MRC Tries To Control Language On Abortion To Preserve Anti-Abortion Bias Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent the past couple of months fighting a nomenclature war over abortion. Tim Graham spent a Dec. 7 post complaining that the Associated Press is listening to actual doctors to more accurately define its terms:
The Associated Press sells itself to news clients with the motto "Advancing the Power of Facts." But the AP Stylebook -- which instructs reporters on which terms to use or not use -- has grown increasingly counter-factual. In July, the AP Stylebook commissars bowed to the transgender lobby: "A person’s sex and gender are usually assigned at birth by parents or attendants and can turn out to be inaccurate."Don't look at an actual human body. Feelings trump facts.
On Tuesday, in a bow to the abortion industry, AP is suggesting that having an abortion late in pregnancy should not be described as a late-term abortion.
How on earth does a "late-term abortion" start at 41 weeks? Most would think of it as a third-trimester abortion, or as a post-viability abortion.
Graham offered no evidence that anyone has ever had an abortion at 41 weeks. Instead, he cited a biased anti-abortion website (which he euphemistally called "pro-llife")to attack the organization of actual doctors on whose guidance the AP is basing its changes on, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
The pro-life website LifeNews.org criticized AP for relying on an activist source. "ACOG is a pro-abortion group. As a supposedly unbiased news source you shouldn't rely on partisan groups to determine your terminology," it tweeted in reply. They added: "Thousands of doctors have left ACOG because it has become an abortion advocacy group. It lost its prestige years ago."
But AP lingo and Planned Parenthood's wishes seem linked. The AP Stylebook account also tweeted: "Instead, use the term 'abortion later in pregnancy' if a general term is needed, but be aware that there are varying definitions of the time period involved. Be specific when possible."
When NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell pointed out that "pro-life" is not an accurate description of the anti-abortion movement -- given its almost exclusive focus on restricting and outlawing abortion -- Alex Christy lashed out in a Jan. 12 post:
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell went full partisan activist on her Thursday show as she scolded Capitol Hill Correspondent Garrett Haake for using the term “pro-life” when discussing Rep. Nancy Mace because that is not an accurate description.” Additionally, throughout the segment, Mitchell would illustrate glaring hypocrisy and omitted key facts when denouncing Republicans on abortion.
Mitchell wasted no time in getting to dishonesty, “And the House's passage of two anti-abortion bills Wednesday, despite a majority of Americans saying abortion should be legal.”
Christy tried to defend those bill, insisting that "neither bill banned abortion," but didn't mention that incrementalism -- slowly ratcheting up abortion restrictions over time -- has been a key component of the anti-abortion movement. Christy the noted that Haake referenced an anti-abortion congresswoman as "pro-life":
It was at this point that Mitchell interrupted, “Garrett, let me—let me just interrupt and say that pro-life is a term that they -- an entire group wants to use, but that is not an accurate description.”
Haake defended himself by simply pointing out, “I'm using it because that's the term she used to describe herself, Andrea,” to which Mitchell responded, “I understand. I understand. Anyway, that was her explanation.”
Of course, “anti-abortion,” is also a label “an entire group wants to use” and Mitchell and much of the media sees no problem simply regurgitating that. Many pro-lifers would also take issue with the label “pro-choice,” arguing the label “pro-abortion” is more accurate. Why should only one side get to insist on journalists using their preferred language?
Again, anti-abortion activists are almost exclusively defined by their opposition to abortion, so "anti-abortion" is a perfectly accurate term. (Also note that Christy did not defend the accuracy of "pro-life"; and was just mad that it was criticized.) By contrast, pro-choice activists do not force anyone to have an abortion; they simply want that option to be available.
Clay Waters raged in a Jan. 24 post that PBS guest Nia-Malika Henderson referenced the "so-called pro-life movement":
When host Yamiche Alcindor later asked her about the March for Life and the “new sort of battlefield” around abortion, she responded with hostile labeling of the pro-life movement.
Henderson: ….In terms of politically I think you’re going to see in 2024, the so-called pro-life movement, they are going to try to put up a candidate that wants to have a federal abortion ban. In terms of I think the pro-choice movement, you saw I think a kind of renewed commitment to the pro-choice movement and the pro-choice situation in Roe v. Wade in a way that I think Democrats and liberals weren’t so fiercely proponents of abortion….
So the “so-called pro-life” movement is dubious, but the “pro-choice movement” is simply who they say they are?
