Compare And Contrast, Congressional Lapel Pin Edition Topic: Media Research Center
I thought y’all claimed you don’t celebrate abortion.
At the State of the Union address Tuesday night, at least two Democrat lawmakers wore gold pins on their blazers that said “ABORTION.” The “o” in the word was fashioned with a heart.
Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D-Penn.) tweeted about her accessory in the afternoon, spewing falsehoods like “abortion is healthcare” and that it “saves lives.”
Other social justice warriors wore pins to interesting pins. Rep. Illhan Omar (D-Minn.) wore a black pin with the number “1870” on it to protest white cops killing black people. Some wore crayons to support federal investment in childcare (judging by who they were I wouldn't be surprised if those investments included pushing woke ideologies to kids). Of course there were also the blue and yellow pins to support Ukraine and one to support the March for Our Lives group that pushes for gun control. But the ab❤️rtion pin is a sick profession of love for infanticide.
This display was demonic.
-- Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, Feb. 8 Media Research Center post
In the wake of the tragic shooting at Michigan State University earlier this week, the unhinged gaggle of gals on ABC’s The View unleashed some truly crazy takes. Joy Behar was so unhinged that she seriously blamed Republicans wearing gun-shaped lapel pins for causing mass shootings. And of course, the so-called “conservative” on the stage couldn’t be bothered to truly defend the Second Amendment as she was too busy arbitrarily dictating who legitimately needed an AR-15.
[Behar] then drew attention to Georgia Republican Congressman Andrew Clyde, who owns a gun store. She was irate that he had the audacity to hand out AR-15-shaped lapel pins (which she called “automatic weapon lapel pins”) to his colleagues.
According to her unhinged mind, these pins were directly linked to mass shootings because they were “promoting more and more gun love, love of guns! Love of guns!” “Many of these people don't seem to understand that their actions are causing kids to die!” she shouted.
What was missing from the discussion was the truth that the shooter had a prior felony gun charge dismissed by a progressive prosecutor, which allowed him to remain on the street and commit the shooting. And that he used a handgun, not an AR-15. Then again, The View was not a place for truth and honest discussion.
What's Mychal Massie Melting Down Over Now? Topic: WorldNetDaily
I argue that our right to worship our God should not have been recognized as a constitutional right, because my right to worship and serve my God is not given to me by man. It's a Natural Right given to me by the God I serve. But, I digress; that's a discussion for another day.
The persecution we're going to face will be directed at Christendom and any church that refuses to recognize homosexuality and all of the assorted debaucherous behaviors associated with same. That specifically includes the mental disorder of transgenderism.
If individuals and churches are persecuted now for refusing to subscribe to the mental illness required to believe a man is a woman and vice versa, with or without the surgical butchering of one's body, what can be expected going forward as states elect more politicians who are openly hostile to our right to follow biblical foundations?
The Second Amendment is being nullified by "wokeness," at the hands of banks and lenders refusing to do business with those who make their living in related industries.
The pressure from behavioral blackmail to comply with deviant behavior that nearly 90 percent of the public disagrees with is real. Otherwise well-intentioned church leaders use the lexiconical assignations used to identify participants in the aberrant lifestyle(s) juxtaposed to identifying them according to their behavior. Homosexuality is not gay in my lexicon, and a person is the gender he or she was born.
The headline on the front page of a local newspaper proclaimed in bold letters: "We Can't Forget," as a testament to honoring Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday. I'd say the ship on that lie has long ago sailed.
Today, the people who value being a crayon color more than anything else in their life treat the mention of Dr. King with Pavlovian response, i.e., his name evokes blubbering references to a person's character over the color of his skin. The problem is that everything to them is about the color of their skin, character be damned.
These people are charades and haters fixated upon the myth that they're oppressed and persecuted, supposedly because of their color. That said, the old adage of there being some truth in every lie is applicable.
These people have forgotten what Dr. King stood for. I'm sure there are people who will remind the public that Dr. King allegedly committed adultery. But, before we go to far down that path, let's not overlook the late President John Kennedy who was legendary for his promiscuity and Bill Clinton who remains an incorrigible philanderer, both of whom are revered by the public including both sides of the political aisle.
"Negro puh-leeze," was a jocular phrase used by young urbanites who considered themselves "colored," lightheartedly tossed at one another during my teenage years. After reading a summary of a Scientific American article by what purports itself to be Black Think Tank @ Duke University, I am forced to say: "Negro puh-leeze!"
The article I reference was written by Dr. Tracie Canada and titled, "Damar Hamlin's Collapse Highlights the Violence Black Men Experience in Football."
It is time to stop sending these people (like Dr. Canada) to school to get dumb. The hebephrenic absurdity inherent in this baneful polemic cannot be overstated. This is another toxic, viscous substance used to lubricate the flim-flam machine invented and operated by pernicious neo-Leninists. These people would claim that lions and tigers were brought to America because the African slaves feared them back in the jungles, and thus, zoos were created to keep slaves from running away.
I'm talking about the people for whom the NFL played the so-called 'black national anthem.' A photo of Kari Lake, the political candidate from Arizona, seated with her legs crossed during the pathetic attempt by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to pucker up to reprobate haters of America has ignited a firestorm.
There's one national anthem of the United States of America, and it doesn't have a color. As was said referencing Kari Lake's position, it is about: "One Nation, Under God."
Of course, these loathsome creatures are beating a path to bureaus of agitprop that no longer pretend to be impartial. But, as usual, while pretending to be offended by what they claim was a blatant display of racism they showcase cultural amnesia.
Their selective degenerative memories are convenient ways to erase historical facts. Take for instance when the Obamas refused to pledge allegiance to the flag of the Untied States of America – the country he took an oath to protect and honor. A country he was completely comfortable allowing brave military men and women to be brutally slaughtered and raped by Muslims in foreign countries and America.
The facts speak for themselves. What I have said isn't a pretty picture, but it most certainly isn't untrue. Add to my truth the fact that they curse Jesus Christ as the "white man's god" combined with their penchant for out-of-wedlock children, violence, and supporting Planned Parenthood by giving them money to murder their children, and they have exactly what their handlers want them to have – NOTHING.
I've concluded that the rage exhibited by these young men is directly attributable to the bitterness, rage and hatred their mothers act out and verbalize every day. I've seen, as have many of you, videos of these women behaving like animals in the jungles their so-called people supposedly come from.
Their mothers transmit rage and aggressive hatred because of the life they live. There are emotional and mental consequences for the over 21 million women for whom being a crayon color is more important than embracing modernity. Bitterness becomes a way of life when they see two or three of the daddies of their children riding around in a car, when they're forced to take a bus or subway. Living in squalor amidst ever-declining levels of crime takes a toll, especially if they're honest enough to realize they could have made something better out of their lives. Poor hygiene, squalid living conditions, nothing to look forward to that remotely resembles success generation after generation, engenders hopelessness and bitterness that metastasizes into rage that must be vented.
These young men and young boys grow up watching and hearing their mothers endless rage-filled outbursts. You don't just shrug off the rage these young men see and experience every day. The same goes for the young girls as they're growing up. Even in quasi-clean neighborhoods, the reality is the same when it comes to hopelessness of life.
We need not be students of Aristotelian mimesis to understand their behavior is the reality of their lives, which simply stated is "pain."
I further argue that the rage embodied and exhibited by these women is nothing short of demonic – and only a fool would argue to the contrary.
When a child, especially a male child, grows up without a father, he takes on the qualities and characteristics of the environment around him. This isn't rocket science. The young men model what they see and emote the disregard for life from abortion to disrespect for life to fathering children out of wedlock, continuing generational absence of propriety and responsible behavior.
