Months After He Left CNN, Stelter Derangement Syndrome Continues At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Brian Stelter left CNN months ago, but the Media Research Center -- which gleefully danced on the grave of his CNN career and his "Reliable Sources" show, which it hated because he criticized Fox News, which is apparently forbidden -- can't stop obsessing over the guy. Tim Graham huffed in a Nov. 27 post:
For a definition of what "far left" is, you could suggest that someone who sounds extreme sitting next to former CNN media reporter Brian Stelter. Check out left-wing extremist Nandini Jammi, whose "Check My Ads" racket seeks to separate all advertiser money from Fox News, Breitbart, and other conservative media outlets.
Graham didn't mention that his employer has a very similar operation of attacking advertisers on shows and channels it has deemed to be its ideological enemies, under the name of "Conservatives Fight Back." It's highly iunlikely he considers that project to be a "racket." Despite calling Jammi "far left" and a "left-wing extremist," he never explained how doing exactly what the MRC does earned her those labels. Graham even touched on this again in his Nov. 28 podcast.
When Stelter showed up at the World Economic Forum to moderate a panel on media disinformation, the MRC really went nuts. Catherine Salgado complained in a Jan. 18 post:
A World Economic Forum panel at Davos 2023 endorsed censorship and enforced online narratives to fight supposed “disinformation.”
The World Economic Forum (WEF) hosted a panel as part of its ongoing Davos 2023 conference titled, “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation.” Ironically, the panel moderator was Brian Stelter, a former anchor for CNN, a network renowned for its constant lies and partisan half-truths.
Graham devoted his Jan. 18 podcast to Stelter's appearance:
Brian Stelter sighting! The former CNN host resurfaced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to moderate a panel on crushing "disinformation." He made it sound like a European version of his old show Reliable Sources, asking his fellow leftists how they manage a world in which Donald Trump is still proving that "lying works."
Naturally, those assembled -- including New York Times owner Arthur Gregg Sulzberger -- were encouraged by Stelter to discuss how "trustworthy" media sources (like the Times, apparently) should be highlighted and "hate speech" (conservative speech?) should be energetically suppressed by private companies and governing elites.
Neither Graham nor Salgado explained why disinformation should never be corrected or called out.
In yet another post that day, Kevin Tober gushed at how Fox News' Tucker Carlson "used the opening segment of the show to mock former CNN janitor and current Harvard University fellow Brian Stelter and all the other 'self-confident dumb people' who flocked to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to thumb their nose at non-elites all over the world and America in particular. In classic Tucker fashion, he humorously ridiculed Stelter while also driving a point home." That point largely being about mocking Stelter.
That's right -- the MRC cranked out three separate posts attacking Stelter over this single appearance. On top of that, Joseph Vazquez had a Stelter-bashing aside in a post the next day: "Also, what was CNN has-been Brian Stelter doing hosting a WEF panel complaining how people need to start trusting 'established' information sources instead of so-called online 'disinformation' spreaders?"
The MRC was even annoyed with Stelter for entertaining questions from (non-bad-faith) critics. Curtis Houck wrote in a Feb. 24 post:
Former CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter made a rare return to a microphone Friday as he interviewed Megyn Kelly Show executive producer and Fourth Watch Podcast host Steve Krakauer about his new book, Uncovered: How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People. In just under an hour, the pair had a engaging and fascinating discussion about the media, CNN, Fox News, January 6, and& his post-CNN life.
But for readers here, the newsiest topic came when Krakauer cited the New York Post reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop as an answer to this question from Stelter: “What are the ones that stand out most to you? What — what — what did me and my colleagues at CNN screw up the most, in your view?”
When Krakauer brought the selectively released "Twitter files," Houck seemed to complain that Stelter responded by pointing out that the Hunter Biden laptop story really was quite shaky when introduced and that Republicans whined that it wasn't immediately accepted:
Stelter began his defense by saying this was “Twitter’s problem”and “separate from the press,” so “[i]f Twitter screwed up, we should go after Twitter.”
In the case of news organizations, he argued they “looked around and said, we don’t have the laptop. We don’t have evidence. We don’t have evidence it’s real and we know that are reasons to wonder if it’s disinformation.”
He then bemoaned the criticisms, saying they can be boiled down to, “all these assholes...called it disinformation” when the (supposed) truth is “[a] lot of us just wondered” if it was from Russia.
Stelter continued, saying they referred to said “former U.S. officials” because they “think it might be,” so news outlets were “cushioned and cautious...because of Hillary e-mails, but because of the Russian attempt in 2016”.
Houck shockingly concluded by saying something nice about Stelter: "To his credit, Stelter made his case at the end for the necessity of journalists to do more of 'show[ing] that we’ve walked all the way around the block before we’ve started to write about the block and, you know, that’s my way of saying let’s be fair to everybody...because if you’re only writing about the story from the back yard, then you’re missing a big part of the story.'"
Don't worry, that won't last -- Stelter is too significant a target for the MRC to actually embrace.
Jack Cashill And The Wrong Side of History, Russia-Ukraine War Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill has a long history of being on the wrong side of history on numerous things, and now we can add the Russian war on Ukraine to that list. He began his Feb. 8 WorldNetDaily column complaining that Ukraine is made to look good in the media and the aggressor, Russia, is made to look bad:
Approaching the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a major corruption scandal.
On Tuesday, Zelensky called for an end to "rumors or any other pseudo-information" that could weaken the nation's resolve in its war against Russia.
