father "got one of those tickets," which enabled him to meet Obama's mother, and "Barack Obama Jr. was born."
As it happens, Obama Sr. came to America when Eisenhower was still president, and miraculously, Obama's birth occurred nearly four years before the Selma march.
And we're supposed to be appalled by Santos?
Cashill clearly is not, because his obsessive hatred of Obama blinds him to worse things being done by his fellow right-wingers.
MRC Merges Soros Obsession, Musk-Fluffing Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Joseph Vazquez brought his George Soros obsession into his employer's Musk-fluffing, lashing out in a Feb. 6 post at a Soros-funded group that called out Elon Musk for interacting with right-wingers on Twitter:
A George Soros-funded group targeted Twitter owner Elon Musk for daring to interact with “right-wing accounts” following acquisition of the platform.
The leftist Institute for Strategic Dialogue spewed nonsensical agitprop in a Jan. 31 blog. ISD railed against Musk’s exchanges with “right-wing Twitter users” and claimed that his interactions with these accounts increased a so-called “staggering 1,690 percent after October 27, from 1.1 percent of his total interactions to nearly 20 percent.”
The “right-wing” accounts that ISD blacklisted included satire site The Babylon Bee, Psychologist Jordan Peterson, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, and social media influencer Ian Miles Cheong. ISD even attempted to label noted left-wing Glenn Greenwald as a “right-wing account.”
ISD whined that Musk was supposedly “signaling to his followers and other Twitter users that these ideas are acceptable on the platform, likely inviting more hate on Twitter, and creating space for actors to spread disinformation and harmful ideologies.”
Not only did Vazquez fail to justify tagging ISD as "leftist" beyond receiving Soros-related money, he didn't explain why those right-wingers shouldn't be accurately identified as such, let alone why they are not right-wing. Greenwald has been shiftingrightward for some time now -- why else would he go on Fox News so much?
Vazquez went on to tout Musk siding with the standard "they're just posting videos" defense of Libs of TikTok:
The Soros-funded group even labeled Libs of TikTok, which simply finds left-wing extremists’ videos and reshares them to its various pages, a “prolific spreader of hate.”
The organization attempted to justify its arbitrary claim by slamming Musk for liking one of Libs of TikTok’s tweets. “Posting publicly available videos isn’t harmful, hateful or dangerous,” the tweet read. “You know what is harmful though? Confusing kids about their identity, stealing childhood innocence, exposing kids to adult sexual entertainment, giving kids porn in school, and sterilizing and mutilating kids.”
Apparently, per ISD’s logic, Libs of TikTok’s rebuke of the sexual exploitation of children is an example of “hate.”
In real life, however, Libs of TikTok purveyor Chaya Raichik has amply demonstrated herself to be a vicious homophobe, and her videos have inspired violent threats that she has never disavowed, which tells us that she has a bigger agenda than "just posting videos."
Vazquez went on to whine that "The organization also smeared Ian Miles Cheong and Townhall writer Scott Morefield as 'two conservative journalists' that are supposedly 'known to spread disinformation and amplify hateful right-wing talking points,'" but again, he offered no evidence to disprove that description. He then went into the usual MRC whataboutism:
ISD’s feigned outrage against so-called “hate” and “disinformation” on Twitter is laughably disingenuous. The organization said nothing about the anti-Semitic Ayatollah Khamenei or Chinese Communist Party-affiliated accounts which have been allowed to spread their respective bile for years under Twitter’s old regime. A 2010 tweet by Khamenei, for example, raged that “Israel Is A Hideous Entity In the Middle East Which Will Undoubtedly Be Annihilated.” Would ISD be suffering the same conniption if Musk was interacting with those accounts instead? The CCP in particular is currently conducting religious- and ethnic-based genocide against the Uyghur Muslims, is running an authoritarian surveillance state and was starving its own people under “zero-Covid” policies. But how dare Musk associate with “right-wing” accounts, eh ISD?
Yet all of these Twitter accounts are apparently still active, and Musk has done nothing to remove them. Shouldn't Vazquez be criticizing Musk instead? Also, his feigned outrage over right-wingers being accurately identified as such is even more laughably disingenuous.
Vazquez concluded by grousing that "The group continued ranting against Musk interacting with those so-called “prominent superspreaders of election disinformation” like Tim Pool and Dinesh D’Souza." Again, he offered no evidence to counter that accurateassessment.
So when Dungy got busted touting a false story about litter boxes being placed in classrooms for students who identify as cats, Craig Bannister ran to his defense in a Jan. 19 article:
The first African American head coach to win a Super Bowl deleted a tweet mocking school gender identity policies on Wednesday, following backlash from liberal websites and social media users claiming he was promoting a debunked urban myth.
On Wednesday, NFL Hall of Famer Tony Dungy tweeted a comment mocking Minnesota State Rep. Sandra Feist for saying schools should be required to provide menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms – because “not all students who menstruate are female.”
Replying to a Daily Wire video of Rep. Feist making the claim, Dungy tweeted:
"That's nothing. Some school districts are putting litter boxes in the school bathrooms for students who identify as cats. Very important to address every student's needs."
Denounced and accused of perpetuating a conservative urban myth, rather than just making a joke, Dungy deleted the tweet by the end of the day.
Bannister offered no evidence Dungy was "just making a joke." Indeed, Dungy himself offered no such defense in apologizing for the tweet: "As a Christian I should speak in love and in ways that are caring and helpful. I failed to do that and I am deeply sorry."
Bannister then took things one step further, effectively arguing that Dungy is right because somebody somewhere once identified as a cat:
Regardless of whether or not schools are providing bathroom litter boxes, some women actually are identifying as feline.
A social media post by one such cat-lady was a featured video at last year’s Media Research Center Gala. In it, she provides examples of her various meows and their meaning, including her cat mating call.
“Overall, we’re a very happy kitten family,” she says.
Apparently, cat-identification is nothing new. In 2016, a Norwegian woman named Nano claimed to be a cat. She said she really believes she is a cat. In a video interview with a local reporter, the then-20 year-old said she first realized she was a cat at 16 years old.
"I think I will be cat all my life," she predicted.