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing Watch, Now With Added Racism Topic: Media Research Center
The hate from Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck for White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre -- and for non-white people in general -- spewed forth again in his writeup of the Jan. 27 press briefing in which he ranted about the idea that a future White House chief of staff might not be a white male:
Friday’s White House press briefing saw more hardballs about President Biden’s documents scandal, but also plenty of eye-rolling questions lobbying for a female person of color to become White House chief of staff, how Biden processes racial tensions, whether “the culture of policing” has “a comfort with violence and” implants inside the minds of police officers “an entitlement to use violence” as was the case in Memphis with Tyre Nichols.
The Associated Press’s Darlene Superville used her pole position to demand that, with the news that current Chief of Staff Ron Klain is stepping down and replaced by former COVID coordinator Jeff Zients, Biden “commit to choosing a chief of staff who is not white and male” as a Zients successor (if one’s needed).
Why? Well, as she explained, this is “one of the more powerful ones in Washington that has never been held by someone who was not white and male.”
Superville’s cockamamie question fit considering the fact that not only is she an ardent leftist for the Bidens, this came a day after her outlet declared that the word “the” is dehumanizing.
With one of the most outstanding examples of why diversity hires are terrible standing in front of her, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended the administration as “the most diverse in history” and listing a slew of spots on a diversity bingo card about the percentage of LGBTQ people, racial minorities, and women on staff.
Wow, Houck really does not like people who aren't white.
Houck was less racist (but no less hateful) in his writeup of the Feb. 1 press briefing:
Wednesday afternoon marked the week’s first White House press briefing and, for the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, she must have been ever-thankful for the lighter load as, hours earlier, White House Counsel spokesman Ian Sams offered globs of nothingness on the White House driveway.
In light of another CBS News scoop that the FBI had conducted a search of the Penn Biden Center in November and the FBI spent Wednesday searching President Biden’s Rehoboth Beach, Delaware beach house, the questions came aplenty from even the liberal media.
Houck left buried in a transcript the fact that officials had found classified documents in the custody of former Vice President Mike Pence -- the discovery of which caused the MRC to lose interest in the whole Biden classified documents thing.He then wrote a second post on the briefing complaining that a reporter asked a question he didn't like:
Voice of America correspondent Anita Powell provided another example Wednesday of how, using our hard-earned tax dollars, government-run media results in a product heavily tilted to the left. During the White House press briefing, Powell used her time to inform Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that “people both inside the United States and outside are...asking, is the United States a racist society.”
While TV providers make decisions about what channels consumers can and can’t have in their lineup while consumers have a choice of which provider (if any) to do business with, Americans don’t have that choice when it comes to their tax dollars being shipped off to left-wing operations masquerading as news outfits.
Jean-Pierre offered a milquetoast answer, but didn’t endorse that sort of logic spun by race hustlers and woke educators hellbent on planting that idea in the minds of America’s youth.
Houck didn't explain why simply asking that question makes an entire organization "left-wing" or make a person a "woke" "race hustler." Then again, he clearly believes that non-white people can handle doing jobs that have been traditionally done by white people, as his vicious hatred for Jean-Pierre demonstrates.
The anti-Karine hatefest even spread to Mark Finkelstein, who complained in the midst of a Feb. 2 post that was already complaining that former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was allowed on "Morning Joe":
Question: what's an obvious subject that an honest journalist would have raised with former White House spokesman Gibbs? Naturally, it would be Karine Jean-Pierre's pitiful performance, particularly in the context of Biden's classified documents scandal. Trick question! We said "honest" journalist. Scarborough predictably didn't breathe a word with Gibbs about the documents scandal or Jean-Pierre's undeniable incompetence. They needed 12 minutes to praise Obamacare.
In his writeup of the Feb. 6 press briefing, Houck surprisingly praised a non-right-wing outlet for stooping to asking Peter Doocy-like questions of Jean Pierre:
Monday’s White House press briefing largely revolved around President Biden’s State of the Union preparations and, as part of that, The New York Times’s Michael Shear surprisingly trotted out a brutal line of questioning that pressed the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on the reality that Democrats didn’t win the midterms because of President Biden but in spite of him.
Shear started by having Jean-Pierre restate her premise: “I think you made the assertion that the reason that there wasn’t a red wave or the reason that the elections and the midterms were more successful than many people thought they would be for Democrats was because of the President. Is that — that’s a fair [assumption]?”
Having walked into his trap, Shear dropped the hammer by citing the findings of an NBC poll last month:
Is Biden honest and trustworthy? 34 percent, yes; 48 percent, no. Ability to handle a crisis: 30 percent — 32 percent, yes; 49 percent, no. Competent and effective: 31 percent, yes; 49 percent, no. Has the necessary mental and physical health to be President: 28 percent, yes; 54 percent, no. Uniting the country: 23 percent, yes; 50 percent, no.
Shear rebutted any notion this was an isolated poll because “versions of that had been repeated in poll after poll, survey after survey since the midterm elections and before.”
Add in the fact that more than half of Democrats don’t want Biden to run for reelection in 2024 and “more Democrats don’t want President Biden...than Republicans don’t want President Trump” and you have an ugly picture.
Houck spewed even more hate at Jean-Pierre in a Feb. 13 post personally attacking her for failing to speak perfect English:
The ever-inept White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre joined MSNBC on Sunday morning for a softball sit-down with leftist Sunday Show host Jonathan Capehart where, despite his gentle questions, Jean-Pierre still struggled to use complete sentences and even made up a new name for Canada.
Capehart harmlessly started by saying he wanted to “talk about the thing that was shot out of the sky over Canada” and if she could both “tell us about it” and state whether they’re things “Americans should be worried about.”
Capehart followed up about why the U.S. military fired the missile over Canada, which led to Jean-Pierre dubbing Canada as “Canadia”:
As if Houck ever spoke perfect English all the time.
Houck used his writeup of the Feb. 14 briefing to hype a particularly dumb line of questioning from a right-wing reporter (whose ideology he did not identify, though he insists on labeling "liberal" reporters):
Tuesday’s White House press briefing featured some strong questions and softballs (such as one from a Polish radio reporter about President Biden’s Valentines Day plans), but the penultimate exchange was the most intriguing as Newsmax’s James Rosen pressed Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on whether the administration believes certain mediums of communication are weaker than others for Biden and whether he’s “woke.”
Always shrewd, Rosen began by telling her “there is obviously a variety of settings the President can employ: set pieces, impromptu remarks, teleprompter, no teleprompter, et cetera, et cetera” and, since “you work on his communications team,” it was worth asking how she views Biden’s ability to communicate in any and all forums.
And on wokeism, Rosen stated “[o]ne of the most prominent themes...from both elected Republicans and candidates has to do with what is called ‘wokeism,’” which “reminds me of what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said about obscenity — that he couldn’t define it, but he knew it when he saw it.”
Given the talk of “woke capitalism” and a “woke military,” Rosen said he thought it would be fitting to level “a threshold question” “Is President Biden woke?”
Jean-Pierre refused to answer and instead dropped a word salad about “what the President cares about and what’s important to” him, which doesn’t involve “Republicans...creating political stunts” and ensuring economic growth and the national deficit from the GOP.
Rosen interjected: “So you wouldn’t describe him as ‘woke?’”
Jean-Pierre again refused to answer, claiming he’d “work with Republicans on how we are going to continue to deliver” for the American people, but would fight them tooth and nail on entitlements because “they” as a whole “want to cut Social Security” and “cut Medicare” (even though neither of those things are true).