Like Christy, Waters didn't bother to defend the accuracy of the "pro-life" term.
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg had her own AP Stylebook-related meltdown in a Feb. 6 post:
Yet again, the Associated Press style guide is pandering to the woke, leftist mob.
The Daily Signal noticed that AP changed its rulebook to get rid of the phrase “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” and instead use “Anti-Abortion Clinics.”
But rather than offer any sort of logical defense, she read propaganda straight from the anti-abortion playbook:
The guide describes centers that don’t provide abortions as places that are “set up to divert or discourage women from having abortions.” Coming from someone that volunteers at one every week, I can assure you, that’s far from true.
Most pregnancy resource centers provide pregnancy tests and educational resources on options for pregnant women. They often also provide things like baby clothes, diapers, car seats and even items for pregnant and new mothers themselves. These centers look to empower and assist women, and encourage them that encourage them that killing their child is not the only way to succeed.
They don’t and never have claimed to offer abortions. That’s just not something they conduct at their facilities. They’re clear about that and are in no way “dissuading” or “diverting” people. They’re actually likely the only honest ones when it comes to pregnancy “clinics." Unlike abortion mills, they have no financial incentive.
Mandelburg dishonestly refused to admit that all of this is, in fact, in the servicee of diverting and discouraging women from having abortions -- which, yes, makes the AP's new terminology completely accurate.There's also ample evidence that these centers engage in manipulative and deceptive practices to discourage abortion, and there are often strings attached to the services they offer women, such as attempts at religious indoctrination.
Mandelburg won't tell you any of that, of course, because she's too busy being an anti-abortion propagandist -- as is the rest of the MRC.
CNS Cranks Out Attacks On Abortion Medication Topic: CNSNews.com
We've noted how CNSNews.com has promoted a right-wing effort to ban mifepristone abortion pills, and it has continued to launch attacks on them. After the Food and Drug Administration ruled that abortion pills could be obtained from pharmcists, a Jan. 4 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman called on anti-abortion activists (which not honestly labeled as such) to fearmonger about them:
Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director who now advocates for life, said in a statement, "I've had two abortions and one of them was the abortion pill -- it was horrific. I was alone, in immense pain, and bleeding profusely."
"The thing is, it almost doesn't even matter that the FDA is allowing the abortion pill to be more widely available because the women aren't seeing a doctor either way," said Johnson. "They aren't having ultrasounds and some aren't even verifying they are pregnant."
"While the abortion lobby will say this move is a huge step forward for women, it's only a step forward for them and for those who manufacture the abortion pills because it means more money for them while throwing women under the bus," added Johnson.
Some of the potential side effects of Mifeprex include fatal infection and prolonged heavy bleeding, according to the product's label.
A Jan. 18 article by Spencer J. Fairfield promoted how "Twenty-two U.S. attorneys general have sent a letter to the FDA regarding its new policy that allows the abortion pill, mifepristone, to be sold in pharmacies, stating this is an abandonment of 'commonsense restrictions,' and is 'illegal and dangerous.' In the past, the drug could only be obtained directly from a physician and had to be ingested in the doctor’s presence." Fairfield censored the fact that all of these attorneys gheneral are Republican. Fairfield followed up with a Jan. 23 article hyping an anti-abortion doctor fearmongering about the pill:
At the 50th Annual March for Life on Jan. 20, Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas OB/GYN who has delivered more than 5,000 babies, shared her knowledge about the dangers of chemical abortion drugs (mifepristone). Skop told CNSNews that the FDA’s decision to allow abortion pills to be sold in retail pharmacies is “clearly politically driven,” and that “the FDA is basing their decisions on studies that undercount complications.”
“It is clearly politically driven because every time the FDA has loosened restrictions on Mifepristone it’s been in a Democrat administration,” said Dr. Skop. “But the other thing that’s happening, the abortion industry publishes studies to promote their product.”
“They will usually say it’s 99 or 98 percent effective, but they are doing that based on flawed data,” said the doctor. “Because, again, they are only talking about the women they know of that had a complication. But if the women do not come back to them, if they come to me (or other OBGYNs) nobody knows about those complications. So, the FDA is basing their decisions on studies that undercount complications.”
Fairfield refused to interview anyone who contradicted Skop's biased view. In a Feb. 3 article, Fairfield exploited a woman's death to fearmonger about the pill:
It was reported this week that a 19-year-old Canadian woman died on July 4, 2022 apparently after using the abortion drug, Mifegymiso, the brand name for mifepristone. Pete Baklinski, director of communications at Campaign Life Coalition in Ottowa, said that Canada’s healthcare system should declare that medication abortion in general is “an imminent hazard to public health.”
