Unlike With Kanye West, MRC Has No Problem Insisting Ilhan Omar Is 'Anti-Semitic' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserach Center was very reluctant to tag Kanye West as an anti-Semite or to admit that Donald Trump plays into anti-Semitic tropes (which wasn't helped by his dining with West and white supremacist Nick Fuentes). But while all that reluctance was going on, the MRC was more than happy to repeatedly attack Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar as anti-Semitic -- largely by portraying any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic without explaining why the two must be conflated. We've noted how the MRC's Mark Finkelstein tried to distract from Trump's embrace of anti-Semitic tropes by reciting right-wing talking points about how "Omar has a long history of anti-Israel/antisemitic statements. There was that notorious tweet in which she wrote: 'Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.' Her most infamous bit of classic antisemitism came when, directly pointing the finger at AIPAC, Omar claimed US support for Israel is 'all about the Benjamins baby.'"
Indeed, Omar has been a longtime MRC target for building a narrative of anti-Semitism around her. In February 2022, Curtis Houck complained that Stephen Colbert called out Florida gov. Ron DeSantis for not quickly denouncing neo-Nazis but "ignored DeSantis emphasizing how anti-Semitism is a scourge inside the left as they’ve chosen to include open anti-Semites in the halls of Congress like Ilhan Omar (MN). In an April 2022 post, Matt Philbin sneered when Omar called out right-wing Christian travelers who inflicted their religion on their fellow plane passengers by holding a loud prayer session: "It’s not just Jews. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn, doesn’t seem to like Christians much, either.
As the MRC was desperate to downplay the Kanye/Trump drama, it was quite eager to attack Omar's alleged anti-Semitism -- particularly as Republicans taking control of the House meant that they would purge designated Democratic enemies like Omar off committees. Nicholas Fondacaro raged in a Nov. 22 post when a co-host on "The View" defended her:
Up in arms that possible House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) promised to strip extremist Democrats of their committee assignments when/if he becomes speaker of the House, including Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, The View took to downplaying her rabid anti-Semitism on Tuesday and giving a full-throated defense of her anti-American comments comparing the United States to terrorist groups like Hamas and the Taliban.
Despite admitting that Omar had used disparaging tropes about the Jews and money, racist co-host Sunny Hostin whined that McCarthy’s repeated references to them were somehow harmful “tropes” against her. “She committed to learning more. We’ve never heard her say anything like that again,” she falsely declared, pointing to their midterm win percentages as a bizarre argument against McCarthy.
Hostin then tried to use her big brain to hint that McCarthy attacking Omar, a popular politician on the left, was somehow racist code for the Republican base:
So, I think it's very interesting that the people he chooses to attack are the very same people that he thinks his base wants attacked. That says something about where the Republican Party is today.
In recent months, co-host Sara Haines has become the only cast member willing to stand up to Hostin when she’s spewing nonsense. And she did it again in this instance as she called out how Omar had compared the U.S. and Israel to the terrorist organizations of Hamas and the Taliban.
Hostin and co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar immediately jumped to Omar’s defense arguing that what she said was true “depending on who you talk to”:
The Omar remark to which he's referring is so entrenched on the right that Fondacaro didn't feel the need to explain or elaborate. It comes from a 2021 remark in which she noted that "we have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban"; she later clarified to note that “I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."
Note that Fondacaro also does not dispute the accuracy of her statement but instead rushed to smear her as anti-Semitic for saying it; he also does not explain how it was "false" for Hostin to say Omar is "committed to learning more." (And, again, Fondacaro is maliciously smearing Hostin as a "racist" because he doesn't understand metaphors.)
Kevin Tober called Omar a "noted anti-Semite" in a Nov. 26 post, unironically linking to a 2019 NPR story on Omar's "criticism of Israel," thus again conflating any criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism (and blowing up the MRC's narrative about NPR being hopelessly biased). Jeffrey Lord gushed over McCarthy's plans in his column the same day:
The liberal media loved Pelosi for forcing the Republican Rep. [Marjorie Taylor] Greene off her committee assignments for, among other things, anti-Semitism. McCarthy warned of the precedent this would set, but he went unheeded.
