MRC Helps Babylon Bee CEO Promote Right-Wing Victimhood Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long beena partner with right-wing "satire" site the Babylon Bee in manfacturing victimhood for it, mostly over its purported "satire" getting fact-checked (but hiding the fact that this is because right-wingers promote the "satire" as reality). As the Bee continued to punch down at targets (particularly LGBT people and issues) and gottten progressively meaner and forgetting the point of satire is to be funny and not just own the libs, the MRC's admiration only increased; it cheered in November when Elon Musk restored the Bee's Twitter account, which had bee suspended for a fit of hatefulness when it proclaimed transgender Biden official Rachel Levine "man of the year." That was followed by a post from Clay Waters hyping the "comedic post" and complaining others didn't see this as a "victory for free expression."
Now the MRC is giving the Babylon Bee's CEO, Seth Dillon, space to rant about being a victim. Catherine Salgado wrote in a Feb. 27 post:
Libs hate exposés of woke leftists, and Slack is apparently caving to the outcries. Slack suspended the work channel of popular Twitter account Libs of TikTok but has not clarified why.
Libs of TikTok’s creator Chaya Raichik was suspended by Slack as of Feb. 24. While Slack’s justification was vague, Raichik tweeted that her work to expose the radical LGBTQ agenda and sexual content being pushed on kids by leftists was behind the suspension.
Libs of TikTok retweeted Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon’s Feb. 25 tweet of a screenshot from a Slack email. “We are writing to let you know that we have suspended your workspace, lott-chat.slack.com, for violations of our Acceptable Use Policy,” the purported email said.
Salgado didn't ask why the Babylon Bee is involving itself in the affairs of the evenmore hateful Libs of TikTok. In fact, Dillon is entered into a deal with Raichik “that will turn her heroic, high-risk work into a career.” As if spewing hate at people is "high-risk work."
Renata Kiss gave Dillon space to whine in a March 6 post:
Seth Dillon hit the nail on the head when he called out hypocritical defenses of online COVID-19 censorship.
Seth Dillon, CEO of the satire site The Babylon Bee, smashed the liberal logic of censoring COVID-19 content. He pointed out in a tweet Thursday that the continuously shifting goal posts for so-called misinformation are no excuse for censorship.
“I've been told that censorship of COVID ‘misinformation’ that later turned out to be true was justified because it was based on what we knew at the time. But that's not a defense of censorship. In fact, it's a knock-down argument against it,” he said.
Dillon highlighted that rapidly changing knowledge and growing scientific discovery illustrate the need for open debate not more censorship.
Luis Cornelio was the stenographer for Dillon's rage in a March 17 post:
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon ripped the real intent behind the leftist censorship in a fiery but mostly peaceful tweet.
“Let's not forget that the lovers of censorship are not actually concerned with stopping the spread of misinformation,” tweeted Dillon on Mar. 16 in response to Twitter owner Elon Musk’s suggestion on how to fight “misinformation.” “Best way to fight misinformation is to respond with accurate information, not censorship,” tweeted Musk.
The major problem with Musk’s assertion, as Dillon wrote, is not that leftists are concerned about misinformation per se. Instead, their goal is to suppress opposing information whether it in fact is misinformation or not. “Their goal is to advance a narrative (often false or misleading) without opposition. Censorship guards the narrative, not the truth. This is why they angrily and forcefully reject the most effective way to get to the truth, which is open, uncensored debate,” said Dillon.
If right-wingers like Dillon care about factual information, why did Cornelio put "misinformation" in scare quotes?
Dillon then had the opportunity to grandstand at a congressional hearing, and Cornelio dutifully wrote it down in a March 29 post:
The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon exposed the dangers of Big Tech censorship and the importance of free speech in a passionate speech before the House of Representatives.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce hosted a hearing on March 28 titled “Preserving Free Speech and Reining in Big Tech Censorship,” where Seth Dillon unloaded the real intent behind the anti-free speech left. Dillon said:
“We learned the hard way that censorship guards the narrative, not the truth. In fact, it guards the narrative at the expense of the truth.”
Dillon detailed how his satirical site, The Babylon Bee, has faced an onslaught of censorship, ultimately hindering the site’s reach. Dillon explained:
“Our experience with Big Tech censorship dates back to 2018 when Facebook started working with fact checkers to crack down on the spread of misinformation. [...] Since then our jokes have been repeatedly fact-checked, flagged for hate speech and removed for incitement of violence, resulting in a string of warnings and a drastic reduction in our reach.”