“This human pesticide is not only deadly to the smallest members of the human family, but to pregnant mothers as well,” said Baklinski. “The abortion pill must be immediately pulled from the Canadian market. Health Canada must declare it an imminent hazard to public health.”
Fairfield quoted only anti-abortion activists bashing the pill and censored evidence of the pill's safety, particularly compared with pregnancy.
It wasn't until a Feb. 24 article by Melanie Arter that CNS gave significant space to arguments in favor of mifepristone:
Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday that pro-life efforts to prevent access to the abortion drug mifepristone amounts to “‘an attack on the very foundation of our public health system.”
“That medication is called mifepristone. It is a drug that is used to perform medication abortion,” the vice president said.
“It is FDA approved and was approved 20 years ago, after a strenuous peer-reviewed process of determining that it is safe and appropriate for its intended use, but there are now partisan and political attacks attempting to question the legitimacy of a group of scientists and doctors who have studied the significance of this drug,” Harris said.
"There is now an attempt by politicians to remove it from the ability of doctors to prescribe and the ability of people to receive,” she said.
Unlike with stories focused on anti-abortion activists, Arter made sure to note anti-abortion activists criticizing the pill.
CNS also published commentaries from anti-abortion activists that attacked mifepristone without balance or pushback, such as a Jan. 9 commentary by Lynne Marie Kohm maliciously described it as "chemical abortion." Dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue spent a Jan. 18 column attacking New York City Mayor Eric Adams for making available for free at one clinic in the city:
More important is where Adams decided to open his freebies abortion clinic. The first of four such clinics opened today in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, more generally known as the South Bronx.
Guess who lives there? Almost 6 in 10 are Hispanic and 36 percent are black. The white population is 3.2 percent and the figure for Asians is 0.6 percent. The poverty rate in New York City is 16 percent, but in the Bronx, the figure is 26.4 percent. In Morrisania it is 40.3 percent. Its serious crime rate is double the city average.
Some things never change. Why is it that liberals always favor black and brown neighborhoods to set up their abortion clinics?
Yes, Donohue is accusing a black man of being racist against black people. that gave Donohue license to repeat a dcouple false anti-abortion tropes:
Rev. Dean Nelson, a black minister who directs Human Coalition Action, notes that “nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance to Black neighborhoods.”
It is undeniably true that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a notorious racist. The KKK must have been proud of her efforts to help abort black babies.
As we've documented, Sanger was not a "notorious racist," and most abortion clinics are locatd in white neighborhoods.
Another anti-abortion activist, Patty Knap, raged against increased availability of mifepristone -- a name she refused to use, instead calling it "abortion pills" instead -- in a Jan. 30 commentary wildly accusing the "abortion industry" of profiteering:
A crucial aspect of allowing pharmacies to sell abortion pills that has not been talked about very much is the wholesale elimination in the process of possible life-affirming intervention by pregnancy help organizations prior to a woman procuring a chemical abortion.
For the profit-motivated abortion industry, bypassing the very people prepared to help women choose life is a big win.
The abortion lobby has been determined to cut out in-person doctor visits for a woman to obtain abortion drugs to get dangerous abortion pills into the hands of pregnant moms faster before anyone can offer her help with her pregnancy. Abortion pills are also more profitable than surgical abortions because there is no brick-and-mortar-building and associated costs, or actual hands-on procedure involved.
Now President Joe Biden has come through for abortionists and granted their wish, with the FDA recently announcing that abortion pills can be sold at your neighborhood pharmacy.
This means that these abortions require neither a visit to the doctor nor even a pregnancy test.
Knap didn't explain how reducing doctor visits equates to profiteering. Instead, she expressed her real fear, that anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" can't interfere in the process:
Many pregnancy centers throughout the country are purposefully located near abortion centers. Likewise, the people who pray at those abortion facilities offer the truth and real help to young moms heading inside for an abortion by encouraging them to instead visit the pregnancy centers. The compassionate efforts of both result in babies being saved and moms being spared a lifetime of agony.
Without the need to go in person to a Planned Parenthood or other abortion center, there’s no chance a pregnant mom has of seeing her baby’s ultrasound, no chance of hearing about available help, or hearing about couples who ready and eager to adopt.