After clearing that up, an article the next day by editor Terry Jeffrey touted Dungy speaking at the annual anti-abortion March for Life:
Tony Dungy, who coached the Indianapolis Colts to a victory in Super Bowl XLI in 2007 and is now a football analyst for NBC, spoke at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday and said that the march was more important than the ongoing NFL playoffs.
“It is great to be here,” Dungy said. “Can’t tell you how much excitement [my wife] Lauren and I have to be here today--even though this march is taking place right at the biggest time of my profession, the NFL Playoffs. This is way, way, way more important.”
Jeffrey said nothing about Dungy discrediting himself a coule days earlier by spreading a fake right-wing story.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Year Of (Still) Hating Transgender People Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent 2022 spewing even more hatred at not only those who are transgender but also those who refuse to hate them as much as it demands. Read more >>
Newsmax Columnist Pushes Conspiracy Theory To Bash Capitol Riot Committee Topic: Newsmax
Like his fellow Newsmax columnist Jeff Crouere, Michael Dorstewitz was not happy with the House committee that looked into the Capitol riot, complaining in his Jan. 6 column that the committee "illustrates why we have an adversarial system of justice."
Dorstewitz gets a couple things wrong right off the bat. First, it's a legislative committee that never claimed to be anything else, which means that the "adversarial system of justice" does not apply. Second, Republicans were given the opportunity to appoint members to the committee, but then-House minority leader Kevin McCarthy refused to participate at all after then-House leader Nancy Pelosi refused some of his appointees for being pro-insurrection. (Would Dorstewitz have demanded that members of Al-Qaeda be appointed to the 9/11 Commission?)
Dorstewitz the complained that some witness testimony will not be made public, which prompted him to go into conspiracy mode:
Would they include the testimony of former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who said it was the failures of the Pentagon, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security that led to the tragedy of Jan. 6?
Would those records include informationthat someone from the inside had to have opened "the 20,000-pound Columbus Doors that lead into the Rotunda" that "are secured by magnetic locks that can only be opened from the inside using a security code"?
All of this and more would have been public record had the Jan. 6 Committee been formed as an adversarial body, as committees normally are.
As evidence of Sund's claims, Dorstewitz linked to an article featuring ... Sund promoting his new book in which he presumably detailed exactly that, arguably making release of his testimony redundant. Regarding the Columbus Doors stuff, that's a bogus conspiracy theory. As a fact-checker found:
No evidence exists to support the claim that an electronic mechanism locks the doors from the inside. For one, the eavy damage sustained by the interior rotunda doors does not indicate that the doors were willingly unlocked to permit the rioters’ entry. And while the Capitol Police declined to comment to The Dispatch Fact Check on security measures at the U.S. Capitol, other sources have suggested that the doors could not have been locked from the inside because of fire evacuation and safety rules.
It wasn't until nearly the end of his column that Dorstewitz finally admitted McCarthy's snit about refusing to participate in the committee after Pelosi rejected his pro-insurrection nominees, which he benignly described only as "strong Trump supporters." He then declared: "Although he was criticized for this, McCarthy was right in pulling his remaining committee choices."
Dorstewitz concluded by whining; "It’s un-American when any 'fact-finding' body acts as judge, jury and prosecutor, and the results are always predetermined." Yet pro-insurrection Republicans never set up a credible alternative, something Dorstewitz makes sure not to mention.
CNS' Donohue Still Spewing Hate At LGBT People Topic: CNSNews.com
In addition to his usual bad takes, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue hates LGBT peopole. His Jan. 13 CNSNews.com column touted a "report" he put out -- actually, just a list of right-wing bullet points unsupported by evidence -- purporting to show a "future agenda" attacking "parental rights." One alleged example was that "Biden’s CDC was encouraging LGBT youth to engage with Q Chat Space. This online chat space, where youth can discuss sex, polyamorous relationships, the occult, sex change operation, and activism, is designed with a 'quick escape' feature so it can easily be hidden from parents." Yes, he's equating being LGBT to "the occult."
Donohue spent his Jan. 17 column attacking gay marrage in general and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's marriage in particular:
Does Buttigieg really have a husband? Of course not. He may love Chasten but he can never be his husband. Why not? Because he has been disqualified by nature.
It is true that Buttigieg is legally married, but that is a legal fiction. The Britannica Encyclopedia defines a legal fiction as “a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false.” The idea that a man can have a husband is clearly false—he can only have a wife—despite claims to the contrary.
Buttigieg’s “marriage” is recognized by the positive law, or by what lawmakers and judges posit, but it is not recognized by the natural law. The natural law, which was first promulgated by Aristotle and Cicero (and later amended by Aquinas), holds that morality is a function of human nature, and that we can arrive at moral strictures on the basis of observation and reason.
No man can have a husband anymore than a man can bear a child. He can say he does but that doesn’t make it true. If someone introduced his uncle to a stranger, saying, this is my aunt Joe, no one would believe him. Those who have blue eyes can claim they have brown eyes, but that doesn’t change reality. A left-handed person can claim to be right-handed, but observation tells us otherwise. Gorillas do not give birth to kangaroos.
Nature can be stubborn. It is not a social construct. It is fixed. The sooner we learn this truth, the better off our society will be.
So what should we call Chasten, if he is not Buttigieg’s husband? His partner. The two of them may not like it, but truth is not determined by what is popular. It is determined by what makes sense according to nature and nature’s God.
Donohue has long falsely blamed homosexuals for the Catholic Church's child sex scandal even though investigators in a study commissioned by the churchfound no link between sexual identity and sexual abuse.
How Is WND's Farah Playing Victim These Days? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been spending the past several years playing victim by insisting that outside forces are conspiring against WND to cause it to reside on the brink of failure (and not WND discrediting itself by publishing fake news and conspiracy theories). Let's see how that's been going lately, shall we? Farah wrote in a Dec. 26 column:
Listen to this.
I haven't had email for a month. Can you believe it? I can't.
For 30 years, I have depended on email so much I took it for granted.
I have used Rackspace, based in San Antonio, for more than 25 years, virtually since I started WND.