Dillon apparently didn't the Republican-controlled hearing that the fact-checks occurred because some people treated the "satire" as real. (And if Dillon cares as much about accurate information as he claims he does, why is he whining that what the Bee publishes is being fact-checked?) Dillon then tried to defend his hatred of Levine:
“Last year we made a joke about Rachel Levine, a transgender Health Admiral in the Biden Administration. USA Today had named Levine ‘Woman of the Year’, so we fired back in defense of women's sanity with this satirical headline, ‘The Babylon Bee’s Man of the Year is Rachel Levine.’ Twitter was not amused. They locked our account for hateful conduct and we spent the next eight months in Twitter jail.”
If you're trying to make a partisan argument about "women's sanity," whatever that means, you're not being funny.
Cornelio went on to gush that "Dillon is a vocal supporter of free speech in America and has repeated concerns about the dangers of muzzling conservative voices." Apparently, it's cool if voices Dillon doesn't like are muzzled, and he would very much like it if right-wing narratives prevailed even at the expense of the truth (which is why he doesn't like fact-checkers).
An apologist is a person who argues in defense of someone who is under attack and can't defend himself. Every defense lawyer in civil and criminal law is one, preserving the fundamental right to a fair trial that is otherwise impossible when only the prosecution is allowed to speak, such as in the case of Vladimir Putin. But I don't defend Putin only because he, like every other human being, deserves the fair hearing he has so far been denied. I do it because I am trained in Christian Apologetics to defend the far more important biblical mandate of truth-telling.
Based on my own due diligence, I believe Vladimir Putin is legally and ethically in the right in the matter of Russia's "Special Military Operation" (a position I explained last March in my essay on Putin talking points and the Monroe Doctrine) and that both the U.S./U.K. deep state that orchestrated the war, and the controlled liberal and neo-con media spoon feeding its propaganda to the American people, are as thoroughly dishonest as the devil himself. Thus, as a truth-loving Christian attorney, I would not hesitate to take the role of Putin's defense counsel in the matter of the Ukraine war and, if the trial court were a genuinely just venue where all the facts and evidence (the heart of which is well summarized and documented here) could be fairly presented to a truly impartial jury, I would be highly confident in victory for my client.
This is not to deny that Ukraine has become hell on earth for the Ukrainian people – whom I dearly love in Christ, grieve for and have personally ministered to on a mission trip there and in other contexts. The issue is who is actually responsible for first unleashing that hell and then preventing Germany, France and Israel from ending it in the early stages, using Boris Johnson as their hatchet-man. The chief culprits are the OBiden (Obama-Biden) regime and its RINO co-conspirators, whose vast criminal operations there might otherwise be exposed and punished.
Saying these things is risky business these days, and I have lost some supporters over this issue, but I fear the spiritual consequences of condoning and repeating lies and slander more than the worldly consequences of defying deep-state bullies demanding and coercing allegiance to false narratives. I'd rather be John and Baptist than Pontius Pilate. And I am ashamed for the church that so many "virtue signaling" Christians – even when rightly opposing U.S. involvement in Ukraine – willingly throw Putin and the Russians under the bus while letting the actual culprits (the true enemies of everything we hold dear) off the hook.
Those "facts and evidence" Lively claimed to have was merely a repetition of Russian propaganda that Ukraine provoked Russia's invasion by bombing the Donbas region of the country where many ethnic Russians live -- a claim that lacks evidence. Lively then went further into conspiracy theory territory:
American foreign policy has been run by demons for decades, even under Trump who never had anything more than nominal control of the Departments of State and Defense or their intelligence arms. And now we're on the verge of WWIII, intentionally, to ensure their Great Collapse will set the stage for the Great Reset in furtherance of the globalists' Agenda 2030.
Just as the State Department telegraphed its plan to blow up Nord Stream 2, OBiden announced that sending tanks to his puppet Zelensky would trigger WWIII … and now they're in shipment with great fanfare. But for those of us who have been monitoring the war while ignoring the "Ukraine can win this!" controlled-media spin, the equipment escalation seems too obviously too little too late to be an actual battlefield strategy for the Donbass line where the victory of the now heavily mobilized Russian forces is a virtually foregone conclusion. And the new war narrative accompanying all of this has the feel of a child's mystery novel or treasure map with the clues highlighted and underlined so there's no chance that the plebes will wander off the path of discovery.