Conversely, the significance of the life-affirming work of the nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers across the country cannot be overestimated, as thousands of lives are saved each year through their life-affirming intervention.
These life-saving interactions will be impeded with abortion pills available via a mere run into a corner drug store.
That declining opportunity to interfere seems to be what Knap really fears.
MRC Manufactures Poll To Attack CNN Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is buzarrelyobsessed with constantly attacking CNN for pretty much any reason -- so much so that it feels it must manufacture reasons to attack it. It even bought a poll to bash CNN, as detailed in an anonymously written Jan. 6 post:
A new poll from the Media Research Center, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, finds a majority (54%) of CNN viewers say they are now watching the network less than they used to, and most of those people (61%) agree that “one of the reasons I find myself watching CNN less often is because of its liberal/left-wing bias.”
CNN’s ratings collapse is well known; this summer, for example, its audience slipped to levels not seen in 22 years. “CNN is in a bad place,” one media executive told The New York Post in September. “The ratings are down really dramatically year over year.”
The Media Research Center poll demonstrates that CNN’s biased political coverage is a likely reason many of these viewers have been driven away.
People who reported watching less were then asked to react to the following statement: “One of the reasons I find myself watching CNN less often is because of its liberal/left-wing bias.” A majority (61%) said they agreed, including a majority of self-identified moderates and liberals (52% for each group), and a whopping 80 percent of conservatives.
The MRC didn't disclose that McLaughlin was Donald Trump's 2020 pollster, meaning that its work is highly biased and its fairness is in question -- as demonstrated further by the biased framing of the question. You might recall that McLaughlin was one of the pollsters the MRC hired to push its conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen from Trumnp.
Alex Christy spent a Jan. 17 post bashing CNN for considering adding a comedian to its late-night coverage:
CNN’s new boss, Chris Licht, is looking to counter the narrative that late night comedy is dying by bringing a comedian to the network’s primetime lineup, Semafor reports.
Max Tani reports that, “CNN executives have floated names including Bill Maher, Trevor Noah, Arsenio Hall, and Jon Stewart, and have looked at other comedic news-focused talk shows for inspiration.”
Tani writes that of these names, Maher is probably the most realistic hire as Noah recently stepped away from The Daily Show, Stewart remains under contract by Apple, and despite having previous late night experience, Hall is not a serious candidate. CNN has already been in talks with Maher to use his Overtime segments. Both CNN and HBO are owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
Christy then touted how CNN is emulating Fox News while trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that Greg Gutfeld is, in fact, a comedian:
FNC’s Gutfeld! dominating the traditional late night hosts may be another reason why Licht may seek to bring a comedian on board, according to Tani. But hiring simply another liberal would not make CNN stand out against its competitors like Gutfeld does and whether Maher could be accepted by the more politically correct CNN is an open question.
Licht hiring another liberal also challenges Licht’s own stated desire to make the network less partisan because there is no reason to believe CNN’s comedian will be less liberal than ABC, NBC or CBS’s.
In portraying Maher as a "liberal," Christy is ignoring how his employer hasrepeatedlytouted Maher's right-wing leanings.
WND Columnist Gives 'Gifts' To Boost Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Tomczak began his Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily column by linking the Bible to the selective "Twitter files" releases:
One of the most obscure verses in the Bible has prophetic significance for 2023. It focuses on a bird as a carrier of sensitive information previously hidden.
"Do not revile the king even in your thoughts or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird of the air may carry your words and a bird on the wing may report what you say" (Ecclesiastes 10:16-20).
The legendary Twitter bird is one of the most recognizable logos worldwide. It symbolizes how quickly information can travel to impact multitudes.
Are you paying attention to the "Twitter Files"? Elon Musk has released damning evidence exposing how corruption in the top levels of the FBI and social media (Google, Twitter, Facebook), along with the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC aligned in deceptive practices to trash Trump and back Biden before the 2020 election.
Tomczak then claimed that the "revelation" of the files "can help our former president regain traction for the next election":
Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton ("The Comeback Kid") and just recently Benjamin Netanyahu (reelected prime minister in Israel) all lost their political "mojo" but re-calibrated to regain their footing. So can Donald Trump!
Scores who remain loyal to our former president sympathize with the nonstop pummeling he endures and refuse to conveniently forget his outstanding record of achievements against all odds.