On Dec. 1, I tried to log in – nothing. What the deuce? Did I forget my password? It's entirely possible having had five strokes in 2019. But, no, it wasn't that. I asked my wife to check her account. Same thing. She didn't have access either.
What was going on? There has been a major system disruption on Rackspace's hosted secure domain – a major hack for 26 days – and there's no end in sight. It's a calamity. Unthinkable. No way for people to reach me on my trusty old email address – email@example.com.
As an email addict, this is nuts.
Despite the fact that the outage had nothing whatsoever to do with WND -- Rackspace was the target of a ransomware attack -- Farah still managed to turn it into a rant about WND's self-inficted situation:
Technology has been like that – a blessing and a curse.
Twenty-five years ago, when I started WND as the first independent news site on the internet, I thought it was the sure-fire cure for media bias. But 20 years later, I realized the internet was had become a THREAT to freedom of the press. That's what Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft, Amazon, etc., proved to be – just as Twitter was exposed to be. Google and YouTube, for instance, recently demonitized WND – permanently. Why? Because we were skeptical about the results of the 2020 election and the COVID vaccine. Were we proved right? Yes. But it didn't matter.
Actually, he weren't proven right about either of those things. Still, he added a money beg at the end.
Farah went back to ranting about Google in his Dec. 28 column:
Meet the "intelligence" officials who demonetized WND months ago. Finally, we know who those people are.
It was the badly misnamed Google Trust & Safety team. (Censors always use euphemistic names.)
That's right. It was three members of the Deep State – those who control "misinformation and hate speech."
It was all blatantly illegal – in direct violation of the First Amendment.
On top of that, Google is still riddled with high-ranking "intelligence" agents – 165 to be exact. They include former members of the CIA, 27; the FBI, 52; the NSA, 30; the DHS, 50; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 6.
Farah then complained about one Google official who posted "a series of anti-white tweets, plus a couple of others. He then whined:
So now we know how Google made the decision to demonetize us. They used left-wing nut jobs formerly with the CIA to "cover" themselves. While WND was tanking, going broke and suffering for telling the truth, as we have for 25 years as a news agency, they were yucking it up.
We just don't have any money left to sue them, which is what they deserve.
Maybe now that people realize we didn't do anything wrong – in fact, we did what was right – others will find it in their hearts to support us. There's no way we can support ourselves. Look what they have done to us!
As we've documented, Google didn't "demonetize" WND -- it simply chose to no longer do business with a company that publishes fake news and conspiracy theories, as any private company is allowed to do. And, yes, there was another money beg at the end.
Farah rehashed his Google attacks yet again in his Jan. 13 column, citing the selectively released "Twitter files" Elon Musk gave to his handpicked journalists as proof of a conspiracy against it:
WHY is Google continually targeting WND in this way?
Now we know for sure, after the Twitter admissions. The Deep State, in all of its censorious history, its blacklisting ways, its fascist actions and its fondness for the FBI, CIA and other three-letter anachronisms, has been teaming up with Big Tech to suppress truth.
Indeed, the question is easy to answer: In Google's eyes, in Big Tech's eyes, in most of what we call the mainstream media's eyes, we at WND are just bigots, science deniers, conspiracy theorists and election deniers.
Which is true, of course, but Farah insisted that the lies he publishes are really true through dishonest reframing:
Here, then, are WND's three supposed BIG LIES that caused Google to throw everything they have at us. (Please note the key element here: Not only are none of these BIG LIES actually lies at all; they are, in stark contrast, probably the three most important and consequential BIG TRUTHS of the Joe Biden era.)
BIG LIE #1: Google tells WND, "We do not allow content that: incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." They put it is WRITING!
Translated, that means when WND dares to report honestly and forthrightly on the fantastically deranged transgender agenda – where beautiful American kids are indoctrinated, seduced, groomed, recruited and enabled to "transition to a different gender" by taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and even undergoing double mastectomies and castration – when we report on this horror show, which we do daily, to Google we are "inciting hatred" and "promoting discrimination." In reality, of course, we're defending and protecting the most innocent, helpless and precious among us – the children who will make up America's next generation. That's not "hatred. it's love. It's truth. And we'll never stop telling it for any amount of blood money.
BIG LIE #2: Says Google, "We do not allow content that: makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process."
Translation: When we document the obvious and provable fact that the 2020 election was one of the most corrupt, tainted, manipulated and RIGGED elections in American history, well, that makes us extremists, terrorists, insurrectionists, conspiracy theorists, supporters of QAnon (whatever that is) and "semi-fascists" who are undermining democracy and the electoral process.
BIG LIE #3: According to Google, "We do not allow content that: promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus."
Translation: When WND reports with total accuracy on the Biden administration's catastrophic mismanagement and cynical exploitation of the COVID pandemic – from imposing vaccine mandates that have thrown tens of thousands of military members, nurses, paramedics, police, firemen and other frontline heroes out of work, to suppressing inexpensive and effective early outpatient treatment of COVID, to pretending "natural immunity" isn't real even though almost a hundred studies prove it's superior to vaccine immunity, to insisting that infants and toddlers be needlessly injected with the experimental "vaccines," to the almost daily reports of healthy young people who either died or manifested serious heart disease immediately after receiving the COVID shot – well, such reporting as ours is simply not allowed. It's anti-science, and it "contradicts authoritative scientific consensus" – aka Anthony Fauci.
These, then, are the reasons Google has given us for wanting to shut WND down. Again, this is not my opinion: I am quoting from the reasons Google has put in writing to explain our permanent demonetization.
Such delusion and cognitive dissonance on Farah's would seem to more than justify Google no longer wanting to do business with WND. And if that list and delusional defense sounds familiar, it's because his lieutenant, David Kupelian, did the same thing months ago.
Of course, there's a money beg at the end: "Please prayerfully consider making a generous tax-deductible donation to the Christian nonprofit charity, the WND News Center. You can make either a one-time donation or a monthly recurring donation. Either way is enormously appreciated."