The problem is that, from the beginning, the reporting on this war has been nothing but rumors and pseudo-information. A year in, I confess to having no idea who is winning or how the war can continue on Ukrainian soil given all the victories or pseudo-victories Ukraine has purportedly won.
A year in to the Russian-Ukraine war, I confess to not having seen any real battle footage at all. What I have seen are grim photos of alleged Russian strikes on apartment buildings, schools, hospitals and the like.
On watching this footage, I have asked myself, "Why are the Russians targeting apartment buildings and hospitals?" The answer is they are not.
The Russians could flatten Ukraine tomorrow if they chose. These buildings were likely collateral damage. I wasn't watching news, I realized. What I was watching was war propaganda.
Just because Russia is obliterating all civilian targets doesn't mean they're not targeting civilians -- all you have to do is hit the occasional hospital or apartment building to put the fear in civilians. Cashill conveniently ignored that manyobserversbelieve Russia is, in fact, targeting civilians and that it's more than just "collateral damage."
Cashill then basically complained that Ukrainians are better at war propaganda than Russia is:
In the later coverage of Vietnam, as well as in much of the coverage of the war in Iraq, our media were running propaganda for our enemies.
American viewers heard all they needed to hear about My Lai or Abu Ghraib. There is no Ukrainian equivalent.
In Ukraine, virtually all the video coverage has been propaganda on behalf of Ukraine. To test my thesis, I entered "Ukraine War video footage" in YouTube.
Of the 32 stories that appeared on the first page, 31 had Ukraine beating the Russians and not just beating them, but destroying, crushing, encircling, ambushing, shocking them.
Consider this recent headline from US News: "Horrible Footage! Ukrainian elite troops eradicate Wagner Groups troop like rats in a Bakhmut trench." Yikes!
Finally, Cashill complained that Democrats were making Russia look bad to get Donald Trump:
What is surprising is America's tag-teaming with Ukraine. In 2014, when pro-Russians nationalists seized the region, and Russia seized the Crimea, the Obama-Biden administration did nothing.
At the time, the administration was courting Russian help to seal the Iranian deal. Their hands were tied.
It was not until 2016, when the Democrats chose to frame Donald Trump, that they realized they had to frame Russia to make the conceit work.
If Russia were not evil, Russia collusion would be no big deal. So, with the media's mindless assistance, the Democrats turned Russia into our main enemy.
Russia was restrained during the four years of the Trump presidency. But President Biden, even if he were cognizant, could no more have negotiated a settlement with Vladimir Putin than he could have reconciled with Trump. His base would not allow him.
The result was a war Ukraine could never win in any meaningful way, and Russia could not allow itself to lose.
It was not hard to "frame" Trump when his campaign and its officials met dozens of times with Russian operatives and that Russia clearly interefered with U.S. elections to benefit Trump (which also involved hacking Democratic National Committee emails, which Cashill still falsely wants you to think was done by Seth Rich). And Cashill offers no evidence that anything Biden might have done would have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine, so desperate was he to have a show of force in the reason. It appears that Cashill is joining Putin in being mad that Ukraine fought back to try and preserve their country.
By siding with an aggressor like Putin and being mad at Ukraine for fighting back to the point that Putin is losing simply by not having the decisive victory he was presumably expecting, Cashill is yet again on the wrong side of history.
With these 10 articles, Newsmax has published at least 238 articles attacking DirecTV for dropping it since Jan. 25, when it occurred.
Meanwhile, the head of Newsmax went to CPAC to mislead about his victimhood. Luca Cacciatore wrote in a March 2 article:
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy sat down with Mercedes Schlapp on Thursday to discuss the network, its recent troubles with satellite provider DirecTV, and the ominous trend of media silencing alternate viewpoints.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Prince George's County, Maryland, Ruddy cited Nielsen ratings showing that Newsmax, a popular conservative news organization, is the fourth highest-rated news channel, a top 20 channel overall, watched by 25 million Americans on cable alone.
"It's really not our brilliance. It's the fact the American people want more choices in news," the network's founder declared, later noting that "the liberals and the left basically own everything in the media world."
"Why should the left have so many news choices, but conservatives only have one?" he continued. "Fox, let's admit it, is changing. It's good to have more voices, and I think Newsmax plays a very critical role in offering those."
Ruddy is lying. DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel, The First.
In part of the video Cacciatore didn't transcribe, Ruddy repeated the talking point that there are as many as "two dozen" news andinformation channels he calls "liberal." As we've pointed out, Ruddy's definition of a "liberal" channel is wildly and dishonestly overbroad, given that it includes things like the Weather Channel and Comedy Central
But CNS being CNS, it couldn't keep some of its right-wing bias from influencing its "news" coverage. When President Biden issued a statement on Benedict's death, an anonymously written Jan. 4 article complained that Biden noted that Benedict had "a more conservative view" of the Catholic church than he did.
By contrast, the boys who run CNS love right-wing Catholicism and hate liberal Catholicism, and they consider themselves more Catholic than the pope when that pope is a non-conservative one like Francis. When Francis stated in January that while homosexuality is a sin, it shouldn't be a crime, an anonymously written Jan. 25 article whined that a news article emphasized the "not a crime" part of the "is a sin" part:
In an interview this week with the Associated Press, Pope Francis reiterated the Catholic position that homosexual behavior is a sin.
The Associated Press published the pope’s statement in an article that carried the headline: “The AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime.”