Some want him to let go of 2020 "fraudulent election" claims and be more circumspect in his conduct. Many believe God is neither done with him nor wants to waste the gift of governance He gave him. We're not putting our trust in politicians or particular institutions but praying for influencers in government to stand courageously for righteousness.
In the meantime, I believe patriotic and principled conservatives should consider three presents for our former president who did so much for all of us in our quest to honor God in America and advance the Gospel.
the first of those "gifts" is prayer. The second is "understanding," which apparently translates into embracing his discredited election fraud lies becuase he supposedly believes them:
At the core of his being, Donald Trump sincerely believes that: 1) his loss to Biden in the 2020 election was due to fraudulent activity (covered up but increasingly being revealed); and 2) this injustice must be rectified, otherwise we jeopardize our Constitution and fair elections in America.
He seeks understanding from fair-minded, patriotic and principled Americans who seek to curb our country's decline. His core conviction is: "Our great Founders did not want and would not condone false and fraudulent elections."
I grant Mr. Trump understanding of his position, knowing the only path to resolution is to present hard evidence before the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. Wouldn't you want the same if you were he?
The third is "encouragement," because trump is just like the leader of Ukraine:
Time magazine announced its Person of the Year for 2022 was Ukrainian President Zelensky. He courageously has persevered against Russia's bellicose attempt to capture his country, assassinate him and decapitate their government.
Likewise, Mr. Trump has persevered against relentless attacks. Countless millions refuse to bail in his hour of need.
Tomczak concluded with a "personal appeal" to Trump begging him to read his defense:
"President Trump, I hope this commentary reaches you.
"On June 15, 2016, you descended on an escalator trip that changed America and catapulted you into nonstop attacks that would have crushed the overwhelming majority of people on planet Earth. You were like lightning in a bottle, and I thank you for persevering to champion America as a world leader once again.
"Your accomplishments are among some of the greatest for a first-term president in U.S. history. In campaigning I respectfully appeal that you run on your record contrasted with the disastrous free-fall we've all suffered with Biden! Stay focused and fan the flames of America's greatness!
"Billy Graham called socialism the 'religion of Satan.' Masses of Americans are clueless as to what's happening. How bad will things have to get before we wake from the induced complacency to see a turnaround and desperately needed spiritual awakening? Lead the way!
"Humble yourself. Ask God for guidance. Be accountable to godly leaders who can help you. We offer you our prayers, understanding and gratitude."
The MRC's Loud And Lame War On NewsGuard Continues Topic: Media Research Center
For the past couple of years, the Media Research Center hasrepeatedlyattacked website-ratings service NewsGuard for committing the sin of pointing out how unreliable right-wing media is, demanding that outlets like Newsmax and OAN -- which are currently being sued for defamation by voting-tech firms Dominion and Smartmatic after they made false claims of ballot manipulation and election fraud -- be rated higher than they are. Despite all that whining, the MRC has never presented any evidence to argue that those right-wing media outlets be ranked higher than they are.
Well, the MRC's loud and lame war on NewsGuard is contining. Joseph Vazquez ranted in a Jan. 6 post:
Discredited leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard has had a year to prove that its ratings system isn’t prejudiced against conservative media, but it’s failing miserably. A new analysis shows that liberal media outlets were rated 25 points higher on average than right-leaning media outlets illustrates how NewsGuard’s self-projection as a credibility gatekeeper is a complete joke.
MRC Free Speech America analyzed the NewsGuard ratings of media outlets based on a list compiled by AllSides that classified their “bias” on a left-to-right scale. The average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like USA Today — was a “green shield” rating of 91/100. USA Today was embroiled in a scandal after former reporter Gabriela Miranda was found to have fabricated sources. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News, The Daily Wire and New York Post — was a low 66/100.
NewsGuard’s bias has barely budged in over 365 days of ever-changing nutrition labels either praising or demonizing the “credibility” of news outlets. But NewsGuard as an organization is in no place to virtue-signal about “credibility” given that its CEO Steven Brill tried to cast the now-verified Hunter Biden laptop scandal as a Russian “hoax” just prior to the 2020 presidential election. Even after the emails from the laptop were verified, NewsGuard maintained perfect scores for outlets like Politico, The Washington Post and USA Today, which all interfered in the 2020 election by trying to bury the Biden family scandal as some kind of disinformation operation.