Lively went on to claim without evidence that crazy QAnon guy Mike Flynn's "famous phone call that triggered Obama's fury and intensive lawfare against him" to Putin actually worked to deter war, baselessly claiming that as a result "Russia turned from a table-pounding threat to expel American diplomats, to Putin himself magnanimously inviting the children of those diplomats to join his holiday celebrations, killing the Obama plan."
Lively served up more conspiracy-mongering regarding Russia and Ukraine in his Feb. 27 column:
"'Cui bono?' (Classical Latin), in English 'to whom is it a benefit?' is a Latin phrase about identifying crime suspects. It expresses the view that crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators, especially financially" (Wikipedia).
"Cui bono?" asked Vladimir Putin rhetorically after the Nord Stream 2 was sabotaged. We all know "OBiden" did it – but knowing and proving are not the same. Both Victoria Nuland and putative President Biden as much as threatened to do it. Legendary journalist Seymour Hersh pretty convincingly confirmed it.
In fact, Hersh's claim is based on a single anonymous source -- hardly convincing. Lively then argued there was some kind of plot "to drive the newly re-Christianized, Marxism-rejecting Russia into the arms of staunchly Communist China." And, of course, he bashes "globalists" who purportedly hate "the Judeo-Christian cultural ideals that both pre-Obama (now MAGA) America and post-Soviet Russia share."
MRC's Anti-Abortion Extremist Again Pushes Argument That Abortion Is A Thought Crime Topic: Media Research Center
Last year, the Media Research Center's top anti-abortion extremist, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, had a freakout when Chrissy Teigen said that her miscarriage was really an abortion, essentially arguing that an abortion is a thought crime -- if you're having the procedure for the right reasons, it's not actually an abortion. Mandelburg had another freakout -- albeit in the defense of a right-wing activist's procedure that she claimed was a miscarriage and other observers say was an abortion -- in a Feb. 28 post:
If your grandma is getting oxygen fed through a tube to help her breathe, but then her heart stops beating and she dies, removing the oxygen tube will not kill her. She’s already dead. Same goes if a baby dies in utero and is later removed. The removal of her body doesn’t kill her, she’s already dead.
That’s unfortunately what happened to popular figure Jessa Seewald, formerly known as Jessa Duggar, part of the 19 Kids and Counting reality series on TLC. Seewald and her husband lost their child due to a miscarriage over the Christmas season and needed to pass the baby with a Dilation & Curettage (D&C) procedure. While the child was dead before his or her removal from the womb, internet trolls and the media are spreading the lie that Seewald had an abortion.
The Seewalds recently broke the news that their fifth child died in the womb in a video called “Heartbreak Over the Holidays” on their YouTube channel. It was a raw, real-life, update in which Jessa told of finding out she’d lost the baby. She said she relied on the Bible, specifically the parts about Job, to remember that even in all of the hardship of losing her child, God is still good.
In her video she said that she doesn’t regret telling her children that she was pregnant because “even the short life this baby lived did bring so much joy to our home.” She added “even through it all, even through all the struggles we can say, ‘God is good. He loves us. He cares for us.’ I have felt His presence, I have felt His peace, even in the midst of a storm.”
Relying on God is common for the openly Christian family and pro-life family. Unfortunately, some tried using the devastating loss of their child to push in support of abortion.
These people are demonic.
That's right -- if you disagree with Mandelburg and Seewald, you're "demonic." Also, Mandelburg failed to mention that the main reason the "19 Kids and Counting" franchise tanked is because Jessa's brother is a creepy perv.
Mandelburg cited how "some people who actually know what they’re talking about came to Seewald’s defense," though they were fellow anti-abortion activists, one of them hiding behind a fake name.The other, activist Allie Beth Stuckey, insisted that "A D&C after a miscarriage is not an abortion and is not restricted in any way by any new pro-life laws in any state" -- despite the fact that many anti-abortion laws are so vaguely written it's unclear under exactly what circumstances a surgical prodecure is permitted -- then cited a Bible verse smearing anyone who disagreed with her as being "of your father devil."