The first two paragraphs of the AP story said: “Pope Francis criticized laws that criminalize homosexuality as ‘unjust,’ saying God loves all his children just as they are and called on Catholic bishops who support the laws to welcome LGBTQ people into the church."
The story continued: “‘Being homosexual isn’t a crime,’ Francis said during an exclusive interview Tuesday with the Associated Press.”
Sixteen paragraphs into its story, the Associated Press reported the following:
“On Tuesday, Francis said there needed to be a distinction between a crime and a sin with regard to homosexuality.
“‘It’s not a crime. Yes, but it’s a sin,’ he said. ‘Fine, but first let’s distinguish between a sin and a crime.’”
The anonymous writer went on to emphasize that The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered'" -- but he or she didn't explain why that meant homosexuality must be made illegal.
For a Feb. 1 article, managing editor Michael W. Chapman found a foreign official who cheerfully criminalzes homosexuality in a weird attempt to own the pope:
Pope Francis recently said that homosexual activity is "not a crime" but it is "a sin," a claim that South Sudan Minister of Information Michael Makuei rejected, stressing that "God was not mistaken" and that in his country so-called gay marriage "is a crime, is a constitutional crime."
Pope Francis is scheduled to visit South Sudan on Feb. 3. In that East African state, sodomy (defined as anal sex between men or men and women) is illegal, as is same-sex marriage. Sodomy is punishable by up to seven years in prison and, after a third offense, life in prison.
After a cabinet meeting on Jan. 27, Information Minsiter Makuei spoke with the media. As reported by Radio Tamazuj, he said, “If he [Pope Francis] is coming here and he tells us that marriage of the same sex, homosexuality is legal, we will say no. But this is not what he is coming for.”
Makuei further said, “God was not mistaken. He created man and woman and he told them to marry one another and go and fill the world. Do same-sex partners give birth?”
“Our constitution is very clear and says marriage is between the opposite sex and any same-sex marriage is a crime, is a constitutional crime," said the Information Minister.
Chapman didn't mention that Makuei Lueth -- his full name -- has been sanctioned by the U.S. and the United Kingdom for obstructing the peace process in South Sudan.He was also dismissive of the death of a U.S.-British journalist covering unrest in the country, smearing him as a "white rebel."So may be he's not the best person to oppose the pope.
Instead, Chapman spent the rest of the article recalling the good ol' days when everyone hated gay people:"Up until the early 1960s, nearly every state in the U.S. had laws against sodomy, and when the Lawrence v. Texas case was decided (6-3) by the Supreme Court in 2003 those laws were invalidated in every state and territory."
For a Feb. 3 article, Chapman found a right-wing priest here at home to demand that gay people be imprisoned to teach them a lesson about morality:
Fr. Gerald Murray, a priest with the Archdiocese of New York and a frequent contributor on EWTN, strongly criticized Pope Francis's recent remarks about homosexuality as confusing and contrary to Church teaching in some respects. He also said the Pope, "unfortunately," is "becoming an advocate of decriminalization of anti-sodomy laws."
In reference to the Pope's interview, Fr. Murray said, “Now, laws against sodomy are designed to warn people not to commit that sin and to protect society where, if that sin were tolerated, it might become more widespread. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible is a warning to us."
“The Pope, unfortunately, is becoming an advocate of decriminalization of anti-sodomy laws," said Murray. "And it’s hard to believe we would say that."
CNS didn't mention that following his visit to Africa, Francis joined with leaders of other Christian congregations in denouncing laws punishing homosexuality. Rather, Chapman found another right-wing Catholic group to bash the pope in a Feb. 9 article:
Pope Francis' recent remarks to the Associated Press that homosexual behavior is "not a crime" but "is a sin" were strongly condemned by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts because they "will confuse and mislead the faithful" and be presented by the liberal media as "papal affirmation of same-sex relations and the LGBTQ identity."
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts in a press release said the Pope's remarks constitute "a major victory for the homosexual movement, which will be presented to public opinion as papal affirmation of same sex relations and the LGBTQ identity."
"The scandalous, improvident, and un-Catholic remarks of Pope Francis will confuse and mislead the faithful, empower and embolden the opponents of Christian morality, and demoralize and marginalize its defenders," said League Executive Director C.J. Doyle.
"These remarks will, in the long term, have significant adverse effects on the struggle to preserve what remains of moral sanity in Western society and to protect the already circumscribed rights of religious believers," added Doyle.
What the Pope said "repudiates 1,700 years of Christian legal principles," said Doyle. "Beginning in the fourth century AD, all Christian legal traditions---Roman Law, Canon Law, English Common Law and the positive laws of Christian states---have, harkening back to Mosaic Law, treated sodomy as a crime against nature, and have, accordingly, prohibited it, and attached penalties to its practice."
"Unlike Francis, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church understood sodomy to be both a sin and a crime," added Doyle. "The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, quotes Saint Augustine's statement that 'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished....'"
An anonymously written Feb. 10 article hyped a video "that featured Father Jason Charron delivering a video message that criticized Pope Francis for his recent remarks on homosexuals and said that the pope was “using his platform to embolden sinners.”:
On the video, Father Charron says: “I am sure you heard today, as many people have, that Pope Francis again has called for the decriminalizing of homosexual acts among other things no his return flight from his African visit home to the Vatican.”
“And it struck me that a lot of the Holy Father’s public comments, you know, revolve around this issue of homosexuality as though that were the center piece of his ministry,” said Father Charron. “You don’t hear a whole lot of comments from him calling for the defense of persecuted Christians in place like, oh, I don’t know, China.”