MRC Drops Biden Classified Doc Obsession After Classified Docs Were Found At Pence's House Topic: Media Research Center
After a solid twoweeks of attacking President Biden over classified documents found at his properties, the Media Research Center was angry to see all that go to waste when classified documents were discovered at the home of former (and Republican) Vice President Mike Pence. Kevin Tober complained in a Jan. 24 post:
Like a bunch of five-year-old children, CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell and chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes appeared to be beside themselves with excitement Tuesday over the news that former Vice President Mike Pence had about a dozen classified documents at his home in Indiana. Since they presumably see their jobs as serving as apparatchiks of the Biden regime and the Democrat Party at large, O'Donnell and Cordes were clearly relieved to know Pence was also reportedly guilty of having mishandling classified documents.
"In a pair of letters to the National Archives, lawyers for former Vice President Mike Pence said they searched his home in Indiana last week out often an abundance of caution. There, they discovered a small number of documents bearing classified markings that were inadvertently boxed and transported to Pence's home at the end of the last administration," Cordes breathlessly reported.
Cordes then jumped at the chance to portray Pence as dishonest by noting how "the search came just days after Pence assured multiple journalists, including CBS's Robert Costa, that he had been more responsible about documents than President Biden was."
Once Cordes was done with her report, O'Donnell was giddy with excitement when bringing Cordes in to discuss the story further: "Nancy Cordes joins us now from the White House. So did they say anything there today about all this?"
Equally ecstatic, Cordes replied that "publicly, the White House had absolutely no reaction, but behind the scenes, several officials actually expressed relief that Mr. Biden is now not the only former Vice President to discover that he had some classified documents stored in an unsecure area."
You can be sure that the leftist media will use the Pence situation to shield Biden from his own irresponsibility in mishandling documents. Since there's no excusing Biden's behavior, leftist activists like O'Donnell and Cordes will point to Pence in order to distract the public from the Biden documents scandal.
Of course, by that definition, the MRC has been acting like a bunch of five-year-old children in spending two weeks hyping Biden's document issues while portraying Donald Trump as a victim for refusing to cooperate with archive officials to such an extent that an FBI raid became necessary to retrieve the documents he took. Tober made sure not to bring up Trump's name here.
But Tober and the rest of the MRC didn't really want to talk about Pence either. Thus, a Jan. 25 post by Nicholas Fondacaro based on yet another hate-watching of "The View" tried to turn the focus on a co-host he particularly hates for not loving Trump enough:
Faux conservative and co-host of ABC’s The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin used to work for the Department of Defense and former Vice President Mike Pence during the Trump administration. And on Wednesday, after it was reported that Pence had classified documents at home, Farah Griffin had the spotlight of scrutiny (jokingly) placed on her. But she couldn’t confirm nor deny that she had classified documents there.
The cast wasn’t critical of Pence retaining classified documents in an unsecured location; after all, this helped to provide cover for President Joe Biden and they chalked it up to him having to frantically pack after January 6 and the “hang Mike Pence” chants from the rioters.
“I think it was the chaotic nature of the transition. When I resigned in December, staff was being threatened, don't look for new jobs, don’t pack your offices. Because they were not preparing for a transition,” Farah Griffin recalled.
Farah Griffin assumed the documents ended up with Pence’s personal things as a result of a “staff error” due to “last-minute” packing.
Kathleen Krumhansl served up further whining that the Pence discovery undermined right-wing narratives in a Jan. 26 post:
To take it from Joseph Malouf, Telemundo's in-house “Constitutional Law Expert”, Christmas came a month late for Donald Trump on January 23 when classified documents were found at former Vice President Mike Pence's Indiana home.
“Now that you have three people -- three people recently serving the country -- with classified documents; it's the best news Trump could have asked for; it's Christmas for him,” Malouf told D.C. correspondent Cristina Londoño the day after the story of Pence's documents broke.
Does “Christmas for Trump” lead to Springtime for Biden? Telemundo sure seems to think so!
As it turns out, the Pence discovery so deflated the MRC that it has not done any more posts focused on Biden's classified documents for the next few weeks -- and it certainly did no more on Pence's classified documents. Still, the MRC was desperate enough for any possible anti-Biden dirt it could find that Curtis Houck did serve up some really thin gruel, however, in a Feb. 16 post:
Late Wednesday, CNN’s Paula Reid revealed the FBI had conducted multiple searches of President Biden’s records at the University of Delaware from his Senate tenure (and “documents...sent...in recent years") that have been held in secret since their donation in 2012. While they reportedly didn’t find any classified documents, it was worth sharing as it marked another chapter in his classified documents scandal, but CBS Mornings saw no reason to mention it on their Thursday editions.
ABC’s Good Morning America wasn’t much better as they snuck in an 11-second brief on the search, which topped the 18 seconds spent on their overnight show, America This Morning. In contrast, NewsNation’s flagship AM show Morning in America had a full report in each of their three hours.
Yes, Houck really demanded full wall-to-wall coverage of a search in which nothing was found, just because right-wingers could use it to bash Biden. That's how we know the MRC is first and foremost a partisan political organization, not anything seriously dedicated to "media research."
SHOCKER: WND's Hirschhorn Cuts Back On Anti-Vaxx Fearmongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joel Hirschhorn has one of WorldNetDaily's greatestpurveyors of misinformation and fearmongering about COVID and its vaccines. So it's a bit of a shock to see him actually address the subject in a more straightforward and factual way. His Jan. 19 column didn't start out promising, though:
Regular readers of this truth-telling publication already are well-informed about the many ill effects of COVID vaccines. But there is always more to understand as medical research keeps unfolding.
First, to summarize the ugly reality it is important to recognize what the great Dr. Peter McCullough has noted. Roughly 15% of vaccine recipients develop a health problem after taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Compared to decades of previous vaccines, that is a huge number that previously would have caused the government to take such a shot off the market.
Hirschhorn didn't mention, however, that the percentage of people who catch COVID and have lingering symptoms is at least that high and arguably have more severe symptoms, such as loss of taste or smell. (He also didn't mention that, contrary to his "great" description, McCullough is actually a even bigger misinformer.)