Now McCarthy has turned the tables. Democrat Rep. Omar has been seriously accused -- as was Greene -- of anti-Semitism. Infamously Omar had written of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” An uproar ensued. On another occasion Omar had cited what she called “unthinkable atrocities committed by the US, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan and the Taliban.”
The MRC portrayed Greene as a victim because her anti-Semitism (Jewish space lasers, anyone?) and extremism was called out and even whined that she was being compared to Omar.
In his Dec. 3 column, Lord touted right-wing radio host Chris Salcedo playing whataboutism over Trump dining with Ye and Fuentes , highlihght that he delcared "Fuentes is every bit as anti-Semitic as 'AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Louis Farrakhan are.' For Trump to dine with Ye and Fuentes, he said, was just as bad as if he 'broke bread with Ilhan Omar, the leaders of BLM, or Linda Sarsour, or any leftwing Jew hater.'"
WND Spouts GOP Talking Points In 'News' Story Attacking Biden Address Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh wrote a Feb. 8 WorldNetDaily article under the headline "'Banal failure': Headlines pummel Biden's State of the Union":
It was the Washington Examiner that called Joe Biden's 2023 State of the Union address to the American public – those who watched it, "A banal failure of a State of the Union."
"The best thing that can be said about President Joe Biden's second State of the Union address last night is that a record-low number of people wasted their time watching it. It was a laundry list of nanny statism, promising that not even the tiniest detail of people's lives will be free from federal interference…"
Fox News said the 'top 5 moments" ranged from Biden being called a "LIAR" to an "awkward kiss."
That report admitted the speech was a "soft launch" to Biden's campaign for president in 2024, when he will be advanced into his 80s already.
The Daily Mail focused on Biden's lies, with the headline, "Biden repeats misleading claims he has created more jobs than any other president, has made the biggest deficit reduction in history and is responsible for lowering inflation during 'deluded' State of the Union address."
But Unruh failed to disclose the fact that all the outlets he cited to attack Biden's address are biased right-wing outlets predisposed to hating anything and everything Biden says -- you know, just like WND. Indeed, Unruh went on to present misleading Republican talking points as "news":
The "LIAR" epithet came when he "repeated an old Democratic talking point that has long been debunked by fact-checkers." He said Republicans want Medicare and Social Security "to sunset."
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., erupted with "LIAR!"
Biden immediately tried to backtrack, claiming, "It's being proposed by some of you."
Republicans have said they don't want to eliminate the programs, but want them under more strict scrutiny.
Biden also lied about the number of jobs he "created."
"Two years ago, our economy was reeling," Biden claimed. "As I stand here tonight, we have created a record 12 million new jobs, more jobs created in two years than any president has ever created in four years."
But the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that number is only 2.7 million, as the rest were lost during COVID-19.
Unruh didn't explain why that distinction matters -- a job is a job, and a job ceases to exist if it was "lost," meaning it must be created again.
Unruh went on to push another talking point: "Biden repeatedly claimed credit for bringing inflation down. It was 6.5% in December, down from 9.1% in June. But it was 1.4% when he took office, meaning any drop in inflation under his policies still is costing American families thousands of dollars more each year because of inflation his policies triggered." Unruh offered no evidence that Biden's policies are directly responsible for any rise in inflation.
Unruh waited until the very end of his story to cite a non-right-wing media outlet:
The leftist AP wrote sympathetically that Biden "exhorted Congress Tuesday night to work with him to 'finish the job' of rebuilding the economy…"
But it conceded that three-quarters of Americans say the nation now is on the wrong track, under Biden, and most Democrats don't want Biden as their candidate in 2024.
Unruh offered no evidence that the AP is "leftist" -- ironic, since he used to work for the AP before joining WND, where he could spread biased journalism in a way the AP wouldn't have let him do.