“This is the great shame--that he has abandoned his first love and instead of preaching the Gospel, emboldening the saints and calling sinners to repentance, he’s using his platform to embolden sinners and to shame the saints into silence in conformity with the world,” Father Charron says in the video.
Chapman called on his favorite EWTN priest again in a Feb. 23 article to bash Francis for failing to hate gay people enough:
Fr. Gerald Murray, the pastor of Holy Family Church in Manhattan and a regular contributor to EWTN's The World Over, said that Pope Francis is neglecting "his duty to defend the Church's teaching" on sexual morality, which is contributing to a "grave disorder" in the church.
Fr. Murray added that faithful cardinals and bishops need to stage a "tough love" intervention with the Pope and "frankly" tell him "that this madness must be stopped. Now."
There is a very serious struggle going on in the Catholic Church, with progressive/left clerics pushing acceptance for homosexual relations and gay marriage or civil unions, gender ideology, and realted topics. On the defense are faithful bishops and priests trying to uphold the Church's 2,000-year-old teachings on sex, marriage, and sin.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis is clearly on the side of the progressives.
Murray apparently didn't explain how all this hatred helps anyone or why his hatred for LGBT people is so vicious that he refuses to follow the leader of his own faith.
MRC Melts Down Over Reimagining Velma As Neither White Nor Heterosexual Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center doesn't like LGBT people, and they really don't like fictional LGBT people. So when new projects portray Velma of the "Scooby-Doo" series as openly non-heterosexual, the MRC had a new reason to rage. Joseph Vazquez huffed in an Oct, 8 post:
Google showed users how much it supports Warner Bros. taking the classic Scooby-Doo TV series and turning one of its core characters into a rainbow mafia symbol of the woke left.
The New York Times slobbered in an Oct. 5 story that the script of a new Scooby Doo flick confirms “that Velma Dinkley, the cerebral mystery solver with the ever-present orange turtleneck, is canonically a lesbian.”
Velma’s appearance in “Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo,” according to The Times drivel, “was the first time the long-running franchise openly acknowledged her sexuality, thrilling some fans who were disappointed that it took so long.”
Apparently Google was “thrilled” too. When users search Google for Velma, an avalanche of pride flags plasters their computer screens.
The Google-Velma story is the latest chapter in Big Tech’s ongoing campaign to promote the leftist LGTBQ lobby.
Yes, Vazquez thinks any media outlet that doesn't spew the same kind of hate he does at LGBTQ people is "drivel."
When Mindy Kaling's more adult-oriented series reimaging Velma as a different ethnicity (and, yes, not heterosexual) came out in January, Elise Ehrhard was there to hate-watch it in a Jan. 16 post:
Every year now, Hollywood takes beloved intellectual properties, "reimagines" them through a woke lens, and sucks out any charm, joy or winsomeness from the original franchise.
The latest show to pull this stunt is HBO Max's new animated series Velma, the brainchild of overrated left-wing "comedian" Mindy Kaling. The first two episodes premiered on Thursday, January 12.
Parasitically feeding off nostalgia for the cherished Scooby Doo characters, Velma is a nasty, anti-white, anti-man, anti-human mess that needs to be erased from the brain after watching it.
The creators thought they were being "original" by changing the racial and ethnic backgrounds of the main characters and then proceeded to turn all those characters into awful, unlikable people.
Velma is now South Asian, but more importantly, the new Velma is mean. Shaggy is black and pathetically simps for vicious Velma's unrequited attention. Oh, and his name isn't even Shaggy anymore. It's Norville. Daphne is East Asian and a drug dealer.
Fred is still white and, of course, he is portrayed as a dumb man-child. Velma even humiliates him in a courtroom because he cannot cut his food with utensils.
Mindy Kaling, get help.
Of course, Velma and Daphne share a lesbian kiss in the second episode. The only two things most shows know how to do nowadays is hate on whitey and make characters gay.
Ehrhard continued to hate-watch the show, and a Jan. 20 post took glee in how otherswere criticizing the show and whining about a new episode:
HBO Max's Velma is currently one of the most hated shows in television history, earning some of the lowest audience scores ever on Rotten Tomatoes< (six percent audience score).
Last week, its first two premiere episodes were an orgy of nastiness and hate, so much so that it was impossible to imagine the show could go any lower.
But with the release of episodes three and four Thursday night, it reached a new nadir. Episode four, "Velma Makes a List," specifically hit rock bottom.
In this new episode, the town's middle-aged sheriff and mayor asks Velma to rank the "top five" hottest girls at her high school in order to protect them from a serial killer. The killer is targeting pretty high school females.
Since attractive girls are getting killed, the older men decide Velma could help by teaching the "hot girls" how to look ugly.
Velma fails in her mission and the teens, who are around 15 years old, remain beautiful. The girls consider her attempts to make them homely and frumpy a form of "slut-shaming." Apparently, the writers are very confused and think attractiveness and sluttiness are somehow synonymous.
When Velma reveals the girls, presuming they followed her advice, the mayor is clearly turned on:
Meanwhile, actual non-ideologues pointed out that the series was being review-bombed by haters and that it was also centered on apparent dislike for Kahling, whose Velma was refashioned as the kind of character she typically plays, and of South Asian characters in general.
Ehrhard was paid to hate-watch every single episode, and she cranked out yet another fit of bile in a Feb. 10 post:
Season one of HBO's Max's animated train wreck Velma wrapped up last night and never redeemed itself after its vile opening episodes.