She then quoted Seewald playing the thought-crime defense: "There's a world of difference between someone dying and someone being killed. To equate one to the other— and to a mother grieving the loss of her baby no less— is severely distasteful. There is a world of difference between a mortician and a murderer. Even a child understands the difference between the two." Mandelburg concluded by huffing: "It really is a shame that the left is using the Seewalds heartbreaking loss to try to justify more babies being killed. They didn’t want their child to die. Abortion supporters do."
Mandelburg is aligning herself with people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is not just wrong but evil. Can one have a civil conversation with demagogic absolutists like these?
NEW ARTICLE: WND Exploits A Tragedy To Push Conspiracy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
While WorldNetDaily used the on-field collapse of NFL player Damar Hamlin to promote the power of prayer, it also cynically hyped the never-proven claim that the collapse was caused by a COVID vaccine. Read more >>
MRC Continues Its PR Work For Musk Topic: Media Research Center
Because the Media Research Center is a PR agent for Elon Musk, it's not going to tell you about the repeated outages on the site since he fired most of its employees, or that he publicly mocked a disabled employee who wasn't sure if he still had a job (he was eventually shamed into apologizing to the guy and inviting him to keep working for Twitter). And it's certainly not going to tell you that anti-Semitic content on Twitter has increased since he bought the platform. Butthere was another "Twitter files" selective release to tout, and Catheroine Salgado did the PR duties in a March 17 post:
Twitter actually censored true content to protect trust in supposed “authoritative sources” like ex-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, according to installment nineteen of The Twitter Files.
Journalist Matt Taibbi exposes in what he called “The Great Covid-19 Lie machine,” which consisted of a combination of tyrannical government agencies, Stanford University’s Virality Project (VP) “and a slew of (often state-funded) NGOs” monitoring social media companies to censor COVID-19 content. These groups worked, often in a concerted effort, to suppress content that promoted natural immunity, critiqued the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine passports and that pointed out breakthrough cases in those that had received COVID-19 vaccinations. Some of the content that was censored not only turned out to be true in retrospect, but was admittedly determined to be true by the very groups involved in suppressing the content. As Taibbi put it, “The [Virality P]roject's central/animating concept was, ‘You can't handle the truth.’”
“The level of hubris from those involved in the ‘Great Covid-19 Lie Machine’ is stunning,” stated MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “The idea that anyone, let alone a university and government officials, would knowingly suppress information regarding the health and safety of Americans is beyond the pale.”
Neither Taibbi nor Salgado mentioned that promoting "natural immunity" -- read: catching COVID and hope it didn't kill you -- was dangerous at a time when vaccines were not widespread and that COVID was still powerful and widespread enough that was killing thousands of people a day.
Also much more newsworthy at the MRC than system and personnel issues at Twitter is that Musk is now responding to press inquries wit a poop emoji. Luis Cornelio gushed in a March 20 post under the immature headline "Elon Musk Takes Dump on Media":
Twitter owner Elon Musk has found a new way to troll his opponents in the liberal media with a healthy dose of toilet humor.
It’s not a question that Musk has been subject to relentless liberal media hit jobs after voicing support for fair and free speech on Twitter. Musk unveiled a funny joke to get back at leftist reporters and Twitter users can bet that it will be a smelly situation for the press: automatic poop emoji responses to media inquiries.
Musk announced the auto-responses to press inquiries in a Mar. 19 tweet. “email@example.com now auto responds with 💩,” tweeted Musk.
Salgado hyped another suck-up to Musk in a March 23 post:
Popular podcaster Joe Rogan bashed legacy media and praised independent journalists in a recent show. The Twitter Files is one of the biggest exclusive series in America now, broken by independent journalists.
Independent Substack journalist The Vigilant Fox shared a clip of Joe Rogan on his verified Twitter account March 21. In the clip, Joe Rogan praised independent journalists and slammed “mainstream media” as beholden to advertising revenue and the companies that provide the revenue.
Salgado still hasn't figured out that if writers like Taibbi were hand-picked by Musk and are reporting only what Musk allows them to, they're not "independent journalists."
Renata Kiss used a March 30 post to take a gentle shot at Donald Trump for not immediately returning to Twitter after Musk reinstated his account:
As the 2024 elections heat up, former President Donald Trump didn’t shy away from endorsing the prowess of his own social media platform over Elon Musk’s contentious Twitter.
On the Tuesday edition of Hannity on Fox News, Trump gushed about the success of his social media platform Truth Social, while he seemed to drag his feet on using Twitter again.