In continuing to publish such biased, factually deficient journalism, WND continues to do the same thing that caused the financial hole it has been stuck in for years.
MRC Slurs Man Fighting Racism As 'Racial Arsonist' Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck began a Jan. 30 Media Research Center post with a major snit:
Having spent multiple segments decrying the disturbing beating of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police earlier this month,CBS Mornings wound down Monday’s show by bringing in racial arsonist Ibram X. Kendi to fawn over his latest attempt to spread his poison about antiracism (and how black people are still subject to inequities in all facets of their lives by white oppressors) to teens.
“Coming up, New York Times bestselling author Ibram X. Kendi and Nic Stone will be here to talk about their book empowering young people to stand up against racism,” boasted co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King in one of two teases.
Of course, King wasn’t going to challenge his views on such things as calls for racism against non-black people, that white Americans still pose a threat of terrorism to black people, opposing teaching children to hate themselves and each other means you’re a KKK member, or a constitutional amendment to declare anything unconstitutional if it promotes “racial inequity.” And he’s somehow still with CBS despite calling Justice Amy Coney Barrett a “colonizer” for adopting two black children.
Note that three paragraphs in, Houck is still attacking Kendi with right-wing talking points and has not addressed the actual segment. He seems to have missed the fact that the Buffalo massacre, which was specifically about a white man murdering black people, is clear evidence that"white Americans still pose a threat of terrorism to black people." Houck's charge that Kendi favors "racism against non-black people" links to a right-wing attack piece on him in National Review, which used to argue in favor of racial segregation. Houck's remark about " teaching children to hate themselves and each other" is channeling what right-wingers like himself have been indoctrinated to believe critical race theory is. And Houck doesn't explain why Kendi's call to eradicate laws that promote racial equality is a bad thing; instead, he linked to a right-wing Federalist piece that bizarrely attacked Kendi's proposal as "openly totalitarian" and "would unleash a Woke Gestapo on society." Houck apparently beleives such obviously incendiary language is not the work of a "racial arsonist."
Finally, Houck got around to the matter at hand, which was Kendi appearing on CBS to promote an adaptation of his book "How To Be An Anti-Racist" for teenagers, which he did by pedentaically attacking a statistic he cited:
Kendi replied that “black people have among the lowest life expectancy in the United States” and “police violence” is to blame because it’s “one of the leading causes of death for young black men.”In turn, he’s merely speaking out in hopes “black people” can “live and racism” will “die.”
Fact-check: Pants on fire.
According to the CDC, the top five causes of death for “non-Hispanic black” “male[s]” from 1-19 years are as follows: “Homicide” (so not necessarily police, but could include black-on-black crime), “unintentional injuries,” “chronic lower respiratory disease,” “suicide,” and “cancer.” For 20-44, all causes were the same except third place was changed to “heart disease.”
Houck is being dishonest here, because offered no evidence the CDC lists "police violence" as a category. Meanwhile, a study by three universities that did take it into account found that use of force by police was the sixth-leading cause of death of young Black men. In other words, Kendi is right and Houck is wrong.
Houck concluded by touting more National Review hit jobs on Kendi, oblivious to the fact that the publication was an advocate for racial segregation.And Houck never explained what, exactly, makes Kendi a "racial arsonist."
UPDATE: It was Alex Christy's turn to complain about Kendi in a post the next day:
Ibram Kendi took his book tour to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Monday night and in the least shocking development ever, called his critics racist for not agreeing with his redefinition of the word racist.
After [host D.L.] Hughley asked for that new definition, Stone continued, “racism is a system of ideas -- you have racist ideas and basically, they are made to keep inequities going, right?”
On this definition, Kendi added, “Because one of the things that happens is, people who have historically been racist refuse to define that term because it allows them to exonerate themselves.”
Or maybe that definition is wrong. Simply looking at statistics, seeing a difference, and then claiming racism is junk science. But being wrong isn’t enough for Kendi, he has to call anyone who calls him out on his reductionism and politicized language a racist.