The show premiered in January and quickly made headlines as one of the most hated shows in television history, insulting audiences with bad writing and disrespect for the original cartoon.
After watching all ten mean-spirited episodes, I can only hope creator and actress Mindy Kaling never helms an animated series again.
In her list of five reasons she hated the series, it's telling that Ehrhard put "hatred of white people" at the top of her llist.
Meanwhile, HBO Max apparently saw the attacks for their specious and manufactured nature and renewed the show for a second season -- which, of course, caused Ehrhard's head to explode in a Feb. 15 post:
One of the most hated shows in television history is somehow getting a second season.
On Monday, the Chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers Television Group, Channing Dungey, confirmed to Deadline that HBO Max's Velma is being renewed.
HBO Max is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery.
The decision to follow-through with the second season, despite near universal rejection of the woke cartoon by viewers, is mind-boggling.
Ehrhard did surprisingly admit that hate-watchers targeted the show:
Some of the initial interest in the cartoon may have come from viewers hate-watching the series to see if it was truly as bad as reported. Numerous popular critics took to YouTube to roast it after its premiere.
It's doubtful such hate-watchers will tune in for a second opening, however. One was more than enough.
Ehrhard concluded by whining that "the company is determined to promote a woke agenda at any cost to its bottom line, much like its competitors, such as Disney+." She didn't explain why people who aren't white and heterosexual must be hated as "woke," whatever that means.
CNS Whines Capitol Riot Considered Among Nation's 'Darkest Days' Topic: CNSNews.com
An anonymous CNSNews.com writer huffed in a Jan. 19 article:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) sent out a tweet on January 6 of this year stating that January 6 of 2021 was “one of the darkest days in our nation’s history.”
“It’s been exactly 2 years since one of the darkest days in our nation’s history,” Schumer said.
“We will never forget what happened on January 6, 2021,” he said. “And we will never stop fighting to protect our democracy from the forces that sought to overthrow it.”
Schumer did not mention what other days he considered to be among “the darkest days in our nation’s history.”
If Jan. 6, 2021 was “one of the darkest days in our nation’s history” in Schumer’s analysis, it presumably would rank near Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor; or Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Towers in New York City; or the days from 1861 to 1865, when the United States fought a Civil War; or the days that marked the assassinations of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy; or April 4, 1968, when the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated; or Oct. 24, 1929, when the stock market crashed, marking the beginning of the Great Depression.
Our anonymous writer refused to explain why the Capitol riot shouldn't be counted among those days -- which is what is clearly implied by bringing up those comparisons. CNS -- partcularly managing editor Michael W. Chapman -- has been on a kick lately in trying rewrite history around the Capitol riot to make it sound not so bad.
The writer didn't explain why it took 13 days after Schumer issued his tweet to write this response article. Maybe it took that long to dig up other potentially dark days.
MRC Targets Transgender TikTok Star For Being Transgender In Public Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates transgender people in general, and it particularly hates anyone who commits the offense of being (gasp!) transgender in public. We've noted how lead MRC transphobe Tierin-Rose Mandelburg raged against the Biden White House for inviting "trannie" Dylan Mulvaney, who's documenting her transgender journey on TikTok, for a panel discussion. Jason Cohen -- the since-departed MRC blogger who infamously tried to justify Kayne West's anti-Semitism -- had a freakout over Mulvaney in an Oct. 26 post:
Caitlyn Jenner, Senator Marsha Blackburn, and Donald Trump Jr. all criticized trans Tik Tok star Dylan Mulvaney for an insane video from the 74th day of his famous series called "Days of Girlhood," which documents his determination to pretend he’s a woman.
In the video, Mulvaney showed and talked about how he wore extremely tight leather shorts to go shopping. On his outing, people stared directly at his crotch. He realized, “Oh, I forgot my crotch doesn’t look like other women’s crotches sometimes because mine doesn’t look like a little barbie pocket.”
Mulvaney's solution was to declare it was time to "normalize the bulge," which caused Cohen to huff, "Jenner, Blackburn, and Jr. are correct that society should not normalize this":
Senator Marsha Blackburn tweeted, “Dylan Mulvaney, Joe Biden, and radical left-wing lunatics want to make this absurdity normal.”
So true. After all, like Jr. said, Mulvaney was invited to the Oval Office to talk to Biden. It cannot get much more normalized than that.
Powerfully, coming from a trans woman, Caitlyn Jenner thanked Senator Blackburn for speaking out and agreed with her, tweeting, “Let’s not ‘normalize’ any of what this person is doing. This is absurdity!”
It all seems so obvious, but in our upside-down world, it is not acceptable to take these stands. Hopefully, with even Caitlyn Jenner speaking against it, society will collectively conclude they should not normalize this.
Jenner gets a pass for being transgender because she's a right-winger, which caused the MRC all sorts of confusion when she contemplated a run for California governor as a Republican.
The same day, Mandelburg raged at Mulvaney during a "Woke of the Weak" video for stating that she wants to become a mom someday: "What in the ever-loving heck? Did he -- sorry, let me say Dylan so I don't get censored -- did Dylan just say, 'I want to be a mom one day'? If he can be a mom one day, then my 5-foot-2 self can be a power forward for the Knicks. It seems like people have forgotten men cannot get pregnant." Mandelburg conveniently ignored the fact that Mulvaney said nothing about being a biological mother, nor did she note that plenty of women who cannot have children (or decide not to have biological ones) adopt them and serve as fine mothers.