This list is a little deceiving because it hides how much things had slowed down in week 5. Of these 15 articles, nine were posted on Feb. 28; the other six were posted on Feb. 25 and 27 (no articles were posted on Feb 26).This brings the total number of "news" articles attacking DirecTV since it dropped Newsmax on Jan. 25 to 228.
Again, Newsmax columnists attempted to help make Newsmax's case. James Hirsen complained in a Feb. 24 column:
To truly amass power, a would-be autocrat or totalitarian regime will typically suppress any criticism or dissent that might emanate from those who may wish to challenge such authority.
How is the sinister goal of silencing vast numbers of individuals or organizations reached? By controlling and/or eliminating the free flow of news and information within a society.
Examining Newsmax’s removal from DirecTV’s platform is critical in understanding what has happened to the Fourth Estate, what stage in the totalitarian process we are presently in, and what are the means by which we can make our way back to freedom.
How much ideological discrimination of speech should a free people tolerate?
Here’s the simple answer.
Of course, DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another rightwing channel, The First, meaning there is absolutely no "ideological discrimination of speech" happening here. But Hirsen didn't tell his readers that, because that would have blown up his entire column.
CNS Opnion Writers Match Its 'News' Side In Hating Biden State of the Union Address Topic: CNSNews.com
In addition to its highly biased "news" coverage of President Biden's State of the Union address, CNSNews.com served up some highly biased opinion pieces about it. A Feb. 8 piece by the Heritage Foundation's Jarrett Stepman purported to fact-check a Biden statement:
In his second State of the Union address, President Joe Biden spoke Tuesday night about inflation, which has risen steeply during his presidency.
“Inflation has been a global problem because of the pandemic that disrupted supply chains and Putin’s war that disrupted energy and food supplies,” Biden said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine.
Although it’s true that inflation has hit other nations’ economies, it did not start in the U.S. at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor did it begin during Russia’s war on Ukraine. The president’s description of the inflation problem is misleading at best.
Stepman offered no evidence that a specific Biden policy was directly tied to a specific increase in inflation. EJ Antoni, also of Heritage, similarly complained:
For starters, Biden has frequently said that inflation was out of control when he became president, going so far as to say it was one of the reasons he ran for office. But inflation averaged less than 2% during the primary campaign and averaged closer to 1% during the general election campaign. When Biden took office, annual inflation was a mere 1.4%.
Fast-forward a year and a half, and inflation was 1.3%—for a single month.
Prices were rising about as fast in one month as they did in the entire year before Biden took office. The annual inflation rate broke 9% for the first time in four decades.
He too failed to offer evidence that directly links specific Bidenpolicies to specific increases in inflation.
Hans Bader groused that Biden said crime went down during the first year of the COVID pandemic when it actually went up, then rushed to blame the following crime surge on "massive anti-cop riots in cities across the country," not mention that 1) Biden was not president at the time, and 2) the incidents of police brutality, such as the death of George Floyd, that sparked those "anti-cop riots."
Linnea Lueken whined in what read like a press release from the oil industry:
For the sake of my blood pressure and mental health, I did not watch the entire State of the Union Address this year. I did, however, take a look at President Biden’s statements on climate change and energy. Unsurprisingly, Biden’s commentary on those topics was not overly insightful or nuanced.
Biden opined on how climate change is causing more extreme weather events (it’s not), he slammed oil companies for daring to make profits when oil prices skyrocketed last year, and then he went off script and admitted that we still need oil for the next few decades, at least.
Lueken is a researcher with the right-wing Heartland Institute's Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. If that name sounds familiar, it should: Art Robinson is the perpetually failed candidate for a congressional seat in Oregon who is a favorite of WorldNetDaily for a bogus petition denying climate change and developing a homeschool curriculum built in part around a series of century-old adventure books for children whose racial insensitivity and old-school imperialism hasn't exactly held up well.
Yet another Heritage writer, Peter Brookes, grumbled that "Biden made no mention of nuclear proliferation problems Tuesday night in his State of the Union address. Could the issue of nuclear weapons have slipped his mind?"
A different right-wing think-tanker, Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution, spent his Feb. 10 column ranting at Biden:
Biden simply did on Tuesday in his State of the Union address what he always does: misinform, ignore, and attack!
Misinform. After sending inflation, energy, and interest rates to astronomical rates, and then seeing them momentarily taper off a bit, Biden declares that he “lowered” these indices that remain far higher than they were when he entered office.
He brags of a low unemployment rate. But Biden never discloses the better indicator of the labor participation rate that has declined under his tenure—or the fact he inherited a growing economy naturally rebounding on autopilot from a disastrous two-year COVID-19 lockdown.
Ignore. Consider what he will never mention. China just violated international law and U.S. airspace. How did Beijing assume rightly that it so easily could get away with it?
There is no southern border. Biden destroyed it. He greenlighted over 5 million illegal aliens to enter the United States without audit or legality—even as smuggled Mexican drugs kill 100,000 Americans each year.
He never mentions that Russia went into Ukraine because Russian President Vladimir Putin saw no downside after this debacle in Afghanistan, or that Biden’s own inept remarks about not worrying over a Russia invasion of Ukraine if it just proved to be “minor” probably played some role.
Attack! Remember Biden comes to life only when he smears his enemies while calling for “unity” and “bipartisanship.”
Only then his voice rises, his brow furrows, and his face reddens. He claims that “the rich” avoid “paying their fair share,” even as he knows that just 1% of the country pays over 40% of all income taxes.
In sum, it was the same old, same old dishonest Biden: misinform, ignore, and attack—and then call for “unity,” as the country collectively slides into ruin.
Craig Bannister devoted a Feb. 8 article to another right-wing ranter, Ben Shapiro, under the misleading headline "Ben Shapiro: ‘Last Night Was One of the Worst Events in American Life’." But the article itself makes it clear that Shapiro is raging about State of the Union addresses in general, not specifically Biden's.
NEW ARTICLE: The Mayra Flores Boomlet Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center and its "news" division CNSNews.com heavily hyped a Latino Republican after she won a special election for a congressional seat in Texas -- but had trouble admitting that she lost the seat in the midterm elections. Read more >>
MRC Defends GOP Response To Biden's State of the Union Addess Topic: Media Research Center
As part of its lengthyfreakout over President Biden's State of the Union address, the Media Research Center also defended the Republican response to it given by former Trump press secretary and current Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Kevin Tober complained in a Feb. 8 post:
During CNN’s State of the Union coverage, the assembled panel of leftists thought it was appropriate to mock Republican Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ story she told while giving the GOP response to Biden’s State of the Union about when she and President Donald Trump visited the troops overseas at Christmas.
Referring to the moving story Sanders told about her experience, host Anderson Cooper snarked “by the way, hasn't every president visited the troops?”
Faux conservative and co-host of the circus of clucking Hens commonly known as The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin immaturely admitted “we were all laughing” when Sanders was telling the story.
Not understanding the point of the story, Cooper remarked that “she [Sanders] seemed to be revealing it as if it was a remarkable achievement.”
Autumn Johnson cheered how Sanders inserted right-wing narratives about "big tech" into her address:
The most telling part of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech was what he conveniently did not address–censorship.
Biden droned on about taxes, climate change and infrastructure, but he barely discussed Big Tech in his speech. He called for enhanced enforcement of the U.S. antitrust laws and user privacy protections, but he made no mention of Big Tech's glaring censorship problem.
Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed Americans just how much Biden missed the mark when she acknowledged the vicious leftist threats to freedom of speech:
Tim Graham complained that someone on PBS criticized Sanders: "PBS might be seen as a sleepy avenue for analysis after the State of the Union and the Republican rebuttal, but on Tuesday, new Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders was fiercely critical of President Biden, so Washington Post columnist/MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart uncorked a fit, lying about how Republicans want to abolish most of black history in public schools." Tober served up a similar complaint about historian Michael Beschloss:
Beschloss then went after Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and claimed she “goes on and says, in two years the Democrats have destroyed everything, and woke mobs are running all over the country.”
Mocking Sanders, Beschloss starts looking out his home window and snarked: “I'm here in Washington D.C.. I’ll look out the window for you, Stephanie, and Ali. I don't see any woke mobs tonight. I just don't know what speech she was listening to.”
Beschloss is a partisan hack and should never be taken seriously for anything. Which is exactly why he’s constantly invited to spew his dribble on MSNBC.
Curtis Houck groused that ABC's Jonathan Karl was "trashing her speech as 'harshly negative, almost a bit of American carnage that we saw from Trump in his inaugural address.'"Houck didn't actually dispute the assessment. He repeated that whine against an NBC correspondent who accuratedly noted that Sanders "lean[ed] into those so-called culture war issues...what she and conservatives see as sort of wokeism on the left, trying to draw the line between what she described as normal and crazy."
The MRC was still grumbling days lster. A Feb. 15 post by Houck on Nikki Haley's announcment of her presidential campaign nicked one CNN analyist who "hilariously tried to argue Haley was socially moderate because she didn’t go the route of Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the GOP’s State of the Union response with themes of 'dark[ness]' and 'critical race theory' like 'you might hear on Newsmax or Fox.'"
WND Touts Anti-Vaxxer Lawsuit Against Media, Censors Its Flaws Topic: WorldNetDaily
L.A. "Tony" Kovach gushed over a newly fiiled lawsuit in a Jan. 30 WorldNetDaily column:
Notable Democrat-supporting liberal Robert F. Kennedy Jr., J.D., (RFK Jr.) is suing corporate media giants. As WND reported, Kennedy said, "Nobody has ever complied their way out of totalitarianism."
Kennedy's lawsuit is significant because it is based on antitrust law.
Unlike some who file suits and never win, Kennedy and his organization have enjoyed several big court victories, including a recent one. The Defender explained, "Federal antitrust law prohibits firms from colluding to deny critical facilities or market access to rivals."
From the complaint itself: "CHD with this lawsuitaims to vindicate the freedom of speech and of the press. The Defendants are the BBC, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Reuters."
Bob Unruh expanded on the lawsuit in a Feb. 7 article:
Robert Kennedy Jr. has joined with several other plaintiffs to sue major media outlets for suppressing competition.
The complaint accuses the Washington Post, Associated Press, BBC and Reuters of infringing on antitrust laws by attacking others' reporting on issues such as COVID-19 and more.
The action alleges the defendants are illegally boycotting some news reports under the guise of a coalition that was intended to crack down on misinformation.
The complaint charges the "Trusted News Initiative," launched by the BBC only years ago, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
That law prohibits industry cartels, price fixing and a variety of other anti-competitive schemes.
Kennedy's complaint accuses the defendants of conspiring to denigrate conservative talking points about COVID, the vaccinations, treatments including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, the Hunter Biden laptop and more.
Neither Kovach nor Unruh mention the relevant fact that Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer who rejects science to peddle his own conspiracy theories (and that, as a result, no Democrat claims him), and that pretty much all of the plaintiffs in his lawsuit are anti-vaxxers. And neither of these people are going to point out the massive holes in logic in this lawsuit.
As one observer noted, no "big tech" companies are listed as defendants, "despite the premise of their lawsuit being that they've been excluded from Big Tech," and the plaintiffs all describe themselves as publishers, "Which is obviously great when you're alleging you've been prevented from publishing by Big Tech." Further, the court case on which the plaintiffs are hanging their antitrust claim against the Trusted News Initiative doesn't really apply here because the TNI was formed to fight disinformation, not make money, and as another observer noted, "social or political boycotts are not a violation of antitrust laws, and are protected by the First Amendment."
Despite the dubiousness of this lawsuit, Kovach -- described in his end-of-column bio as the co-founder of two publications "which are widely acknowledged to be the largest, most-read and evidence-based trade media serving the affordable housing and mobile home/manufactured housing profession and consumers" -- continued:
There are numbers of takeaways from the above. One is that Kennedy, a Democrat, is indirectly exposing the Biden family and Democratic corruption through this litigation. Conservatives should bear in mind that perhaps 65 to 80% of the country largely agree on a range of issues. Strategic thinkers should carefully unpack the information linked here, because bigger audiences – and more supporters – are available.
Kovach offered no list of specific things "65 to 80% of the country largely agree on."
MRC Still Attacking Google With Dubious 'Media Research' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent partof last year accusing Google of using its Gmail program to send more unsolicited Republican campaign emails than Democratic ones -- while hiding the fact that users adjusting their setting eliminated the problem -- and it even got the Republican National Committee to buy into the bogus narrative. Well, nobody else bought into the bogus narrative outside the right-wing media bubble, and the MRC is mad about that too. Catherine Salgado huffed in a Jan. 19 post:
The Federal Election Commission just dismissed a complaint from several Republican entities saying Google’s Gmail spam filter was biased in favor of Democrats, constituting a potential in-kind contribution to Democrat campaigns. The evidence, including MRC analysis, seems to indicate the FEC is wrong.
The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 17 that the FEC ruled against the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee in their complaint.
The Republicans cited an “academic study” from North Carolina State University showing that Gmail sent almost 70 percent of Republican candidates’ emails to spam while it sent only about 8 percent of Democrats’ emails to spam. Republicans said the filtering “amounted to unreported campaign contributions to Democrats,” The Journal explained.
The FEC reportedly downplayed the disparity, citing the same study and arguing that the partisan bias was unintentional and Google’s algorithm simply filters spam, as The Journal wrote. Because Google is always perfectly honest, right FEC? The FEC would seem to be saying that the vast majority of Republican emails are in fact spam, and thus deserve to be filtered out, while almost no Democrat emails are spam. Is that not a partisan bias?
In fact, the NC State researchers pointed out that right-wing partisans like the MRC have misrepresented the study's findings, adding that any blocking occurred only in default settings on newly created accounts and that users are free to tweak their spam settings to receive any email they want. One researcher even said: "Gmail isn’t biased like the way it’s being portrayed. ... I’m not advocating for Gmail or anything. I’m just stating that when we take the observation out of a study, you should take all of the observations, not just cherry-pick a few and then try to use them."
Looks like Salgado has a partisan bias against Google and can't be trusted to be "perfectly honest."
That's not the only bogus Google bias narrative the MRC recently tried to advance. Gabriela Pariseau wrote in a Jan. 20 post:
Looking for information on “pregnancy”? Google’s got just the website for you: America’s largest baby-killing organization, Planned Parenthood.
MRC Free Speech America researchers analyzed Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo search results for the word “pregnancy” in a “clean environment.” Researchers performed the analysis the day before the 50th annual national March for Life in Washington, D.C. and found that Bing’s and DuckDuckGo’s search results for the word “pregnancy” stand in stark contrast to Google’s. While both Bing and DuckDuckGo showed more neutral results, displaying Healthline.com’s “overview” of pregnancy, Google showed a Planned Parenthood link as its first result. Planned Parenthood did not show up at all on the first page of results for either Bing or DuckDuckGo.