What followed, however, was a surprisingly straightforward summary of a study published in an actual, credible, peer-reviewed medical journal examining why some people, mostly young men, suffer myocarditis after receiving the vaccine, which the study attributed to spike proteins that evade detection. He did try to fearmonger a bit at the end:
Here is the key point: The spike protein they had in their bodies had evaded the apparently sufficient library of antibodies (from the vaccine or previous infection) that were supposed to neutralize it. Thus, it is possible that some persons do not make specific neutralizing antibodies after injection, and thus, the spike protein is able to circulate and damage the body, specifically the heart muscle and possibly other organs, including the brain. Other research has found that harmful impacts can happen many weeks or months after booster shots. Scars in heart muscle could explain serious impacts and deaths.
In summary, this study shows potential age-related differences in the processing of vaccine-derived spike protein that may explain the relatively higher frequency of myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, and a potential role for unbound circulating spike protein in the myocarditis, which suggests that for patients in whom spike antigenemia is detected, administration of antibodies to spike protein could potentially prevent or reverse the pathology. However, given the relatively small number of participants analyzed in this study, these conclusions need to be confirmed in large cohorts.
That expert also noted that "myocarditis has also been observed in response to other vaccines, such as vaccines against influenza and smallpox, and non-mRNA vaccines against COVID-19." Which tells you that the whole myocarditis thing is just a ginned-up scare tactic from anti-vaxxers.
Congratulations, though, to Hirschhorn for actually trying to stick to established facts. It's not something WND is known for.
With these 21 articles, Newsmax has run at least 191 articles attacking DirecTV for dropping it since it happened on Jan. 25.And none of these articles mentioned that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel, The First, which means no viewpoint "censorship" is happening.
Meanwhile, Newsmax unironically ran a wire service story on Feb. 15 stating how that "For the first time ever, U.S .adults will spend more time this year watching digital video on platforms such as Netflix, TikTok, and YouTube than viewing traditional television, Insider Intelligence forecast Wednesday." Newsmax has pointed out that "it offers its feed for free on its website, on YouTube and on multiple streaming platforms such as Roku, so viewers with DirecTV service will still be able to watch it -- which would seem to show that Newsmaxdoesn't actually need to be on DirecTV and that everyone who really wants to watch it has found a way to doing so.
Newsmax also continues to have columnist complain on its behalf. Kenny Cody ranted in a Feb. 14 column:
Nearly one year after removing the conservative leaning One America News Network (OANN), from their channel lineup, DirecTV decided to drop Newsmax, a conservative-leaning outlet.
While DirecTV is arguing that both decisions were based upon non-negotiable contractual terms, the sense from Newsmax is that the provider wanted conservative voices, reporting, and voices silenced across their medium and perhaps thinks that both the Biden administration and other Democratic politicians had a significant influence regarding its decision to remove the network from its channel lineup.
Cody censored the fact that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel, so no "conservative voices" are being "silenced." But the victimization narrative is a hard one to break, so Cody just kept ranting, with an added bit of pretending it's not government interference into private business matters if the government looked into this particular private business matter:
While it can be argued that Big Tech is working against conservative voices, a proper investigation should be launched to ensure if there was actual interference or influence by federal government officials, over companies like DirecTV.
It's not pro-big government to investigate the connection between government and private companies if it means they have a political bias, a bias demonstrated by impinging upon speech platforms.
It would be a giant step forward for the GOP if this connection were probed and proven by both U.S. Senate and U.S. House Republicans.
Dennis Kneale cheered Newsmax's strategy of screaming loudly over being on the bad end of a business decision in his Feb. 15 column:
By now, AT&T must be regretting the decision by executives at its DirecTV service to oust the Newsmax network from the 13-million-subscriber platform. The Newsmax response has been vociferous and effective, enlisting a platoon of conservative allies to side with the cable network.
Newsmax has fought back against its much larger foe by running a non-stop barrage of on-air stories about the clash, and online coverage on its website, and referrals to a new fight website. It also has used Twitter as a megaphone and a rallying point for supporters.
What AT&T and DirecTV brass may have viewed as a negotiation over new fees has blown up into a fight against Big Tech censorship. And with good reason.
DirecTV canceled a smaller conservative network, OAN, last April, after a few Democrats called on media platforms to pull the plug on conservative networks for spreading "misinformation." Now this?
He too failed to disclose thatDirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel.
CNS Brings Back Men's Rights Activist To Complain About Women Topic: CNSNews.com
After a gap of several months, CNSNews.com has started running new columns by shady men'srights activist Edward E. Bartlett, and he's just as hateful of women as feminism as ever. For his Dec. 5 column -- his first CNS column since June 21 -- Bartlett complained that men aren't seeing enough equality:
Twelve years ago the United Nations established UN Women, a step heralded as a “historic step in accelerating the Organization's goals on gender equality and the empowerment of women.” Indeed, women are disadvantaged, compared to men, in such areas as sex-selective abortion, early sex trafficking, and other areas.
But what about gender equality for men?
He then made the kind of complaints that men's rights activists do, such as that men are less likely to have custody of their children and that "Men are nearly twice as likely as women to be victimized by a false accusation." He concluded by huffing that "Perhaps it’s high-time that the United Nations establish a new agency for UN Men."
Bartlett's Dec. 15 column ranted against the proposed Students' Access to Freedom and Educational Rights (SAFER) Act, which he complained would change "sex" to "gender identity" in college sexual misconduct cases and, more worrying to him, "proposes a far broader definition that would encompass virtually all sex-related conduct that is perceived to be 'unwelcome,'" which he claimed "would open the door to an avalanche of false allegations of “sexual harassment” against men."
Baertlett raged against UN Women again in his Dec. 19 column, complaining that "The Marxist narrative that marriage is dangerous was once again promoted to unsuspecting women around the world" because of it. He concluded:
All of this to show how the Marxist-feminist vision to obliterate social and biological distinctions is a sure-fire recipe for the dissolution of the institution of marriage.
There’s a word that captures the sheer depravity of the UN Women scheme: Evil.
Bartlett began his Jan. 13 column by going into right-wing conspiracy theory territory before mounting his usual men's rights hobby horse:
Marc Morano recently published a brilliant exposé that reveals the neo-Marxist plan to install the New World Order. The Great Reset explains how progressives fabricate false narratives, with the aim of stampeding the public into demanding the passage of new laws that curtail freedom. Exhibit A is the COVID-driven vaccine mandates, face-mask dictates, and school closures, despite the fact that COVID was deemed to be “ one of the least deadly pandemics…over the last 2,000 years.”