The MRC also published an Oct. 27 column by Ben Shapiro declaring that Mulvaney, "cosplaying as a woman," is leading "the collapse of the West" by having taken part in that panel led by "geriatric dotard" Biden.
Mandelburg lashed out at Mulvaney again in a Jan. 4 post for having plastic surgery for make her face more feminine:
An ode to contradiction.
Transgender TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney recently underwent a facial reconstruction surgery to make his male features less prominent, and his effort showed how brutal said surgery looks - and why it’s extremely unnecessary.
Mulvaney posted a video with bandages covering his face, where the swelling and bruises were very apparent.
In general, “facial feminization surgeries,” often called "ffts," aim to provide patients with a more feminine facial structure. Procedures often involved include moving the hairline down for a smaller forehead, having one's lips and cheekbones expanded, and/or having the jaw and chin reshaped and resized.
It seems brutal if you ask me. But Mulvaney elected to have the procedure done, and is supposedly thrilled at the results so far.
Nobody asked Mandelburg, of course, but she continued to rant anyway:
I get that if Mulvaney wants to dismember and harm his own body, that's technically his prerogative. But the message that he’s sending to his millions of viewers and followers is that they really can’t be happy in their own skin unless they change it.
This is the same "transgender" star who was invited by President Joe Biden to the White House, where he encouraged the president to support painful gender-affirmation surgeries - like this one - for both adults and children.
This is what Mulvaney and Biden are in support of.
I really wish that people would stay true to their word. It’s either “embrace who you really are” or “get procedures that change your appearance and harm your body,” but it can't be both.
This is yikes on a whole other level.
Is it on the same level as getting paid to spew hate against people because they are different from you? (Actually, Mulvaney looks just fine after a few weeks of recovery.)
NEW ARTICLE: Chuck Norris, Off The Conspiratorial Deep End Topic: WorldNetDaily
The onetime action star-turned-WorldNetDaily columnist spent 2022 endorsing dubious right-wing Republicans and embracing conspiracy theories about election fraud and COVID vaccines. Read more >>
MRC Sticks To Narratives, Censors The Truth About Twitter Hearing Topic: Media Research Center
House Republicans gave the Musk-fluffers at the Media Research Center the hearing they wanted to attack the pre-Musk management of Twitter over purported censorship. It didn't quite go the way they planned -- but you wouldn't know that from the MRC's coverage of it. Renata Kiss started off the biased coerage by cherry-picking a statement by Republican Rep. to declared that he "own[ed] a former Twitter official:
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said the quiet part out loud at Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on The Twitter Files.
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held its first Twitter Files hearing Wednesday morning. The hearing featured testimony from former Twitter Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde, former Twitter special counsel and ex-FBI agent James Baker and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth. Each apparently worked with the FBI to censor the Twitter Files.
“I think you guys got played,” Jordan said after Roth claimed it wasn’t his personal decision to take down the story. Jordan called him out on the alleged narrative and explained that it appears the FBI played Twitter and the company willingly fell in line. “I think you guys wanted it to be taken down. I think you guys got played by the FBI, and that’s the scary part.”
Jordan added that the “real takeaway” is that five days after Twitter took down the Hunter Biden story, “51 former intelligence officials send a letter and say the Hunter Biden story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
He further emphasized that the FBI apparently deceived Twitter. “The information operation was run on you guys and then by extension run on the American people. And that’s the concern,” Jordan said.
Kiss censored the fact that Roth told Jordan that it was others in the tech industry -- not law enforcement -- who raised warnings about possible misinformation about Hunter Biden, which corroborates an FBI agent who said the same thing.
When CNN pointed out that the FBI no actual role, Alex Christy lashed out in a Feb. 8 post:
House Republicans held their first hearings into Twitter’s handling of the New York Post’s 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop on Wednesday and CNN’s Inside Politics didn’t see what the big deal was. Host John King sarcastically commented that it “sounds quite ominous, right?” while correspondent Donie O’Sullivan claimed “we haven’t seen the smoking gun of alleged collusion between the FBI and Big Tech.”
After introducing the hearing, King played a clip of Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer at the hearing declaring, “Immediately following the story’s publication, America witnessed a coordinated campaign by social media companies, mainstream news, and the intelligence communities to suppress and delegitimize the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents. That morning, Twitter and other social media companies took extraordinary steps to suppress that story.”
Christy went into spin mode, insisting that "While the FBI’s fingerprints may not be directly on this story, this is real life and smoking guns are not always readily available" and hyped how "over 50 'experts' claimed the Hunter laptop story was disinformation." in fact, as Kiss' earlier article more accurately stated, they said it had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" -- a significant difference, and not an unreasonable conclusion especially given that the story was being pushed by pro-Trump outlets like the New York Post.
Gabriela Pariseau cherry-picked another Republican's questioning: "No one expected former Twitter special counsel and ex-FBI agent Jim baker to have all the answers, but when Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) questioned him on Twitter and “in-kind contributions,” it appeared Baker had none of the answers" -- while in reality, Donalds was asking irrelevant questions about whether Twitter was going to "quantify the amount of in-kind contributions associated with taking down the New York Post story." Pariseau also rehashed the MRC's pet conspiracy theory: "A 2020 MRC poll found that 45 percent of President Joe Biden’s voters weren’t fully aware of the New York Post story precisely because the media and Big Tech whitewashed it. Had Americans been fully aware of the scandal, 9.4 percent of Biden voters would have abandoned him, flipping all six of the swing states he won to former President Donald Trump, giving Trump a victorious 311 electoral votes." As we've documented, that poll was conducted by The Polling Company, which was founded by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, which raises questions about its accuracy and fairness.