“I love Truth (Social). I think Truth is incredible,” he said. “It’s up, I think, 389 percent, it’s the hottest thing there is.” When asked if he would ever go back on Twitter, the former president replied, “Well, we’ll talk about that at some point. Now I use Truth (Social), although they want me back on Twitter desperately,” he said.
Kiss didn't mention that Truth Social is not, in fact, successful as a business, having trouble paying its bills and is being kept afloat only through the good graces of pro-Trump billionaires. She also didn't mention that the main reason Trump has not returned to Twitter is because he's contractually obligated to post his musings at Truth Social first and can't repost them elsewhere until six hours later.
Instead of telling her readers the full truth, she complained that "During the tumultuous 2020 elections, Twitter permanently suspended President Trump’s Twitter account in 2021 dubiously claiming that he helped incite the Jan. 6, Capitol Hill riot." In fact, there's nothing at all "dubious" about the claim -- the evidence Trump incited the riot is pretty clear.
CNS Attacks Biden Over Policy Change To Allow ESG Investments Topic: CNSNews.com
Earlier in the year, CNSNews.com -- which has been dutifully taking part in the current right-wing obsession du jour over hating investments that take environmental, social and governmental issues into consideration -- freaked out when the Biden administration rolled back a Trump mandate restricting ESG investments. As Republicans pushed a resolution through Congress opposing the rollback, Craig Bannister dutifully hyped it in a Feb. 28 article:
On Monday, President Joe Biden vowed to veto a joint resolution working its way through Congress this week that would nullify the administration’s recent rule allowing retirement and pension fund managers to choose investments based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.
Under federal ERISA law, asset managers have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients to base investment decisions on their expected financial profitability alone, but a Labor Department rule that went into effect last month now gives fund managers the freedom to pick investments based on anticipated ESG benefits, as well.
On Wednesday, the Senate followed the House in passing a joint resolution to nullify a recent Biden Administration rule that allows asset managers to prioritize less-profitable ideological causes over profit maximization when investing their clients’ retirement funds.
Biden’s Labor Department rule had freed managers of retirement account and pension funds from their fiduciary responsibility to consider only profitability, so that they could put their clients’ money in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investments yielding lower returns with higher fees.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 30) passed the Senate by a four-vote margin, with the help of two Democrat senators, Townhall reports:
On Tuesday, H.J. Res. 30 passed the House, on a bipartisan of 216-204 – the same day that the White House released a statement promising that President Joe Biden intends to veto the measure.
Bannister failed in both articles to disclose that the Biden policy change simply reverts investment policies to pre-Trump standards.
CNS also cranked out stenography articles quoting Republican politicians over the ESG policy change that didn't allow anyone to rebut them:
When Biden did indeed veto that resolution, Bannister whined about it in a March 20 article:
On Monday, President Joe Biden issued his first presidential veto, in objection to a bipartisan Congressional joint resolution nullifying his administration’s rule freeing asset managers to invest their clients’ retirement savings in political causes, rather than in the most profitable investments.
“[T]his resolution [joint resolution H.J. Res. 30] would prevent retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns,” Biden wrote Monday in his “Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res 30.”
Biden posted a snarky tweet celebrating his veto on Monday, in which he derided the joint resolution as a product of House Republicans who want to “make America great again” (MAGA), such as firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), and claimed that politically-motivated ESG investments, somehow, “protect your hard-earned savings”:
“I just vetoed my first bill.
“This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don't like.
“Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not.”
Note that Bannister falsely put words in Biden's mouth -- hedidn't call ESG investments "politically-motivated."
In none of these articles, by the way, is it explained why Americans should be prohibited from investing their money the way they choose, given that personal freedom is something right-wingers like the folks who run CNS are supposed to be in favor of.
MRC: New Peter Pan Film Is Insufficiently White And Male Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Philbin huffed in a March 2 Media Research Center post:
There's serious dry rot in the House of Mouse.
Once upon a time, everything Walt Disney touched turned to gold. These days, everything his namesake company touches turns to garbage. Disney announced 7,000 layoffs last month. They didn’t come in time to avert the live-action remake of “Peter Pan,” the company is inflicting on the culture in April.
The “Peter Pan and Wendy” trailer is getting torn apart on social media. Gone all multicultural and with The Lost Boys now including girls (which the trailer makes a point of shoving it in viewers faces), this was predictable.