“Google may not believe it, but life is sacred,” MRC President Brent Bozell said. “Planned Parenthood should not be the first result when searching 'pregnancy' on Google. This is the work of the devil and the progressive left.”
The un-American search engine’s first result leads users to a Planned Parenthood page with an extremely detailed informational video answering “how does pregnancy happen” and the option to learn more. The link is a gateway for promoting abortion and discouraging women from seeking crisis pregnancy centers.
If this approach sounds familiar, that's bcause it is. The MRC hasrepeatedlyaccused Google of not prioritizing right-wing narratives in its search results, based on searches no normal human would use, and it refused to explain why the results it demands are supposed to show up in the searches it provides. Note that Pariseau made no effort to prove anything in that Planned Parenthood pregnancy video to be wrong, despite complaining that it was "extremely detailed" -- she simply complained that it was the first result because she hates Planned Parenthood for ideological reasons. She also didn't substantiate her slur that Google is "un-American," or why these particular search results support that slur.
Nevertheless, Pariseau went on to complain:
For example, just underneath the informational link, in the same search result, is a link to a “Pregnancy Options” page that warns users about pro-life clinics:
“Be careful when looking for a reliable health center. There are fake clinics that say they have pregnancy services. These are called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and they’re run by people who are anti-abortion and don’t believe in telling you the truth about all of your pregnancy options. They may use lies and manipulation to try to scare or shame people out of choosing abortion.”
Pariseau didn't dispute that crisis pregnancy centers mislead or scare women, because the record is quite clear on that. Which means that Pariseau is once again mad that Google is providing accurate information to its users.
CNS Covered State Of The Union Speech Through An Anti-Biden Lens Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com prepped for President Biden's State of the Union address with a little pre-speech grousing:
A Feb 6 article by Micky Wootten complained that "In preparation for President Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union (SOTU) address, security fences have been erected around the perimeter of the U.S. Capitol building, a practice that has become commonplace since the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021."
A Feb. 7 article by Susan Jones carried the editorializing headline "White House: 25 Guests 'Personify' Liberal Agenda That Biden Will Address Tonight," but the article itself did not use the word "liberal" at all to describe the guests or the agenda.Jones did, however, insist on referring to same-sex marriage as "homosexual marriage."
An article by Craig Bannister hyped that "A gaming site is giving two-to-one (2-1) odds Pres. Joe Biden will say the word 'Trump' during Tuesday night’s State of the Union (SOTU) address – and even greater odds he’ll use less flattering terms to refer to his predecessor."
The main after-speech article, by Patrick Goodenough, carrired the derogatory headline "Biden Inexplicably Shouts About Chinese Leader, in an Address Light on Foreign Policy":
In a State of the Union address that was otherwise almost entirely devoid of foreign policy, President Biden on Tuesday night did devote several hundred words to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and to the challenges posed by China.
On the first, he said America had united NATO, confronted Vladimir Putin’s aggression, and stood with the Ukrainian people.
On China, too, Biden touted U.S. leadership on his watch, declaring, “Before I came to office, the story was about how the People’s Republic of China was increasing its power and America was failing in the world.”
“Not anymore,” he added with a small grin.
So talking about Ukraine was "foreign policy"? Weird. That was followed by a raft of Republican and CNS (but we repeat ourselves) attacks on Biden and the speech:
President Biden claimed Tuesday during his State of the Union address that Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare, but his words prompted boos and outcry by Republicans during his speech.
“Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage. I get it. Unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,” Biden said, which prompted outcry from Republicans in the audience.
“I'm not saying it's a majority. Let me give you Anybody who doubts it. Contact my office. I’ll give you a copy. I'll give you a copy of the proposal. That means Congress doesn't vote. I'm glad to see you. No, I tell you I enjoy conversion. It means if Congress doesn't keep the programs where they are, they go away,” he said.
“Other Republicans say, I'm not saying it's a majority of you. I don't even think it's even significant— but it's being proposed by individuals. I'm not— politely not naming them, but it's being proposed by some of you. Folks. The idea is. That we're not going to be, we're not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt if we don't respond,” Biden said to boos from the GOP.
Then the president recognized that Republicans don’t want to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Another article by Arter complained that Biden said he got Republicans to agree to not cut Social Security and Medicare by calling them out:
One day after accusing Republicans of trying to cut Medicare and Social Security during his State of the Union address and then relenting, President Biden was at it again during a speech on the economy in DeForest, Wis.
He talked about the Republican outcry to his remarks, then called out Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) for proposing cuts in both programs, but he said the “good news” is that he made a “deal” with Republicans on the House floor not to make cuts to either program.
A Feb. 9 article by Arter quoted Scott -- the very Republican Biden was effectively calling out -- playing whataboutism: "Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) accused President Biden of lying about his intention to sunset Medicare and Social Security, pointing out that it was the president himself that proposed that very thing in 1995 when Biden was a senator." Arter also gave Scott space to explain how hisproposed economic plan doesn't actually advocate for cutting Social Security and Medicare even though it demands that all federal programs be sunsetted in five years.
An article by Bannister the same day let Scott rant:
“You pick the time and the place,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) offered Thursday, challenging Joe Biden to a debate, during the president’s visit to Florida, regarding Biden’s claim that Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Scott tweeted the invitation to Biden just before one in the afternoon, saying he wanted an opportunity to dispel Biden’s lies:
Arter also tried to play gotcha in a Feb. 9 article: "President Joe Biden has been accusing Republicans of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare, but it was Biden who proposed that very thing back in 1995 when he was a senator debating the Balanced Budget Amendment." But a Feb. 10 article by Jones featured Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell emphatically making the point that Scott's plan is "not a Republican plan," going on to complain that "The issue of benefit cuts, which came to the fore in the 2022 election (thanks to Rick Scott), looks to be a main argument for Biden and his fellow Democrats in 2024 as well."
(A week later, Scott amended his plan to specifically exclude those programs, a development CNS has yet to tell its readers about.)
Arter went into stenography mode for a couple articles that weren't anti-Biden, repeating statements from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre:
MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade Assembles Again To Defend His Education Censorship Topic: Media Research Center
The DeSantisDefenseBrigade at the Media Research Center continues to run at full speed, rushing to defend Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' efforts to censor what is taught in schools, picking a fight over an advanced placement course on African-American history. Alex Christy complained in a Jan. 19 post:
MSNBC and CNN are not pleased with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ latest attempts to stop woke-ism in Florida with Alex Wagner sarcastically congratulating him for “keeping hockey white” on Wednesday while Wagner and Friday’s CNN This Morning both acted as if Florida will no longer be teaching history.
Wagner then moved onto DeSantis’s decision to not allow AP African-American Studies to be taught in the state. Courses ending in “studies” are notoriously political, but Wagner did not see it that way, “All of this is bad enough for the people of Florida, but it may concern all of us outside of Florida if DeSantis really is on his way to a presidential run.”
She then introduced Columbia Journalism School dean and The New Yorker staff writer Jelani Cobb, “Can you give us your thoughts on the moves that the DeSantis administration is making to censor the teaching of history and race in this country?”
For Cobb, it was if DeSantis just banned history class, “they’re trying to eradicate the history of the Civil Rights Movement.”
That’s objectively not true and ridiculous, but Cobb was just getting started, “And so in this march backward to make this heavy-handed diktat about what can be taught and what can't be taught, you’re literally pushing these institutions back into the past.”
As it was on CNN This Morning when Sara Sidner, discussing the same AP African-American Studies controversy and is relates to the wider movement against Critical Race Theory, uttered, “so that's a real problem when you look back at all this because people were oppressed in this country and should that not be taught?”