Kevin Tober served up the usual complaint that non-right-wing outlets weren't advancing right-wing narratives -- and that fox News was -- in his own Feb. 8 post:
On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee grilled former Twitter executives over their censorship and suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, with two of the executives even admitting it was a mistake to have suppressed the story and suspended the New York Post for publishing and posting it on their platform. Predictably the three broadcast networks ignored the story.
Instead of reporting on it, the three broadcast networks spent time covering local weather reports (ABC), and a school bus crashing into a daycare center in Canada (CBS) & (NBC).
Meanwhile, Fox News Channel’s Special Report had the story and led with it at the top of the broadcast.
Tober went on to huff, "This is an important story with national political implications." But neither Fox News (at least in the report excerpt provided) nor the MRC reported on the biggest news to come out of the hearing: As president, Donald Trump pressured Twitter to delete a tweet by model Chrissy Teigen that called him a "pussy ass bitch."
As more people mocked the hearing for the partisan showboating that it was, the MRC got more incensed. Mark Finkelsteain whined in a Feb. 9 post:
This was gaslighting at its liberal-media worst. Trashing the Twitter hearing held yesterday by the GOP-led House Oversight committee, Morning Joe would have you believe that far from seeking to suppress Republicans and help Democrats, Twitter— 98.47% of whose donations went to Democrats in 2020 — actually bent over backward to help Donald Trump!
The most egregious example of Twitter's pro-Dem bias was its suppression, in the days leading up to the 2020 election, of the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. But the panel literally laughed that off.
When Scarborough pointed out that Twitter never stopped Trump from spreading the lie that he murdered an intern when he served as a congressman, Finkelstein huffed that Section 230, which the MRC is trying to get rid of, "prevents him from suing Twitter for having published Trump's accusatory tweets. It doesn't stop Scarborough from suing Trump."
Podcaster and NYU marketing Professor Scott Galloway joined Thursday’s CNN This Morning where he launched into a wild denunciation of the GOP-led hearing on Twitter, the FBI, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Galloway labeled Republicans as “a conspiracy of dunces” and “idiots” while laughably claiming the fact that Twitter’s previous leadership was full of progressives is evidence they were biased in favor of Republicans.
Galloway then claimed that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter and “the only real targeted assertion that they really need to defend was that they coordinated with the FBI. They did not coordinate with the FBI.”
Even if that is true, it ignores the indirect pressure they put on Twitter prior to the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story and other installments of the Twitter Files were the FBI did directly pressure Twitter to remove tweets.
Not quite done distributing hot takes, Galloway next claimed Twitter’s was actually biased in favor of conservatives:
If there’s any censoring going on, if there's any bias, it's towards letting the president organize an insurrection on their platform and that they weren't being as diligent as they should have been around censoring certain content. There is a certain both side-ism. I do believe the Twitter executives probably lean progressive and as a result they engage in both side-ism and let content and people on the right get away with things they wouldn't let people on the left, but it's a private company. They get to decide this.
Really? Twitters suspended The Babylon Bee for a joke about Rachel Levine and if Twitter was biased in favor of conservatives, then why did Galloway ask if Elon Musk’s commitment to free speech was because he wanted to “kill a puppy.”
Christy seemed oblivious to the fact that just a half-hour earlier, his colleague Finkelstein was defending Trump spreading lies that Scarborough committed murder as free speech.
Curtis Houck up a non-coverage update, noting that while ABC and NBC morning shows ignored the story, "CBS Mornings gave viewers two minutes and 35 seconds on the hearing that, while it barely scratched the surface, raised the bar" but also complained that it excerpted far-right Rep. Lauren Boebert's wacky rant: "A sitting president was banned. Who the hell do you think that you are?"
The MRC finally referenced the hearing discussing Trump's attempt at censorship in a Feb. 10 post by Christy, when Seth Meyers brought it up (and other inconvenient facts):
NBC Late Night was not happy with Republicans on Thursday for holding hearings into Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming “no one actually gives a [bleep]” and trying to pretend that Republicans are greatly upset Twitter took down tweets containing nude photographs of Hunter Biden.
After playing a clip of Rep. Byron Reynolds asking why certain tweets were removed and former head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth replying that they were non-consensual nudes, Meyers sarcastically claimed, Excuse me, Mr. Roth, but the American people are demanding to see Hunter Biden's nudes.”
Christy didn't mention that the key reason Twitter posts about Hunter Biden were initially censored was because people like right-wing actor James Woods were posting nude pictures of him; nonconsensual nudes are prohibited on Twitter then and now. Christy grudgingly served up the big Trump reveal (and more whining about the nude p[hotos):
In an attempt to prove his point, Meyers declared, “Twitter did field requests from the Trump Administration, the actual government at the time, to remove content that Trump didn't like. In fact, it was reported yesterday by Rolling Stone that Twitter kept an entire database of Republican requests to censor posts and in the hearing, a Democratic member of the committee, Maxwell Frost, brought up one of those examples, which led to some explicit language being read into the Congressional record.”