Another false narrative has taken hold in the public consciousness, a narrative that pertains to the issue of domestic violence.
Recently the Centers for Disease Control reported its latest findings on domestic abuse. The CDC found that each year, 6.5 million men and 5.6 million women are victims of physical violence by an intimate partner. That’s right – domestic violence is a problem that affects more men than women.
In stark contrast to decades of peer-reviewed studies, feminists refuse to acknowledge the existence of female-perpetrated abuse. That’s because they believe domestic violence is an outgrowth of power imbalances between men and women, what they glibly refer to as the “patriarchy.”
Kowtowing to the feminist line, the Washington Post recently published an article titled, “Climate Change Puts More Women at Risk for Domestic Violence.” No surprise, the article never hints at the fact that domestic violence is a problem that affects men and women equally.
It's a common-sense proposition to assert that weather crises are stressful events that can trigger partner abuse. But the Washington Post needs to stop publishing propaganda-like claims based on junk science about extreme weather events rooted in an extreme gender ideology.
Columnist Katie Jgln is one of those activists who loves to promote Leftist narratives about men and marriage. Like many feminists, Jgln (that’s how she really spells her name) reflexively blames the “patriarchy” whenever things don’t turn out the way she might like.
During last summer’s defamation trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, for example, JgIn made this claim:
“Because if there’s one thing this whole situation is actually a perfect example of, it’s how the patriarchy — the social system feminism is fighting to dismantle — works.”
Heard admitted to being a domestic abuser when she lectured Depp, "I did not punch you, I was hitting you." And persons who watched the trial, myself included, doubted the truthfulness of many of Amber’s statements. An article published in the Journal of Forensic Psychology Research concluded that indeed, Heard was an inveterate liar.
But the authors of the study did not conduct any interview with either Depp or Heard, and the study was concluded before the trial. Forensic psychologists say that "Psychiatric opinions about an individual should not be given without appropriate effort to personally examine that individual. Nor should they be given lightly, inside or outside of a courtroom. Bartlett continued to complain:
Regarding domestic violence, there’s the misnamed (and probably unconstitutional) Violence Against Women Act. When the U.S. Senate held a hearing< on October 5, 2021 to reauthorize the law, all mention of male victims was swept under the rug.
Examples abound of the harsh treatment of men by the criminal system. Keeping in mind that more men than women are victims of domestic violence, one would expect the proportion of males and females arrested for domestic violence would be approximately even. But the Department of Justice documents that four out of five arrests for partner abuse are of men.
All three of these could be counted as triumphs for the Matriarchy.
MRC Continues Hypocritical Obsession With Soros' Donations Topic: Media Research Center
In December, the Media Research Center continued its obsession with George Soros by tallying up the money he has given to various causes -- you know, like like right-wing moneybags have donated to the MRC (not that it will bring up that part). It kept up the manufactured outrage that Soros does what every other politically inclined billionaire does throughout January. The MRC's chief Soros obsessive, Joseph Vazquez, complained in a Jan. 4 post:
Leftist billionaire George Soros was apparently more heavily involved in the 2022 electoral cycle than previously thought.
CNBC reported that Soros’ Open Society Policy Center "quietly" spewed $140 million “to advocacy organizations and ballot initiatives in 2021,” which is in addition to the over $170 million he "personally" spent to bolster Democratic candidates and campaigns in the 2022 midterm elections. It gets worse.
CNBC noted that the new numbers bring Soros’ multimillion-dollar agenda to buy up elections and political influence to roughly $500 million since January 2020.
Soros once stated that his goal was “to become the conscience of the world,” according to late New York Times reporter Michael T. Kaufman’s 2002 book Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire. He clearly wasn’t kidding.
In this regard, Soros is no different from other billionaires, including the right-wing ones who help fund Vazquez's paycheck -- that that Vazquez will tell you that, of course, and he would never accuse, say, the Mercers of having "spewed" donations to the MRC.
This was followed by the MRC's own work the next day, as compiled by Vazquez and Dan Schneider:
Leftist billionaire George Soros has been using his enormous fortune to buy influence around the world through news and activist media organizations for decades.
A new MRC Business analysis revealed that Soros specifically funneled at least $131,111,250 between 2016 and 2020 into 253 journalism and activist media groups worldwide to spread his radical leftist ideas on abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism. Soros pumped a whopping $103,236,632 into media groups that circulated his extreme views throughout the U.S. and abroad between 2000 and 2014. Fast forward to the period between 2016-2020, and Soros blew past the $100 million global media funding milestone again in just a four-year timespan.
Vazquez and Schneider offered nothing but cherrypicked examples that are really no worse than the anti-abortion extremism pushed by their employer. Still, the point of all this was to get a TV hit out of it, and as it was going live, MRC chief Brent Bozell ran to Fox Business, where he knew he could spout his talking points at Stuart Varney without challenge :
One-hundred and thirty-one million dollars is “far more than any entity, any foundation, anyone else probably in the world investing in [media],” Bozell noted. “This is a man who wants to fundamentally change the world.” Bozell also rebuked the media, remarking that it’s the “tip of the spear for the left and it's George Soros who’s funding it.”
The MRC's anti-Soros activistm got even more attention in the right-wing media bubble, and Vazquez dutifully transcribed in in a Jan. 6 post:
Conservative radio host Mark Levin has apparently had it with leftist billionaire George Soros wielding colossal influence over American politics and society.
Levin tweeted on Jan. 5 that “Soros has spent decades using enormous sums of money to overthrow our society.” He then called on the “[t]he GOP [to] look at what [Soros’] massive network of anti-American groups are doing.” MRC Business can help with that. Levin’s tweet came just before MRC Business released its second report in its three-part research series on Soros’ enormous ties to the global media.
Vazquez hyped the work of other fellow Soros-haters in a Jan. 11 post:
New research has put a dollar amount on the ungodly amount of cash leftist billionaire George Soros has poured into global politics in the past 23 years, and it’s in the billions.