Of course, given that similar previous statistical difference between races have been proven to be racist in nature, there's little reason not to consider that possiiblity now.
CNS Finds Exorcists To Push Right-Wing Talking Points Topic: CNSNews.com
As its publication of Michael Orsi shows, CNSNews.com is not afraid to exploit Catholic teachings to push right-wing talking points -- not surprising, given that the people who run it think they're more Catholic than the pope. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman has even taking to citing Catholic exorcists to push those narratives. He wrote in a Dec. 5 article:
Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, a licensed psychologist and exorcist for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., said in a recent interview that a pornography addiction, "like any serious sin, is an opening to the demonic," which can "distort a person's sexuality."
Msgr. Rossetti, 71, has worked as a licensed psychologist for 30 years. He is a priest with the Diocese of Syracuse and has been an exorcist with the Washington Archdiocese for more than 15 years.
In a Dec. 1 interview with the Catholic News Agency, Rossetti said, “A pornography addiction, like any serious sin, is an opening to the demonic. It is never a good thing to exploit people as sexual objects, which the porn industry does."
Chapman moved to a different exorcist who more closely repeated current right-wing narratives in a Jan. 9 article:
In his Jan. 8 sermon on the family, Fr. Chad Ripperger, a Catholic priest and exorcist, explained that "transgenderism" is a direct attack "on "motherhood," and added that "the entire feminist movement is an assault on motherhood."
Fr. Ripperger spoke at St. Mary of Pine Bluff Catholic Church in Madison, Wisc.
While discussing marriage and how it is under constant attack by our culture, Fr. Ripperger said, “Things like transgenderism is a full-blown attack against motherhood. People usually don’t put it together. Why is it [an attack on motherhood]?"
"Well, because any woman who goes through a transgender operation can’t bear children anymore," he said. "And any guy who becomes a woman – at least by the modern technology – he’s not having any kids."
"In point of fact, the entire feminist movement is an assault on motherhood, which is frankly one of the most sublime and magnificent offices that God ever created," said the priest.
In his Jan. 8 sermon on the Holy Family and the necessity of marriage in civil society, Fr. Chad Ripperger, a Catholic priest and exorcist, defined what marriage is and dismissed "gay marriage" as an "abomination," a "disordered" practice for which God will punish us.
Fr. Ripperger spoke at St. Mary of Pine Bluff Catholic Church in Madison, Wisc.
Today, "there’s a complete, all-out assault on the very nature of marriage," said Fr. Ripperger. "The definition of marriage is that it’s a solemn contract between a man and a woman for the sake of having children. The primary end is having children. That’s what it is ordered towards."
“This is something which, unfortunately, has not been understood today,"' he added. "People think marriage is just a license to engage in the conjugal act. But that’s not what we are talking about here."
"The fact that there is gay marriage – perhaps put marriage in quotes because it’s not true marriage -- it doesn’t meet the definition of marriage," he said. "It’s an abomination. There’s no way that God isn’t going to afflict us in some manner, as a result of taking on something that is that disordered."
"In fact, their acts are so disordered that St. Catherine of Siena said that even the demons find it repulsive," said Fr. Ripperger. "And yet today it’s glorified."
In her writings, St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) claimed that Jesus Christ Himself had remarked pitifully on some of the clergy who had engaged in homosexual behavior.
"Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they [practicing homosexuals] do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves," she wrote. "For this not only causes Me [Christ] nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords."
The MRC has kept up those defense efforts over the past several months, attacking anyone who would dare to criticize the channel and its bias. A May 18 post by Alex Christy attacked a former Fox News correspondent for arguing that people like Tucker Carlson could be imprisoned for spouting replacement theory conspiracies that the racist Buffalo massacre:
Former Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron joined MSNBC Deadline: White House on Tuesday to discuss the aftermath of the mass shooting in Buffalo by a white supremacist. According to Cameron, it is time to consider throwing certain, current Fox personalities in jail.