After playing a clip of Frost speaking about a request from the Trump White House to remove a Chrissy Teigen tweet calling Trump a “pussy ass bitch,” Meyers joked about C-SPAN’s lack of a bleep button before declaring, “Once again, Joe Biden could not have asked for a more flattering contrast. Republicans are using their time in the House to throw tantrums about their Twitter accounts getting suspended and Hunter Biden's nudes.”
It is easy for Meyers to pick at the low-hanging fruit when he jokes about Reynolds’s inquiries into tweets containing nude photos, but Twitter really did suppress the New York Post story, something they never did for a Rolling Stone article about Trump or one of his children and conservative accounts were suspended for “hate speech,” or, more accurately, running afoul of new left-wing rules about gender.
The example of "hate speech" he linked to was about a Babylon Bee post sneering about an imaginary "Man of the Year" award for transgender Biden official Rachel Levine. Referring to Levine as she presents herself is harding a "new left-wing rule about gender" -- it's just common courtesy and n ot being a jerk. And Christy said nothing about the chilling effect Trump's demand on Twitter has on free speech.
Paetin Iselin rehashed all of these talking points, as well as the MRC's election conspiracy theory, in a Feb. 10 podcast, insisting that the story is still relevant. She didn't see any relevance in Trump demanding that Twitter censor Teigen, since she didn't mention that at all.
When a Chinese spy balloon was found to be flying over the U.S., CNSNews.com's instincts kicked in -- fearmonger about Israel and blame Biden. The first CNS article referencing the balloon, a Feb. 3 piece by Susan Jones, did the former:
As a Chinese spy balloon drifts over the United States, there are growing concerns down below about companies with ties to Communist China buying property and exerting influence all over the USA.
And it's not just American farmland: "Chinese-backed private equity are buying up boarding schools, private schools, and secondary education all over Florida, New York, California, from what we can tell," Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told "The Ingraham Angle" Thursday night.
CNS actually did what could be considered actual news articles on the balloon's progress:
When the balloon was ultimately shot down, CNS did an anonymously written article about it, followed by an article from Patrick Goodenough on China complaining about it as well as a timeline compiled by Jones. After that, it was Biden-bashing time with several articles featuring Republicans spouting off:
That talking point on how there were no Chiese spy balloons over the U.S. when Trump was president was an important one for CNS to promote -- but it didn't age well. When it was revealed that there were, in fact, Chinese spy balloons over the U.S. when Trump was president, A Feb. 7 article by Goodenough made sure to blame anyone but Trump:
The head of the U.S. military command responsible for countering airborne threats to North America said on Monday that it had not detected Chinese spy balloons that reportedly flew over the United States prior to last week’s incident.
Instead, those previous incursions had been discovered “after the fact” by the intelligence community using “additional means of [information] collection,” said Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command. He did not elaborate.
According to an official transcript of an off-camera briefing to Pentagon reporters, VanHerck attributed the fact that NORAD had not detected those earlier balloons to “a domain awareness gap.”
A senior defense official asserted at the weekend that, before last week’s incursion, Chinese surveillance balloons had flown briefly over the continental U.S. at least three times during the Trump administration, and at least once at the beginning of the Biden administration.
So important was it for CNS to not blame Trump for any of this that Susan Jones wrote a second version of this very same talking point a few hours later:
Gen. Glen VanHerck, the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Northern Command, told reporters on Monday the United States military failed to detect four earlier balloons sent either toward U.S. air space or into it.
"So those balloons, so every day as a NORAD commander it's my responsible to -- responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats.
"And that's a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out. But I don't want to go in further detail," VanHerck said at an off-camera briefing.
Oddly, Jones did not name Trump during her article, presumably to avoid having to admit these incidents did, in fact, ocur during his presidency.
An article by Melanie Arter did surprisingly give Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg space to explain that it would have been a bad idea to shoot down the balloon over populated U.S. land since the debris field it acreated when it was shot down off the South Carolina coast was seven miles long. But that was followed by an article from her featuring Ted Cruz (who employs the daughter of CNS editor Terry Jeffrey) giving backhanded praise to Biden for shooting the balloon down but having "allowed a full week for the Chinese to conduct spying operations over the United States" before doing so -- with no mention of the debris field it left.
This was followed by more attack articles, some featuring Democrats and some pushing more China-bashing:
The lone direct response to all of this that CNS allowed was an article by Jones quoting Biden saying that "any suggestion that he was derelict in his duty to shoot down a Chinese spy balloon before it traversed the United States is 'a bizarre notion.'"
'CNS opinion pieces -- which are ultimately not that different from its "news" coverage -- also attacked Biden over the balloon incident. James Carafano of the right-wing Heritage Foundation ranted in a Feb. 6 commentary:
What’s next? Could this happen again? Absolutely. I don’t think the Chinese are afraid of this administration.
The problem here, however, is much bigger than balloons. We need to understand what’s behind the balloons—what China is up to—and put a stop to it.
How concerning is this overall? This is a big problem because this is a big signal the Biden administration has no clue how to handle the China threat. It appears about as competent securing our airspace as it does securing our border.
A Feb. 8 column by Jeffrey obsessed over Chinese treatment of Muslim Uyghurs in the country, which he called a "genocide," trying to fold the balloon story into it:
President Biden's approach toward the government of Communist Chinese has changed — at least cosmetically — since that regime flew a spy balloon over the United States last week.
Secretary Blinken announced he was canceling his trip to China.
But will Biden now do anything about America's massive and mounting trade deficit with this regime that Biden's own administration says is engaging in genocide?
This is pretty much the only context in which CNS will ever talk about Muslims in a sympathetic way.
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.