Philbin didn't explain why any of this was a bad thing, or why all cast members must be white. You'd think he'd be happy that Peter Pan is played by a male actor, something that rarely happens in film. Instead, he quoted an anonymous right-wing tweeter whining that the boy playing Peter Pan is "Indian" (actually, he was born in Britain). And "shoving it in viewers faces" is a bizarre way for Philbin to describe showing something in a trailer that exists in the film, though he never explains why having girls among the Lost Boys is a inherently horrible. Philbin also quoted tweeters whining that Tinkerbell is black -- which, like Peter Pan's purported ethnicity, is irrelevant to the story.
Philbin conclude by ranting; "Mercifully, Disney lost 2.4 million streaming service subscribers last year, so there are that man fewer people to suffer through this dreck. First star on the left and straight 'til bankruptcy!": Philbin doesn't explain why a film with too many non-white people must be considered "dreck" and a reason an entire filmmaking company must be destroyed -- or why we shouldn't consider him a racist for promoting such attitudes.
WND Columnist Lashes Out Against Evolution Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Richard Blakley -- a fervent believer in the Big Lie about election fraud in 2020 -- has been on an anti-evolution tear of late. In his Feb. 17 column, he argued evolution can't be real because nobody has ever observed it, then argued that Charles Darwin was a racist because of the title of his book advancing the idea of natural selection:
Now, I understand that staunch evolutionist grab on to Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species," but did you know that that is not the entire title of the book? Why do they never mention the entire title?
Let's look at the title of Darwin's book and see what we can learn. Darwin's book in entitled, "On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."
Oh, so the book is really about the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Surely, no one would consider this book a racist book, would they? Well, Darwin did. He is quoted as saying, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man," chapter 3, and World Book Encyclopedia 1952, p. 336)
Let me see, what else was popular in 1859 when Darwin's racist book was published? Oh yeah, now I remember. It was slavery. Darwin's book was used as a justification for slavery and has been used ever since to justify "ethnic cleansing" and Hitler's thoughts behind creating an Aryan race.
As someone who has actually studied Darwin has noted, the term "favored races" was added to the title by Darwin's publisher, John Murray, and was a synonym for variety or breed, not an explicit reference to skin color in humans. (Note Blakey's sleight of hand in skipping to a Darwin book published 12 years later to attempt to tar "The Origin of Species" as racist.)
Blakley concluded by huffing: "So if evolution is not science, why is it being taught as such? If people are taught they are simply evolved animals, why would you expect them to act different from an animal? On the other hand, if people are taught they are made in the image of God, and God has had a plan for their life since before the foundation of the world, the mindset is totally different, with much different results."
In his Feb. 24 column, Blakley began by talking about his previous column as if he had not written it, obtusely stating that "In a recent column at WND it was shown that evolution does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, nor does it even fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis." He then tried to argue that believing in evolution is heresy against religion: "Perhaps through receiving the religion of evolution, and denying the Word of God, people are also being 'willing ignorant' – concerning the heresy of evolution."
Blakley pulled the same non-atribution stunt in his March 9 column:
In recent articles published by WND, it was shown that the idea of evolution is not a "scientific theory," nor is it a "scientific hypothesis," and it is "heresy" by definition of these terms and, therefore, should not be force fit into the teachings of "Holy Writ."
Blakley didn't explain why he wouldn't tell readers he wrote those pieces and that they are opinion columns and not just "articles." Instead, his goal here was to tar evolution because it may "lead to racist beliefs and end up with racist actions," going Godwin and then some:
Vladimir Lenin, a disciple of Marx, led Soviet Russia from 1917 until 1924. Following the evolution-influenced teachings of Marx and Darwin, Lenin killed between 100,000 and 500,000 people in mass executions as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Josef Stalin studied at a theological college, but became an atheist after reading Darwin's book. Implementing Darwin's evolutionary teaching, he decided there was no basis for conscience or morals, and led the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, killing over 20 million people in ethnic cleansing.
Adolf Hitler "formed racial and social policies based upon evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and superiority of certain 'favored races' (as stated in the subtitle of Darwin's book)." Hitler is responsible for the "murder of 6 million Jews, many blacks, gypsies, and other groups deemed unfit to live."