Thankfully for Fox, the First Amendment will protect them from people like Cameron. Luckily, for MSNBC that same First Amendment also protects them from people like Cameron who want to be the final arbiters of what is and is not misinformation.
Of course, the MRC defended Carlson and insisted that replacement theory wasn't racist and was a conspiracy. Three days later, Christy complained that "Cameron was at it again, suggesting Tucker Carlson has lost his First Amendment rights and that Fox should be deplatormed," grousing further that he "tied Fox to foreign disinformation campaigns." Christy failed to mention that Carlson is very much a pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine propagandist.
On June 13, Tim Graham whined that NPR reported on an effort to discourage advertisers from using Fox News:
National Public Radio has made it clear over the years that it despises Fox News. On June 9, the morning before the primetime Pelosi Panel hearing, Morning Edition promoted a radical leftist group of censors that wants Fox News beheaded. Of course, NPR never called them "leftist" or anything ideological on air as they aim to starve Fox News of digital ads. (The online story uses "left-leaning" in paragraph nine.)
Depriving the conservative media of any revenue is simply another day for "democracy" at NPR.
Graham didn't disclose that the MRC runs a very similar operation designed to deprive non-conservative media of revenue, and he sure didn't describing as an attack on democracy.
After an hour of marketing his own aggressive brand of no-holds-barred progressivism, MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan decided to conclude his eponymous Sunday evening show with a snide and staged exchange with fellow radical Ayman Mohyeldin, comparing Fox News to state-run Middle Eastern propaganda networks.
Hasan began by asking Mohyeldin, “Do we have midterm elections coming up?” He then played a series of clips from Fox News from the past week warning of the large migrant caravan making its way to the U.S. southern border.
After the montage, Hasan snarkily proclaimed: “Yes, if it's a midterm year, it has to be a migrant caravan year,” insinuating Fox would not have covered the story if the midterm elections weren’t fast approaching.
There’s no doubt that Fox News is right-leaning, but to pretend that the Republican Party is a monolithic ruling class — within the D.C. Beltway or without — is patent nonsense. And on the topic of state-run media, didn’t both Hasan and Mohyeldin previously work for the Qatari-funded Al-Jazeera?
Note that Moorehouse would only condede that Fox News is "right-leaning" while attacking both Hasan and Moyheldin as "radical" based on nothing more than merely criticizing Fox News and, apparently, sharing a certain previous employer.
In an Oct. 12 post, Christy got mad that late-night host Seth Meyers called out Fox News fearmongering over inflation, desperately playing whataboutism in response: "It was notable that Meyers did not go after any of the Air Heads on CNN or MSNBC and their embrace of the Democratic agenda, which is sad considering CNN thinks Dum Dums are anyone who opposed The 1619 Project." When MSNBC commentator David Jolly simiarly called out Fox anti-government fearmongering -- calling it heroin in the veins of Fox News viewers-- Mark Finkelstein ranted in a Jan. 7 post:
But, as seems apparent, if the FBI and other government agencies conspired with Big Tech and other media to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, and silence the voices of conservatives, using Twitter and other social media platforms as their cats' paws, then those agencies have shredded their own integrity. That needs to be exposed so that necessary reforms can be made.
Jolly is in essence calling for a cover-up of those abuses.
Christy played Fox defender yet again in a Feb. 11 post:
MSNBC’s host of The 11th Hour Stephanie Ruhle was not happy that Fox News reacted to President Biden’s State of the Union by calling him a liar and to help her in her quest against this narrative, she welcomed professional Fox News watcher Juliet Jeske to claim Fox viewers are in a “cult” who need “deprogramming”
Those creepy remarks came after Ruhle wondered why Jeske does what she does, “So, the work that you're doing is, obviously, interesting to someone like me and my audience, but that Fox News audience. That right-wing audience, is that who you're trying to get to?”