The Capital Research Center (CRC) reported Jan. 4 that new filings reveal that Soros’ “nonprofit empire has poured out nearly $21 billion since 2000, making him perhaps the biggest ATM for leftist political causes in the world.”
To put that into perspective, The University of California Berkeley projected that if one were to save money at a rate of $100 per day, it would take 27,397 years to save $1 billion. That means it would take a person saving $100 per day roughly 575,342 years to save up to the $21 billion Soros unleashed since 2000 in an effort to secure the leftist political outcomes he desired in the U.S. and around the globe.
Vazquez seems jealous that Soros has that kind of money to spend. He also didn't mention that the CRC has a history of shoddy "research" that, when we exposed it, caused it to accuse us of inciting civil unrest for doing so.
Podcast host Joe Rogan was blunt in calling leftist billionaire George Soros's vast political power in global politics “terrifying” and equated him to a Batman villain.
Soros is like “an evil person in a Batman movie,”Rogan quipped during the Jan. 12 edition of The Joe Rogan Experience with guest and former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker. Rogan referenced Soros’ gambit to spend millions of dollars to elect leftist extremist district attorneys and politicians in order to advance his radical agenda.
“It’s fucking terrifying,” Rogan said. “He donates money to a very progressive, very leftist — whether it’s a DA or whatever politician — and then funds someone that’s even further left than them to go against them.”
According to Rogan, “[H]e’s playing like a global game and then he enjoys doing it.” Recent research suggests Soros has spent $21 billion on global politics since 2000 to move the societal needle towards his dystopian worldview.
Vazquez and Schneider served up the finalpart of their anti-Soros screed in a Jan. 17 post:
The over $32 billion that leftist billionaire George Soros poured into his organizations to spread his radical “open society” agenda on abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism around the globe has paid dividends.
In fact, his funding has helped him establish ties with some of the biggest name media personalities in the United States and abroad which help indoctrinate millions with his views on a day-to-day basis. MRC Business found at least 54 prominent media figures (e.g. reporters, anchors, columnists, editors, news executives and journalists) who are tied to Soros through their connections to organizations that he funds. These include personalities like NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt and The Washington Postexecutive editor Sally Buzbee.
Soros’ $131 million in media spending has virtually insulated him from any serious investigations by journalists. If anything, media figures tied to Soros tend to smear anyone who criticizes him as being anti-Semitic. CNN Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour harassed Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó and accused his boss, Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, of “stoking anti-Semitism” because he opposes Soros’ radical open border agenda. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt exploited a violent attack on Soros’ home to take a generalized swipe at his critics by painting Soros as a “target of conspiracy theories.”
Vazquez made sure not to mention that his employer has a history of using anti-Semitic tropes like "puppetmaster" to attack Soros, and his uncritically repeated the false conspiracy theory that a young Soros was a Nazi collaborator during World War II. There was also no mention of the fact that the MRC operates its own propaganda operation masquerading as a "news" outlet, CNSNews.com.
But, again, the point is to get a TV hit out of this, not fess up to double standards. So Bozell ran to Fox News the next day to serve up more manufactured outrage:
Soros “understands the importance of media and the power of media,” Bozell told Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher. Bozell also took time to slap down a common leftist deflection whenever a conservative criticizes the enormous influence of George Soros. “Remember David Koch and the Koch Brothers? Remember the Mercer family,” asked Bozell. “What they’ve given is a spit in the bucket compared to George Soros. All the hundreds of stories on [the Kochs and the Mercers] and this ‘right wing conspiracy,’ nothing on George Soros.”
Needless to say, Bozell didn't disclose that his MRC has received large amounts of Mercer money.
Vazquez touted more complementary attacks in a Jan. 23 post:
Bongino Report Content Manager Matt Palumbo peeled back “the layers” of leftist billionaire George Soros’ global political and media influence during a recent interview with The Epoch Times.
Palumbo noted that his book — The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside The Secret Network of George Soros — includes a “list of publications that are linked to Soros.”
Palumbo told The Epoch Times that Soros' well funded media empire gives him connections with some of the biggest names in journalism, which in turn allows him to be shielded him from serious journalistic scrutiny. In addition, Soros' influence encourages media figures to call anyone who dares criticize him "anti-Semites.”
“Just go on any of the publications that are Soros-linked: ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times — the list, it’s a very long list — type in Soros’ name, and look at how they cover him,” Palumbo said.
Vazquez smugly added. "MRC Business’ research directly corroborates Palumbo’s analysis." And neither he nor Palumbo seem particularly curious about the shady, opaque funding behind the Epoch Times; then again, it's in the right-wing media bubble with them, so there will be nothing but softball direct the Epoch Times' way.
Vazquez and Schneider wrapped things up with a Jan. 31 summary post in which they unironically demand even more investigations of Soros. They will not be turning a similarly close eye to, say, the Mercers anytime soon -- don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, after all.
WND Unhappy With Amy Grant Hosting A Same-Sex Wedding Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Amy Grant -- whose early musical fame was as a Christian singer before crossing over to greater fame in the secular music world -- hosted a same-sex wedding for her niece at her farm, the homophobes at WorldNetDaily were, unsurprisingly, not pleased. Larry Tomczak was first out of the gate with a Dec. 20 column:
Months ago, Joe Biden hosted a gathering with gay icon Elton John and 2,000 LGBTQ celebrants on the White House lawn. If I had been invited, I would've attended to evangelize just as I have at 20-plus gay pride events.
In situations like this, it's extremely important to discern God's will. If I were a new convert, knew there'd be nudity, drugs and revelry, struggled with same-sex attraction or if I was younger and prohibited by my parents, I wouldn't go.
Apart from a strategic LGBTQ outreach, could I envision ever hosting a homosexual/lesbian event at my church or on my property? I wouldn't do it.
A news story recently stated that Christian music legend Amy Grant was hosting a niece's gay wedding at her farm. I believe she's doing this sincerely as a goodwill gesture, but it's generating understandable concern about its appropriateness and what it communicates. Having ministered with Amy in the past at "Jesus Festival" events, I know she is a loving person.
A reasonable question: "Is this another 'crossover' move, similar to when Amy crossed over from "Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM) to a more "pop culture" genre? Let's examine the situation from a purely biblical worldview, resolving not to accommodate culture but align with sacred Scripture.