Sidner then assumed that because Critical Race Theory has “critical” in its name, it must promote critical thinking, “I think we can teach that and people can learn from that and you're supposed to be thinking critically. There's this whole argument that is being made, but this is an Advanced Placement course. So, what if Critical Race Theory is in it? Who cares? Teach kids to think, not what to think.”
Thinking critically means challenging your own assumptions whereas CRT starts with the assumption racism is the answer and then shoehorns evidence to fit a pre-determined conclusion. It is the exact opposite of critical thinking.
Christy offered no evidence to back up any of his attacks on CRT or critical thinking in general.
On Thursday night's The ReidOut on MSNBC, the vile and venomous Joy Reid threw a temper tantrum over Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis allegedly banning an AP class called "African American Studies" from being taught in Florida public high schools. Instead of making a coherent argument for why a class like that should be taught, Reid accused DeSantis of approving a course that would teach students that former slaves in America were happy and treated well by their "good slave masters."
"It’s the Daughters of the American revolution, the pro-confederate groups who insisted that we can only teach slavery as happy slaves, good slave masters," Reid claimed.
Continuing to lash out, Reid shrieked: "I promise you an A.P. class that taught that slavery was good because it seemed at least per his former students, Dr. Gallon that he wanted to teach history of slavery as sort of gallant slave owners who were kind to their happy slaves. He's cool with that. And if the A.P. course said that, he’d be fine with it."
IN a Jan. 21 post, Christy insisted that a right-winger "debunked" concerns about DeSantis' actions:
CNN’s voice of reason Scott Jennings displayed amazing patience on Friday’s CNN Tonight as he calmly debunked self-righteous senior political correspondent John Avlon and condescending former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner on the issue of what exactly Florida requires as part of its history curriculum.
As part of a discussion of Gov. Ron DeSantis disallowing AP African-American Studies, Avlon declared “Well, I think, first of all, what DeSantis is doing with this AP history course is about identifying a political tactic they think is a winner for the Republican base in particular, this war on woke. I think it shows that a lot of the conversations around free speech really fall apart when it's pushing their own ideological agenda.”
Every state, liberal, conservative, and everything in-between has laws regarding curriculum, but only when conservatives enact them is it a threat to “free speech.”
Jennings then calmly took apart this rant, “Yes. Well, Nina, you ought to be very happy with Governor DeSantis because not only is African-American history under Florida law required to be taught to school children, it has actually been expanded during his governorship… it is an absolute state requirement in Florida that they teach African- American history. And it's gotten more expansive since he came in. So, you sound upset with me, but the fact is Governor DeSantis –”
Turner then interrupted, “The way he wants it taught, Scott, right… The party of free speech is taking away people’s speech.”
Repeating talking points is hardly a "debunking."
Miark Finkelstein took a turn at complaining that DeSantis' activism was being criticized, and dutifully spouting talking points in response, in a Jan. 24 post:
CNN has never been "Facts First." Don Lemon hosted a segment on today's CNN This Morning to discuss Ron DeSantis's decision to uphold the Florida State Department of Education's decision to deny the College Board the opportunity to run a pilot AP (Advanced Placement) course on African American Studies pushing themes like "Intersectionality and Activism."
At one point, CNN's Audie Cornish said "I don't know where he wants to draw the line. Slavery was political at one point."
Wrong! Don Lemon surely knows that DeSantis is not proposing to ban the teaching of slavery. DeSantis does object, however, to African American history being taught from a hard-left perspective. And examining the curriculum in question, that is exactly what is being proposed. Students wouldn't be taught: they'd be indoctrinated in CRT, BLM, and history according to avowed Communist Party die-hards like Angela Davis.
On Tuesday, MSNBC's ReidOut host Joy Reid launched into a vicious attack again Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis due to his committing the grave sin of protecting public school children in his state from racial and sexual indoctrination. Reid was so incensed that she compared it to the "cultural genocide" that took place in the 1800s against Native Americans. If you needed proof of how demonic and historically illiterate Reid is, this is all the evidence you need.
A Jan. 25 post by Tober smeared a civil rights attorney suing DeSantis over the forced curriculum changes as a "racial ambulance chaser":
Wednesday's NBC Nightly News dedicated an entire segment to a pending lawsuit by racial ambulance chaser Ben Crump and a number of left-wing activist students over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida Board of Education banning an AP African American studies course that would've taught public school students content steeped leftist ideology like Critical Race Theory, black queer studies, intersectionality, and other topics that violate state laws. Most of the segment was framed against the educational reforms DeSantis was making, with correspondent Zinhle Essamuah framing the racial indoctrination as simply "African American history."
"Protest and pushback in Florida with a new potential legal battle over race education," Essamuah announced before cutting to a student named Elijah Edward who whined about DeSantis: "I can't believe that this is 2023, and America is talking about censuring education."
"Civil rights attorney Ben Crump announcing his plan to sue Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and the state after DeSantis blocked a pilot AP African American studies course in Florida," Essamuah sympathetically reported.
Curtis Houck similarly attacked Crump in a Jan. 26 post:
Thursday’s CBS Mornings opened its “What to Watch” segment with a little over two minutes touting far-left activist and Al Sharpton-wannabe Benjamin Crump’s threat to sue Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) over the Florida Department of Education’s decision to reject an AP course on African-American culture and history because it was deemed “a vehicle for a political agenda” with topics such as critical race theory, intersectionality, and queer studies.
“Civil rights attorney Ben Crump is threatening to sue the state of Florida — rather, Governor Ron DeSantis. Here’s the reason: Last week, Florida’s Education Department rejected a proposed Advanced Placement high school course on African-American studies. That is a college prep class,” co-host Vladimir Duthiers began.
Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King reacted by defending the class, saying “it’s important to point out it’s an elective class” with other choices out there and thus students “don’t have to take it.”
Houck baselessly attacked another "CNS Mornings" co-host, Tony Dokoupil, as a "socialist" without providing evidence to back it up.
If someone really wanted to get the conservative perspective on the news, one of the last places they would turn would be CNN, but that didn’t stop a Thursday CNN Tonight panel from declaring that GOP efforts to stop Critical Race Theory are not conservative.
Later in the segment, Avlon lamented that they were even having this conversation, “it's just the performative nonsense that we're playing into to some extent. I mean, yeah, Trump is trying to outdo Ron DeSantis and this is all about, you know, play the base and it's not about serious policy. It's not about helping kids. It's not about, you know, uniting the nation.”
Because The 1619 Project and gender theory are about uniting the nation?
Christy went on to insist that "Trump, DeSantis, and others are reacting to a left-wing culture war" and not creating one, even though CRT is nothing if not a right-wing culture war.
The lashing out at any criticism of DeSantis continued:
HOuck used a Feb. 1 post to remind us that this was all about advancing right-wing narratives and buzzwords and boosting DeSantis and nothing about education:
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) scored yet another K.O. to wokeism Wednesday when College Board, the company behind Advanced Placement courses for high schoolers, released its revised curriculum for AP African American Studies after the Sunshine State rejected it for its litany of woke principles, including Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, and queer theory. But when the head of College Board and the lead adviser joined CBS Mornings, none of that was brought up.
Instead, the course was treated as completely innocuous.
Houck never explained why it wasn't beyond dropping right-wing buzzwords like "woke" and "Critical Race Theory." He followed that up with a Feb. 3 post touting DeSantis' "latest victory over wokeness" and whining that someone else criticized DeSantis.