Only in the right-wing bubble would refusal to report an unverified story be considered election interference. Note that Vazquez is blaming non-right-wing media for not parroting the story and not the New York Post -- a right-wing outlet that was in the tank for Trump's re-election in 2020 -- for failing to provide any sort of independent verification of the laptop story that would have elevated it above the October surprise-grade attack it clearly appeared to be. Vazquez clearly does not understand that it's good journalistic practice to not amplify an unverified story.
The worst thing Vazquez could apparenlty come up with regarding the Washingon Post's purported unreliablity is that it "was recently caught stealth-editing a report that falsely labeled journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss as “conservative.” The erroneous characterization came after both reporters’ separate coverage exposing the internal communications behind Twitter’s massive campaign to censor speech and ban former President Donald Trump." Vazquez offered no evidence to support his claim that Taibbi and Weiss are not conservative, and his description of them offering "separate coverage" of Twitter ignores the fact that both were hand-picked by Elon Musk to write about selective releases of internal Twitter documents to push a right-wing narrative of "censorship" under previous owners.
Vazquez again ranted that "BuzzFeed News continues to host the bogus January 2017 Steele dossier it published that made erroneous claims about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. However, NewsGuard still gives the outlet a perfect 100/100 score" -- censoring the fact that BuzzFeed never claimed the dossier was accurate, told readers it was unverified and explicitly stated that it published the dossier "so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government."
Vazquez went on to attack USA Today again for an accurate fact-check on history:
In a so-called June 30, 2020, “fact-check”, the outlet tried deflecting from the historical fact that Democrats started the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan and were responsible for the Civil War by drawing a flimsy distinction between the Democratic Party and Democrats:
Historians agree that although factions of the Democratic Party did majorly contribute to the Civil War's start and KKK's founding, it is inaccurate to say the party is responsible for either.
The headline for the propagandistic fact-check was deceptive: “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War.” The Democratic Party may not have officially started the Civil War, but the Confederacy was indisputably made up of strident Democrats, which USA Today arbitrarily glossed over to protect the left. In fact, one of the KKK’s founding members was Confederate veteran Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, a Democrat. But according to NewsGuard’s nutrition label, “[A]voids deceptive headlines” and “[g]athers and presents information responsibly.”
Note that Vazquez actually concedes that USA Today was correct by pointing out that the KKK was not "officially started" by the Democratic Party. He didn't explain how it was "propagandistic" to state something even he admits is accurate.
The results of MRC Free Speech America’s latest analysis are especially damning in light of NewsGuard’s latest expansion into rating TV shows. Variety reported Dec. 1 that NewsGuard’s ratings of “140 cable, streaming, and network television shows and networks will be available to advertising agencies, marketers, and others starting January 2, 2023.” NewsGuard’s TV show ratings are structured based on a 0-10 scale as opposed to the 0/100 scale used for websites. NewsGuard scored Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight at rock bottom, giving the show a 0/10. NewsGuard claimed Carlson’s show “regularly advances false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims on topics of importance such as COVID-19 and U.S. and international politics.”
By comparison, CNN’s Inside Politics received a NewsGuard rating of 9/10, because host John King supposedly provides “multiple viewpoints in his reports, mostly through his own summary of dissenting views on a story, and interviews with prominent Republican lawmakers, pollsters, and consultants.” But King is blatantly biased. For example, King and his panel recently used Trump’s dining with Ye (formerly known as “Kanye West”) and Ye’s guest, white supremacist Nick Fuentes, and the GOP’s quiet response to imply that Republicans are an anti-Semitic party that encourages hate crimes. King ignored the fact that Trump is transparently pro-Israel, while certain Democrats consistently spread anti-Israel rhetoric.
That's right -- just a few paragraphs after getting mad that USA Today wouldn't equate Democrats who founded the KKK with the entire Democratic Party, Vazquez got mad that the leader of the Republican Party hanging out with anti-Semites was elevated to reflect the entire Republican Party. Be consistent in your arguments, Joey! Also, one can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, and one can harbor anti-Semitic sentiments (Trump frequently invokes anti-Semitic tropes when talking about Jews) while also supporting Israel as part of a political agenda.
The MRC's anti-NewsGuard propagandagot repeated in a Feb. 6 podcast in which she declared that "I exposed NewsGuard and its checkered past of bias" by parroting her employer's earlier attacks. She even repeated one of the MRC's lamest attack lines: "NewsGuard also rated several Chinese Communist Party-controlled media outlets as more credible than independent American outlets such as One America News Network (OANN), Newsmax and LifeNews." Again, Newsmax and OAN are being sued for defamation, while anti-abortion proaganda operation LifeNews has reported numerous falsehoods.