Tomczak's column began with this note:
Author's note: I attempted to give this article to Amy prior to publishing. She declined to read it, saying, "Even if I am misrepresented; even if I am in the wrong, God knows my heart." Having reviewed the article first with five senior leaders, including Dr. Michael Brown and one of Amy's original pastors, we pray and entrust this to God.
The next day, Bob Unruh hyped criticism of Grant from the usual anti-LGBT forces:
Pop star Amy Grant, whose early years in the music industry had her focus on Christian music, recently announced that she is allowing a same-sex wedding, involving a family member, on her farm.
Which prompted noted evangelist Franklin Graham, the chief of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the worldwide Christian ministry Samaritan's Purse, to remind her of something biblical.
"God defines what is sin, not us; and His Word is clear that homosexuality is sin," he said in a social-media statement. "We have all sinned, and in order to have a relationship with God and spend eternity with Him in Heaven, we must turn from our sin and put our faith in His Son, Jesus, Christ, who came to earth to die for our sins."
Grant has adopted the secular concept that love is love and all love is the same
She said, "Jesus, you just narrowed it down to two things: Love God & love each other."
he Western Journal noted, "According to ChurchLeaders.com, this is not the first time Grant has openly supported homosexuality and the LGBT community. … ChurchLeaders cited a 2013 interview Grant did with the pro-gay news site 'PrideSource,' in which she referred to Christians who abide by God’s Word with regard to homosexuality as 'the religious community.'"
The Western Journal said, "Grant is heavily implying here that people are born gay in how they are 'wired' and dangerously believes that our acts and behaviors have no impact on our standing with God. She is also implying that those afflicted with homosexual urges should not feel any kind of conviction to repent and turn from their sin so long as they believe that they are 'loved.'"
The publication, like Graham, warned Grant, "Indeed, we are loved by a God who sent His only Son, while we were yet His enemies, to die for our sins so we might be reconciled with the Father. But God cannot tolerate sin and its deliberate practice under the twisted guise of 'love.'"
Tomczak went after Grant again in his Jan. 24 column for her refusal to hate LGBT people like he does:
Ever since Christian recording artist Amy Grant said she was hosting her niece's same-sex "wedding" at her farm, people have been perplexed that this professing Christian celebrity was acting to legitimize a homosexual union – clearly condemned by God, all major world religions and contrary to thousands of years of church history.
Interviewed on Pride Source, Amy previously said, "I know the religious community has not been very welcoming … but with God, everybody is welcome. Everybody!"
On Proud Radio, she said, "It's so important to set a welcoming table. … You're loved. Gay. Straight. It doesn't matter. … It doesn't matter how we behave. It doesn't matter how we're wired."
As Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoffer said, "Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. God will not hold us guiltless."
"Keeping the peace," people-pleasing, and "having happy families" mustn't become an idol that takes precedence over obeying God and honoring His Word.
After repeating a series of Bible quote that have no actual connection to the issue at hand, Tomczak concluded:
Christians are the only Bible many people read. The power of influence is a sacred responsibility; may we be vigilant never to lead people astray. Unfortunately, there's now a "Christian" group calling themselves "Faithful America" who've started a petition supporting Grant with over 15,000 signatures.
Here's the deal: There's hope for America and another Great Awakening if Christians remain humble, obedient and faithful to God's Word. Yes, we love brides, but the preeminent one is the Bride of Christ "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish" (Ephesians 4:27).
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Hebrews 13:4).
It seems that Tomczak is driven by hate, not compassion.
MRC Complains Again That It's Pointed Out Trump Speaks Like A Mobster Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Mark Finkelstein complained in a Jan. 18 post:
Is Don gonna make Ron an offer he can't refuse? Or maybe just cut to the chase and have him whacked?
That's what Joe Scarborough seemed to suggest on today's Morning Joe. Reacting to Trump having said that if Ron DeSantis runs against him, "we'll handle that the way I handle things," Scarborough said: "Sounds like a mob threat."
Mika Brzezinski, ever Joe's faithful echo, agreed: "former President Trump, with what sounded like a threat."
Really? Let's consider the history of how Trump "handles things" when dealing with political opponents.
To date, there have been no reports of any opponent disappearing after Don invited him on a fishing outing. Nor have any turned up in a concrete bridge foundation.
Instead of ordering hits, Trump's MO has consisted of . . . calling his opponents funny or insulting names.
"Low-energy Jeb." "Lyin' Ted Cruz.' "Lil' Marco Rubio." And now, "Ron DeSanctimonious."
Not exactly how the Godfather or Tony Soprano used to "handle things."
Finkelstein then went on to concede that, yes, there may be something to this as others have also pointed out Trump's penchant for mob-style language but dismissed the complaint as coming from the "liberal media":
The liberal media has a habit of calling Trump a "mob boss, as here, here, and here. Scarborough now accusing Trump of making a "mob threat" takes things to an ugly new level.
But hey! This is the liberal media. No prob with implying that an announced Republican presidential candidate might be threatening to murder an opponent!
All of which, of course, does not disprove the fact that Trump does, in fact, speak in mob-style language even if he doesn't fully follow through -- and, really, he's merely invoking tropes than being a real mob boss anyway; real, successfl mob bosses don't speak like that in public. It's all about image, and Finkelstein is apparently enough of a Trump-fluffer that he must defend the guy from other people making accurate observations. (which the MRC has complained about before).
(Oh, hey, look, here's a picture of Trump posing with a mobster. found just a few days after Finkelstein's post.)
Finkelstein went added: "Note: Mika and Joe also mentioned Trump's recent criticism of evangelicals, after he previously blamed the GOP's underperformance in the midterms on pro-lifers overdoing the abortion issue." But not only did he not criticize Mika and Joe for highlighting it, he didn't try to rebut Trump. In fact, this -- which Finkelstein followed with a unusually straight recounting of what Trump said -- is the only reference to Trump's criticism of evangelicals at NewsBusters, which tells you that Finkelstein and the rest of the MRC are actually scared to cross Trump. Perhaps out of fear that he may for once actually follow through on his mob talk?