For Jeske, it is not Fox viewers, but:
Friends, families, coworkers, and colleagues of people who are already deeply entrenched in Fox. Number one, to prevent them from getting sucked in. To help them navigate dealing with someone who's in that cult mentality because I would call it a cult and to help them figure out why their relatives and loved ones are saying these things and deprogramming someone or deradicalizing them is a very difficult and long situation to go through.
Ruhle wanted to focus in on that claim [that Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare], “I mean for fact's sake, yesterday, the president himself went down to Florida and word for word, read from Rick Scott's plan. So, explain to me how they keep pushing these lies to their audience? A, did they not have a legal and standards department? And B, like, what gives? Their audience is just going to believe this?”
Jeske then claimed Fox has “absolutely no shame. They'll say whatever they need to say to promote their agenda and mostly through lying by omission, like leaving out stories completely.”
Lying by omission is exactly what Biden, Ruhle, and Jeske did when they ignored that Republicans leaders have said that cuts to those programs are not on the table.
Newsmax Obsessed Over Biden Classified Documents Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax aggressively defended Donald Trump following the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate to retrive classified documents he stole (after months of refusal to cooperate on the matter). So when it was revealed that classified documents were found at properties used by Joe Biden after his vice presidency but before he became president, Newsmax unsurprisingly went all in on attacking him. Here are some of the articles it published just in the first week of the story:
That's 37 articles in the first week of the story, for those counting at home.
There were opinion pieces as well. A Jan. 13 column by Michael Dorstewitz rehashed much of what Newsmax had already reported while also defending Trump, insisting that "the records in Trump’s possession were covered under the Presidential Records Act, and he had the power to declassify those records. As vice president Biden had no such power, and there’s no 'Vice Presidential Records Act' for him to fall back on." Again, vice presidents do have declassification powers. Larry Bell pushed the same falsehood to protect Trump in a column the same day:
If you imagined that the Aug. 8 FBI/DOJ raid on Donald Trump’s private residence at Mar-a-Lago was truly over secret documents as part of an undisclosed “criminal investigation,” let’s see if a belated report of multiple illegal stashes of Joe Biden’s classified materials dating to his time as vice president between 2013-2016 receives comparable legal culpability zeal.
There is a big legal difference between former President Trump’s private possession of classified documents which he had full authority to declassify, versus Joe Biden’s removal of such materials as vice president with no such license.
Bell concluded by whining, "Don’t count on an armed raid on Jill Biden’s wardrobe closet as happened to former first lady Melania Trump any time soon." He forgot to mention that Trump's failure to cooperate is the direct cause of the raid.
Anti-LGBT Activist LaBarbera Now A 'Reporter' For WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
It appears that the right-wing grift of hating LGBT people is not as lucrative as it one was. In a sign of desperation on at least one party, Peter LaBarbera, the founder of the anti-LGBT organization Americans For Truth About Homosexuality -- which has promoted numerous falsehoods about LGBT people -- is now working as a reporter at WorldNetDaily (which of course, hate LGBT people at least as much as LaBarbera does). It says certain things about WND that it would hire a known liar as a reporter -- namely that WND's brand of "journalism" is decidedly untrustworthy -- but it also shows that AFTAH is no longer paying the bills for LaBarbera. Of course, WND's finances are pretty shaky too right now, so it's unclear if LaBarbera is even making much money doing this.
He proclaimed himself to be "a Washington political animal in a 1996 Washington Post article -- which means he's not a journalist, despite his claiming such credentials in his WND bio by noting he was once a reporter for the Washington Times (never mind that working for Moonies isn't exactly a credibility-enhancer). Indeed, all the other biographical details listed are of activism, not journalism, which says activism will come first here too.
Given LaBarbera's obsession with hating LGBT people, it's no surprise that a significant number of the articles he has written at WND have been about bashing them. His very first "news" article, on Dec. 28, was filled with transphobic attacks, particularly against Biden administration official Rachel Levine:
President Biden’s top transgender-activist appointee says body-altering “gender-affirming care” for people attempting to live as the opposite sex is “not in scientific or medical dispute,” and is urging doctors to work with Big Tech companies to effectively help eradicate such “disinformation.”