With these 14 articles, Newsmax has published at least 205 "news" articles attacking DirecTV for dropping it in the four weeks since it happened on Jan. 25.
Newsmax's columnists similarly whined as well. Steve Levy complained in a Feb. 17 column:
But the best way the left believes it can defeat evil in the world is to shut down the few remaining safe spaces for open thought — one being Newsmax. So they pressured the corporate board rooms they now control to do their dirty work.
And spare me the nuance that this isn’t a First Amendment issue because DirecTV’s owner AT&T is a private company. While this isn’t a constitutional issue, the company’s actions are without question anathema to free expression as espoused by the aforementioned founders of western civilization.
Today's liberals supporting Newsmax’s canceling would be well served to look back at one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in America's history: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977).
Younger progressives may be surprised to learn that it was the ultra-liberal ACLU which led the fight< to allow a group of neo-Nazis to obtain a permit to march down Main Street.
They were wise enough to know that acquiescing to the banning of a group, even as vile as the neo-Nazis, could one day lead to the quelching of their own speech.
So today's liberals shouldn’t support Newsmax because they agree with its programming. They should support Newsmax because to do otherwise may one day make their own freedom of expression less viable.
You know, maybe portraying Newsmax as akin to persecuted neo-Nazis isn't the best analogy he could have used.
Jerry Newcombe similarly complained in a column the same day:
Free speech and a free press. It’s American as apple pie — or so it used to be.
In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant, declared: “Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security of free thought, free speech, a free press.”
But today the left seems to have free speech in America by the throat. We see this in the recent example of corporate giant AT&T cutting off the conservative network Newsmax from satellite distribution through DirecTV, about which I commented recently. This appears to the tip of the iceberg.
Both Newcombe and Levy failed to mention the fact that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with a different right-wing channel, The First, meaning that no viewpoint discrimination is going on here, or that Newsmax is readily available on streaming, meaning that its speech has not been abridged.
CNS Managing Editor Loves Putin For Hating LGBT People Topic: CNSNews.com
Conventional wisdom says that if you share views with a murderous dictator who's currently waging war on a neighboring country causing the deaths of thousands, you should rethink those views. CNSNews.com apparently is unaware that such conventional wisdom exists, because it's supporting Russian leader Vladimir Putin. It appeased Putin at the start of his war on Ukraine, and it continues to support him because he hates LGBT people at least as much as CNS does. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman, CNS' chief homophobe and longtime fan of Putin's anti-LGBT policies, uncritically gushed over Putin's latest crackdown a Dec. 12 article:
In an apparent attempt to strengthen the traditional Christian beliefs and practices of Russia, President Vladimir Putin signed into law on Dec. 5 legislation that will further ban pro-homosexual propaganda throughout the country.
In 2013, a law was passed to protect children from pro-LGBTQ materials. The new law expands those provisions to people age 18 and older.
The law prohibits the promotion of LGBTQ materials in advertising, the media, online, and in books, films and cinema, reported the Daily Mail.
It also prohibits the promotion of LGBTQ relationships or expressions that seek to depict homosexual couplings as normal. And it bans materials promoting pedophilia and gender transition.
Further, the law can be used to prevent "gay pride" marches or LGBTQ demonstrations. The legislation was approved by both legislative chambers before Putin signed it.
In a sermon on homosexual marriage, Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, said the trend of legalizing “gay marriage” is “a very dangerous sign of the apocalypse.” It “means people are choosing a path of self-destruction,” reported Fr. John Peck, the pastor of All Saints of North America Orthodox Church.
Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin, speaking in August, said there is a spiritual war going on.
"[W]e are Holy Russia, as His Holiness the Patriarch says, and we are confronted by forces of absolute global historical evil," said Dugin. "Hence, more and more often we are talking about Armageddon, the end times, and the Apocalypse. This is all taking place before our eyes. We are taking part in the final (maybe the penultimate -- no one knows) and very important battle. Without a spiritual, ideological, intellectual dimension, we cannot win."
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus Christ says, "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world for the causes of sin."
A anonymously written Jan. 23 article (though one must assume that Chapman had a hand in it) cheered Putin bashing "Western elites" in a speech given five months earlier while he touted his illegal annexations of parts of Ukraine:
Russian President Vladimir Putin ave a major address on Sept. 30, 2022 in which he attacked what he called “the dictatorship of the Western elites,” whom he accused of rejecting the traditional family and pushing transgenderism.