Tim Graham cranked out his own DeSantis defense in a Feb. 3 column:
Anyone watching leftist cable news channels knows that it’s considered fair commentary to categorize Republicans, individually, or collectively, as “white nationalists” or “white supremacists.” Anyone standing in the way of the Black Lives Matter/Critical Race Theory crusade is dealt the Racist card.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis scored a political win in pressuring the College Board to tone down their proposed Advanced Placement curriculum on “African-American Studies.” Every conservative knows from experience that when you place “studies” in front of a minority group – black studies, queer studies, Native American studies, women’s studies – you can expect a highly ideological journey.
Graham refused to admit that DeSantis is simply imposing his own ideology by force on Florida's educational system. Instead, he gushed that electoral might makes right: "Ron DeSantis was just re-elected with 59 percent of the vote, but CNN and their left-wing guests want to suggest that he’s the one that’s 'outside the mainstream.'" By contrast, the MRC never concedes that Democrats who win elections have a mandate for change according to their views.
Newsmax's Own Arguments Against DirecTV Fail Topic: Newsmax
One of Newsmax's arguments against being dropped by DirecTV -- about which it has spent the past month loudly whining about -- is that, as stated in a Feb. 4 article, "DirecTV continues to carry 22 liberal news channels, many with low ratings and all get paid hefty license fees." But it rarely released the list of those "22 liberal news channels." But it would show them on the TV screen every once in a while:
What? The Weather Channel is a "liberal news channel"? Comedy Central is a "liberal news channel"? As the Daily Beast summarized:
While channels like Vice, PBS, Spanish-language networks, and the major broadcasters air nightly news programs, they would hardly be described as “news channels.” Furthermore, describing specialty offerings like Justice Central (which just airs blocks of first-run courtroom shows in the same vein as The People’s Court) as a news network is downright insulting.
In terms of 24-hour cable news channels that could be seen as similar to Newsmax, the following apply from the network’s list: CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, Newsnation, Cheddar, CNN International, CNBC World, BBC World News and CNN en Espanol.
Now, are all of these channels considered liberal? While that is purely subjective, Newsmax has backed its claim by pointing to a 2019 poll that found a majority of Americans believed that all network news channels leaned to the left. Therefore, per the network, that means that The Weather Channel and a channel that airs stand-up comic performances must be part of the liberal news establishment.
The Daily Beast also pointed out that including all of those "22 liberal news channels," as Newsmax insists on describing them, Newsmax would rank 12th in ratings -- not the "fourth highest-rated cable network" it frequently claims to be as justification for DirecTV keeping it.
The Daily Beast further blew up Newsmax's argument that DirecTV pays for each individual "liberal news channel" it offers, noting that some come as part of packages; for instance, Vice is part of A&E Networks, and it's included in a package of other A&E-owned channels.
When the right-leaning Wall Street Journal published an editorial accurately pointing out that the Newsmax-DirecTV was a licensing dispute and not a "censorship" debate, going on to note that it's "bewildering why many Republicans are getting involved" by threatening government interference in a private business decision -- adding that "Political coercion of business is as distasteful from the right as it is from the left" -- Newsmax devoted an unsigned Feb. 20 editorial to complaining about it, claiming that the Journal "failed to mention some important facts":
First, the dispute is not over a fee price. AT&T, the 70% owner of DirecTV, is claiming Newsmax should get zero fees while all other U.S. cable news channels get them. Newsmax, the fourth highest-rated cable news channel, according to Nielsen, believes it is being discriminated against.
Importantly, the Journal editorial failed to disclose that one shareholder, Rupert Murdoch, controls both it and Fox News, its sister company.
As recent disclosures in the Dominion lawsuit revealed, Newsmax is a competitor to Fox. In 2020, Murdoch sent an email to Fox's CEO expressing serious concern about the rise of Newsmax and said the network needed to be "watched."
We understand Fox wants to be the only news source for right-of-center cable viewers, but that is not good for the GOP, democracy, or good competition.
Still, with such a serious conflict of interest, we thought the WSJ would disclose it. But they did not.
If Newsmax is demanding a fee and DirecTV dropped it instead of paying it, that means this is, in fact, a fee dispute. Also, it's ironic that Newsmax would complain about the Journal's conflict of interest here when Newsmax routinely refuses to disclose its conflicts of interest when it promotes books by Dick Morris and David Horowitz that were published by Newsmax's book division.
The editorial then went on a lengthy tangent about Fox News' own fee dispute with a DirecTV competitor, Dish Network, while not mentioning that 1) Fox News has much higher ratings than Newsmax and can therefore justify the carriage fees it wants, and 2) Newsmax has more streaming and OTT options than Fox News does, which would seem to obviate the need for Newsmax to actually be on DirecTV.
Of course, the editorial repeated its own debunked talking point:
Newsmax counts at least 22 liberal-leaning news channels still on DirecTV. All of them get cable license fees, and most have lower ratings than Newsmax.
And none have been deplatformed by AT&T.
Finally, the editorial failed to disclose to readers the fact that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel. The First, meaning that its argument of viewpoint "censorship" is inoperative.
Another WND Columnist Peddles Pro-Russia and Anti-Ukraine Propaganda Topic: WorldNetDaily
Add another name to the list of WorldNetDaily columnists (Scott Lively, Jim Darlington, Joseph Farah) who serve as propagandists for Vladimir Putin by serving up pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine talking points. Richard Blakley spent his Jan. 6 column repeating claims that Ukrainine president Volodymyr Zelensky is too close to a Ukrainian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, using that as an excuse to oppose more U.S. aid to Ukraine. Blakley didn't mention, however, that Zelensky is cracking dodwn on corruption in addition to defending his country against Russia and that Kolomoisky has not been immune; a few weeks after Blakley's column appeared, Ukraninan authories raided Kolomoisky's home following the seizure of two oil companies following the alleged discovery of corruption.
It is amazing to look at the history of Russia and Ukraine. They have a rich, tangled history that connects them together going back "more than 1,000 years with to a time when Kyiv, now Ukraine's capital, was at the center of the first Slavic state, Kyivan Rus, the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia." Who would bomb your own birthplace? Why would Russia attack Ukraine?
It is interesting that Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, but prior to this invasion, dating back as far as 2018, Russia had made claims that there were U.S. financed bio-labs in Ukraine making "biological weapons that would be spread by specially trained migratory birds and diseased bats." Russia has also raised the concerns of the use of "unmanned aerial vehicles [UAV] for the aerial release of … infected mosquitos" where the spread of these "highly contagious" agents "could wipe out 100 percent of the enemy['s] troops." Some of the dangerous pathogens being studied are plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera, leptospirosis, brucellosis, coronavirus, filoviruses and other deadly diseases.
The Russian Defense Ministry stated that the bio-labs in Ukraine have been urgently destroying samples of deadly pathogens since the Russian military operation began. It was also stated that "Ukraine was close to building a plutonium-based dirty bomb nuclear weapon."
So why would Russia attack Ukraine? President Putin is quoted as saying that a "network of Western bioweapons labs" constituted one of the justifications for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Since Dec. 25, Putin has twice extended the opportunity for peace, only to be rejected by Ukraine. After all, if peace occurs, Ukraine would have to give back the $45 billion the U.S. Congress voted to given them as part of the omnibus spending bill, which Biden signed into law Dec. 29 – and then how would "the big guy" get his 10%?
So is Biden's continued throwing of money at Ukraine a good decision for America? I think Obama's former defense secretary Robert Gates answered this question best. Gates stated, Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
Blakley didn't explain why anyone should believe what Russian propagandists have to say.