In a newly surfaced video, Dr. Rachel Levine, formerly Dr. Richard Levine, describes the “onslaught” of conservative “anti-LGBTQI+” state legislative efforts, which mainly oppose the transgender youth agenda, as “dangerous to the public health.” He says there is “substantial misinformation” surrounding the issue and looks to tech giants to partner with health professionals “to create a healthier, cleaner, information environment."
Levine’s remarks touched off a cascade of criticism in social media: “Not in dispute. This is a lie,” tweeted one Belfast critic, who linked to a post about a leading Swedish hospital that banned “puberty blockers” and cross-sex hormones for minors in 2021.
Levine, appointed by Biden as assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, is hailed by LGBT activists as the first openly “transgender” presidential appointee to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Born male and having attended an all-boys school, Levine married a woman, psychiatrist Martha Peaslee, and fathered a boy and a girl before “transitioning” to his current “trans woman” identity. His radical “trans-formation” left his children without the normal, male-identified dad they grew up with, and he divorced Peaslee after 25 year of marriage in 2013.
The combination of the portly Levine’s aggressive trans advocacy and his decidedly masculine facial features, along with his long, flowing blond hair, has made him a prime target for conservatives and allied feminists.
In 2021, the Harvard-educated pediatrician was sworn in as an admiral in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, in what the Washington Post celebrated as the "first-ever female" four-star admiral – even though Levine is a biological man. It was from this platform that he made his remarks about "gender-affirming care" for young people.
His second article, published the next day, uncritically touted the homophobia of Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik:
Chaya Raichik, the conservative woman behind the hugely popular "Libs of TikTok" Twitter account that exposes "groomers" of innocent children using activist-teachers' own video recordings, has entered a new stage in her fight for American culture by revealing her face and identity to the world.
Eight months after being "doxxed" by a Washington Post hit-piece that revealed her name and exposed her private address, Raichik sat down for an hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson on his eponymous show on the Fox Nation streaming site. In the exchange, which aired Tuesday, Raichik explained the powerful, dark forces that are leading many children (and their parents) down the road of transgenderism, which she said was part of a larger LGBT "cult."
LaBarbera then attacked the Washington Post article that exposed Raichik as the account's creator:
The two discussed how the April hit-piece by Washington Post writer Taylor Lorentz "doxxing" Raichik (a link in the piece exposed her private address before it was taken down) actually propelled Libs of TikTok to greater popularity and influence.
The blatantly biased Post article, which relies heavily on the left-wing press watchdog Media Matters, attempts to cast Libs of TikTok ominously as "an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse" largely responsible for "the recent push in legislation and rhetoric directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community."
LaBarbera identified no falsehoods in the Post article, nor did he explain how an article that he could find no falsehoods in could possibly be "blatantly biased."
LaBarbera spent a Jan. 3 "news" article raging that LGBTQ+ issues received funding under an omnibus spending bill:
Thanks to Republican support for a newly passed $1.7 trillion omnibus federal spending bill, American taxpayers are funding left-leaning LGBT organizations across the country, including those that promote deviant sex to youth, teach biased "gay history" to kids, and lobby for letting biological boys use girls' restrooms and locker rooms in schools.
The Washington Stand reported that the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill — backed by 18 GOP senators and signed into law December 30 by President Biden — contains $11 million in LGBT funding, included the following homosexual- and transgender-related earmarks (specific spending requests) by Democrat lawmakers:
LaBarbera went on to attack the LGBT Center in New York City because it received funding and for a Keith Haring art piece it possesses:
The Center touts its programs serving youth, but like many gay/trans organizations and events—such as sexually-charged LGBT "Pride" parades across the world, which are attended by many young children—it subjects them to the excesses and immorality of a lifestyle centered on aberrant sexual "liberation."