Putin gave the speech to mark Russia’s annexation of four regions of the Ukraine—Luhansk, Kherson, Donetsk and Zaporizhia.
“Now they have completely moved to a radical denial of moral norms, religion, and family,” Putin said in his attack on Western elites.
“Such a complete denial of man, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, the suppression of freedom acquiring the features of a “reverse religion” [the opposite of what the religion is] – outright Satanism,” said Putin. “In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ, denouncing the false prophets, says: By their fruits you shall know them. And these poisonous fruits are already obvious to people – not only in our country, in all countries, including many people in the West itself.”
The anonymous author offered no criticism or response, even though there was more than enough time to locate one.
A Feb. 21 article by Chapman served up more uncritical praise of Putin for raging against Western culture in general and LGBT people in particular:
In his speech before the Federal Assembly in Moscow today, Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the Western powers, particularly the United States, about their ongoing "destruction of the family," and added that Russia will protect its children "from degradation and degeneration."
“Look what they are doing to their own people," President Putin told a large crowd assembled in Gostiny Dvor, Moscow. "It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life." (Gostiny Dvor is a large exhibition center.)
"They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages," said Putin. "Bless their hearts, let them do as they please. Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Adult people can do as they please. We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either."
Chapman failed to mention that Putin's anti-LGBT laws do, in fact, intrude into people's private lives. Inatead, he included pictures of LGBT pride parades and President Biden officiating at the marriage of a same-sex couple and called out a Christian denomination that failed to hate LGBT people to his liking to advance Putin's narrative:
The Anglican Church, the Church of England currently is considering using "gender-neutral terms to refer to God," reported the New York Times. The Church of England also recently voted to bestow church blessings on homosexuals married in a civil court.
Putin further said, “Millions of people in the West realize that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy, and it looks like there is no cure for that. But like I said, these are their problems, while we must protect our children, which we will do. We will protect our children from degradation and degeneration.”
John Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and a leading scholar of realpolitik, said "the United States has tied its own reputation to the outcome of the conflict" in Ukraine.
"President Joe Biden has labelled Russia’s war in Ukraine a 'genocide' and accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of being a 'war criminal' who should face a 'war crimes trial,'" said Mearsheimer in Foreign Affairs. "Presidential proclamations such as these make it hard to imagine Washington backing down; if Russia prevailed in Ukraine, the United States’ position in the world would suffer a serious blow.
Despite previous criticism of Kirill at CNS, Chapman has also praised him. An Oct. 13 article touted how Kirill said of Putin, "God put you in power so that you could perform a service of special importance and of great responsibility for the fate of the country and the people entrusted to your care." Chapman uncritically wrote in a Nov. 2 article:
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a "fighter of the Anti-Christ," a view that is not surprising given that Putin has said he and Mother Russia are fighting against the "outright Satanism" of the West.
Patriarch Kirill made his remarks about Putin in a speech opening the 24th Congress of the World Russian People's Council in late October, reported the Washington Examiner.
In addition to describing Putin as a "fighter of the Anti-Christ," the patriarch said that Russia is battling against a "unipolar world," globalism, and "the essence of this phenomenon is the creation in the world of conditions for the emergence of a sole ruler, who will be the Antichrist."
And, yes, Chapman went on to approvingly quote Putin ranting abaout Western culture again:
The Russian president also denounced gender ideology and sex-change surgery as manifestations of Western moral decay.
"Do we really want, here, in our country, in Russia, instead of 'mum' and 'dad', to have 'parent No. 1', 'parent No. 2', 'No. 3'? Have they gone completely insane?" said Putin.
He continued, "Do we really want ... it drilled into children in our schools ... that there are supposedly genders besides women and men, and [children to be] offered the chance to undergo sex -hange operations? ... We have a different future, our own future."
On Oct. 26, Newsweek reported that Alexsey Pavlov, assistant secretary of the security council of the Russian Federation, calling for the "de-Satanization" of Ukraine, which, he claims, has been overrun by "hundreds of sects."
Chapman offered no criticism of Kirill or Putin, which tells us he approves of their actions.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC Flips Over Elon Musk, Part 7: Twitter File Fails Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's hyping of Elon Musk's selectively released "Twitter files" (and annoyance that non-right-wing outlets weren't biting) was joined by cheering how he suspended the Twitter accounts of journalists who criticized him. Read more >>
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.