Blakley used his Jan. 26 column to blame President Biden for Russia's invasion of Ukraine for [checks notres] calling out Russian interference in U.S. presidential elections:
So, let's see, Biden orchestrated numerous disastrous economic initiatives in January of 2021. In February of 2021 Biden's plans are already causing bleak prospects for the American economy. So what happened in March of 2021? Biden was busy stating that Russian Leader Vladimir Putin was "a killer with no soul." Putin had been peaceful for four years. Biden was railing and ranting concerning the 2020 elections, stating if it were found that Putin boosted the reelection chances of President Trump, the Russian leader would "pay the price."
Whether the 2020 election was clean or not, could someone tell Joe that the final numbers indicate he obtained more votes than any candidate in U.S. history, making him the winner, and remind Joe that he was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2021? Why would Biden be calling another world leader "a killer with no soul" and threaten him that he would "pay the price" concerning an election Biden won? Biden's words caused Russia to recall its Washington ambassador, and the U.S. recalled its Russian ambassador too. Great job on world peace, Joe, after being in office for only two months.
Um, doesn't Russia's invasion of Ukraine amply prove Biden's contention that Putin is "a killer with no soul"? Blakley also repeated the pro-Russia talking point that Ukraine wanting to join NATO was a legitimate excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine:
So let's see what happened just in the first three months of Biden's administration. 1) Ukraine appealed for membership in NATO, 2) Biden executes doomed economic policies, and 3) Biden calls Putin "a killer with no soul," promising that Putin would "pay the price" for an election Joe won, causing the recall of U.S. and Russian ambassadors.
What do you think Putin would do next with a perceived threat on his doorstep? He is going to flex his muscles.
Well, February was filled with tit for tat between NATO and Russia until Feb. 24 when Putin authorized a "special military operation" and the war in Ukraine commenced.
Pope Francis commented concerning the Russia-Ukraine war, saying, "We do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was, perhaps, somehow either provoked or not prevented." The pope recalled a conversation with a head of state who expressed concerns about NATO. When asked why, this head of state said, "They are barking at the gates of Russia. They don't understand that the Russians are imperial and can't have any foreign power getting close to them."
On March 18, 2022, Chinese President Xi and Biden had a conference, and Xi stated that "conflict and confrontation are not in anyone's interest." The next day, March 19, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng blamed NATO for the war.
Neither Blakley nor Putin seem to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance that, unlike Russia, does not invade other countries.
NEW ARTICLE: Failure Cleanup Mode At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center groused that the media ignored John Durham's latest failed prosecution (which the MRC also ignored), and it again repeated complaints that the House committee looking into the Capitol riot was considered newsworthy. Read more >>
MRC Calls Biden A Liar For Claming GOP Want To Cut Social Security & Medicare -- But Doesn't Prove Him Wrong Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center lashed out at anyone who said nice things about President Biden's State of the Union address, but it was really incensed that Biden called out Republicans who wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare, insisting it was a lie despite ample on-the-record evidence of Republicans desiring to do exactly that. Alex Christy spent a Feb. 8 post spinning on behalf of Republicans, demanding that you ignore all that evidence and believe instead that Biden "cynically lied":
Wednesday’s CNN Newsroom did not directly say that President Biden lied during his State of the Union address when he claimed that Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare, but they strongly implied it wasn’t true. Still, the Republican reaction to that claim garnered more condemnation from the assorted cast than the claim itself with co-host Jim Sciutto go so far as to wonder “what lesson it teaches to our children about how to respond to points that they disagree with.”
After playing a clip of Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Fox recalling that he told Biden himself Social Security and Medicare cuts are off the table, Congressional Correspondent Jessica Dean reporter, “The president appeared to be referring to a proposal by Florida Senator Rick Scott that would sunset all federal legislation including Medicare and Social Security, that is something that the House Speaker has said will not be included in these cuts.”
The cackling coven of ABC’s The View was giddy Wednesday morning following President Biden’s divisive and fact-free State of the Union address the previous night. They were obsessed with Biden’s raucous exchange with some Republicans after he spewed disinformation to a national, televised audience about the caucus supposedly clamoring to sunset Social Security. The ladies of The View called the BIG LIE “brilliant” and “masterful,” including the supposed Republican.
And when it came to the Republican outrage at Biden’s BIG LIE, the cackling coven condemned the right for daring to push back. “You owe him the respect! He is the president!” Goldberg screamed, arguing that Republicans were “indulging in really what is despicable behavior.” Hostin shouted about how Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene should be forced to apologize to Biden.
Despite repeatedly putting "BIG LIE" in all caps, Fondacaro offered no evidence to show that it wa. A couple hours later, Fondacaro was still ranting about it:
While CBS News was busy clutching their pearls into diamonds over Republican opposition to President Biden’s lies about them in his divisive State of the Union address Tuesday night, ABC News analysts admitted that his comments about Republicans wanting to abolish Social Security were “over the top.” But they were fine with it because “he did it with a smile.”
Chief anchor David Muir clutched his pearls over how Republicans dared to push back on the President’s lies. “Their behavior was on full display tonight,” he chided. “You heard Marjorie Taylor Greene yell ‘liar’ when it came to Medicare and Social Security, but then -- this was an interesting scene we watched unfold.”
Again, he offered no proof Biden lied.
Kevin Tober complained that Biden "said untrue things about them wanting to gut Social Security and Medicare which he knew would get a negative response." Tim Graham's Feb. 8 podcast groused that "Biden was a trash-talking partisan, uncorking lies about Republicans phasing out Social Security and so on. Anchors considered it rude that Republicans would loudly object to being accused of trying to kill Social Security."
The next day, Christy complained that NBC's Seth Meyers served up some of that actual evidence using the actual words of Republican Sen. Mike Lee, declaring it to be irrelevant:
Despite all the proclamations from Republican leaders saying cuts to Social Security and Medicare are not on the table, NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers reacted to President Biden’s State of the Union address on Wednesday by defending him against allegations he lied about GOP intentions to do just that.
In an attempt Biden was correct, Meyers had to reach back 13 years, “In-- in Mike Lee's case, it would be true because he campaigned on eliminating Medicare and Social Security when he first ran for Senate back in 2010.”
The video clearly shows Lee saying his purpose for running is to eventually eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, that was 13 years ago, he clearly hasn’t made any progress, and he is just one out of 49 Republicans.
Christy followed up with more lingustic gymnastics:
After mimicking Lee’s facial expression, Meyers then claimed he wasn’t the only one, “Senators Rick Scott and Ron Johnson both floated plans that would sunset Social Security and Medicare by putting them up for periodic votes that would subject them to cuts and Georgia Republican Congressman Rick Allen said he would raise the retirement age, because he claims people come up to him and say they want to work longer.”
Raising the retirement age is not a cut and Republican leadership has consistently distanced itself from Scott’s plan. The only ones pretending that they have a non-zero percent chance of being enacted are Biden and his defends like Seth Meyers.
Raising the retirement age is, in fact, a cut in benefits since one must work longer to receive them and, thus, will receive less money over the course of their retirement.
The MRC was still whining about this days later. A Feb. 14 post by P.J. Gladnick tried to play gotcha by hyping a video from Bernie Sanders -- yes the one the MRC loves to bash as a socialist -- promoting old statements by Biden about cutting Social Security. Graham, meanwhile, complained in a Feb. 19 post that a guest on NPR "shamelessly touted Biden's lies about Republicans wanting to 'sunset' Social Security and Medicare" without offering evidence they were the lies he insisted they were.
There was no MRC post dedicated to proving Biden wrong about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare -- perhaps because they know it's true.