The LGBT Center's partially pornographic "art" collection, displayed throughout the building, is a case in point. Among the works widely touted by New York City's art enthusiasts is a mural painted by homosexual artist Keith Haring on the walls of what once second-floor bathroom (it is now a meeting room). Haring's wall art consists of dozens of cartoonish, squiggly line drawings mainly of male phalluses, in various acts of faceless "sodomy" and stimulation.
The mural, which Haring called "One Upon a Time," depicts "the pre-1981 days of freewheeling [gay] sex," prior to the AIDS crisis, according to a sympathetic review by Alexander McQuilkin on the "untapped cities" website. Ironically, within months of completing the orgiastic bathroom drawing, Haring, just 31 years old, himself died of AIDS, a casualty of the "freewheeling sex" he had evidently practiced and celebrated.
LaBarbera also ranted about funding going to a new LGBT museum: "In reality, the museum's operation is sure to be deeply political (a leftist interpretation of "social justice") as the gay and transgender movements are based on a negation of Judeo-Christian morality."
A Jan. 11 article by LaBarbera deliberately misinterpreted a description of a medical school course to maliciously claim that the school believes infants are "queer":
Did you know a newborn baby could be "queer" right out of the womb? How about "asexual" or "transgender"?
A new College Fix report uncovers a reccurring Harvard Medical School course that offers "clinical exposure and education" focusing on "serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults."
The course is offered at Massachusetts General Hospital, which offers “gender-affirming surgical procedures” for ages 18 and up, according to the report. Translation: MGH performs transgender operations such as removing the healthy breasts of women who seek such mutilating "surgeries" as part of their quest to live as "men," i.e., to match their perceived "gender identity."
The anti-LGBT hate masquerading as "news" continued in other LaBarbera articles:
He wrote in a Jan. 16 article that "The United States is the most permissive country in the world in allowing children to pursue extreme transgender "transitions" such as puberty blockers and "surgeries" removing young women's healthy breasts," based on a report by right-wing group Do No Harm, whose ideology he didn't disclose.
He rated in a Jan. 25 article that "Another leftist indoctrination video has surfaced showing a trans-identified day-care instructor using a gender-neutral doll to teach four-and five-year-old children to accept the identity 'non-binary' as an alternative to 'boy' or 'girl.'"
He spent a Feb. 2 article touting how Donald Trump would "mobilize the full power of the presidency and federal government against gender-transition 'mutilations' of children and 'left-wing gender insanity' in schools, should he win the White House again."
He similarly gushed in a Feb. 7 article how "Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt received two standing ovations Monday from the state's lawmakers as he called on them to send him a bill banning mutilating 'gender transition surgeries' and transgender hormone 'therapies' performed on minor children in the state."
In a Feb. 9 article, LaBarbera huffed that "Every single Democrat in the Virginia House of Delegates voted against a 'common sense' bill that would require schools to notify parents if their child is 'self-identifying as a gender different from the student's biological sex,'" but he waited until the 16th paragraph of his article to actually quote anyone speaking in opposition -- then smearing her because she is a transgender legislator:
Leading the charge against HB 2432 was biological male, self-styled "trans woman" and LGBT activist Virginia Delegate Danica Roem, D, Prince William County. Speaking on the House floor, Roem angrily called it a "reckless" bill that would drive "transgender" kids with unsupportive parents into homelessness. He said the bill "deals with forcibly outing trans kids" and scolded the body's Republicans: "You have no idea the harm you're causing."
That's the only paragraph in LaBarbera's 25-paragraph article that actually quotes opposition -- the rest promote the bill.
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Given that WND's current financial crisis is caused in large part to its longtime embrace of fake news and conspiracy theories, it's unclear why WND thinks its situation will improve by the hiring of which a highly biase and hate-filled activist pretending to be a "reporter" like LaBarbera.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade: Election Division Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center effectively served as part of the campaign PR operation for GOP Florida governor Ron DeSantis as he ran for re-election, hyping his dubious election-cop operation and bashing his critics. Read more >>
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, something that is 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 up 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.)