Chairman Mao Zedong of China regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favorite authors. During the 1949 Communist takeover of China, Christians were executed at the rate of 15,000 per month, murdering approximately 60 million people. Missionaries who survived stated when the Communists took over schools, they did not teach communism, but instead, they were teaching evolution ("Creation," vol.18, no. 1, p. 9).
Blakey concluded by portraying the Columbine massacre as perpetrated by students adhering to Darwinian concepts:
Was it access to guns that was the core problem? While white supremacy is wrong, was that the core problem? Or was the core problem the taxpayer-funded, heretical, racist teaching of evolution that warped the minds of these young men, making them murderous, brute beasts who killed people they viewed as lower on the evolutionary scale?
I have an idea. If you truly want to "cancel" something that would make a positive difference for society, then "cancel" the racist, false-science, heretical, racist teaching of evolution. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Blakey didn't point out in any of Darwin's writings where he advocated for genocide.
MRC Baselessly Portrays Ranting White House Reporter As No Different Than Jim Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves Simon Ateba -- who works for a tiny website he founded called Today News Africa -- because he's their kind of jerk. Curtis Houck cheered how Ateba caused "chaos" during Jen Psaki's final briefing as White House press secretary with fits of "shouting" and "heckling," and he's still at it. A March 20 post by Houck insisted Ateba's antics are no worse than the tough questioning asked by Trump-era reporters:
Monday’s White House press briefing was unlike any other so far as Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba seized the spotlight and, seconds after ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stepped to the podium, began berating Jean-Pierre for allegedly not having called on him in seven months.
When he wouldn’t quiet down and let Jean-Pierre introduce the cast of Apple TV+’s Ted Lasso(who were there to promote mental health), other reporters got involved and it descended into a rather tense scene that would soon be repeated moments later.
One could argue the move harkened back to the days of liberal activists masquerading as journalists with Jim Acosta, Brian Karem, and April Ryan pitching daily hissy fits that left them financially enriched and subjects of puffball profiles. Of course, their juvenile outbursts were never met with apologies from the Associated Press or officers in the White House Correspondents Association.
Houck seems a little jealous of them for doing better than him. But as he documented Ateba's ranting, he offered no evidence whatsoever that it equated to anything Acosta (a longtimeenemy of the MRC because he refused to be the pro-Trump shill it demanded he be) and others did:
Once Ateba started shouting, Jean-Pierre clapped back: “No, no, no, no, no. No. Nope. That’s not — we’re not doing this. We’re not doing this. We’re not doing this. We’re not doing this.”
Ateba replied that she had been “dismissive against me” and “against some people in this Briefing Room," adding,“[T]his is the U.S. This not China. This not Russia. This not Russia.”
One reporter interjected to ask Ateba to “stop” while Karem had the irony to interject and asked him to “let her start.”
After Ateba shouted that Jean-Pierre was “making a mockery of the First Amendment,” more reporters started indiscernible shouting, but Karem could be heard demanding he “respect her” while NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell (vice president of the WHCA) repeatedly called for, “decorum, please.”
Ateba kept going, saying “[i]t’s been seven months you have not called on me. I’m saying that’s not right. That’s not right.”
Jean-Pierre turned to make a joke to the Ted Lasso cast that they had quite the “untimed welcome,” Ateba kept shouting: “I see you’re trying to censor me and some people, but that’s not right.”=
She asked if the room was “ready to behave,” but Ateba kept screaming, so NPR’s Tamara Keith (president of the WHCA) shouted, “Simon” while O’Donnell again asked for “decorum” and said she was “sorry to our guests.”
Ateba briefly relented to have Jean-Pierre offer a dressing down, reminding them that the “historic” Brady Briefing Room “should have decorum...where folks should respect their colleagues and respect...guests” even though there will “be give and take.”
“[W]hat I will not appreciate is disrespecting your colleagues and disrespecting guests who are here to talk...about an incredibly important issue, which is mental health. And what is just occurred...is unacceptable,” she added, leaving to more claims of “discrimination” from Ateba.
The next day, Nicholas Fondacaro rushed to Ateba's defense when the co-hosts of "The View" criticized his unprofessional behavior:
Following an explosive exchange between Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday, the cast of ABC’s The View had their knives out Tuesday for the reporter as they took turns taking swipes in defense of a friend of the show. But in a series of tweets in near real-time, Ateba shot back and called them out for allegedly spreading big lies about stuff he didn’t write.
Suggesting Ateba was a “troll,” Whoopi Goldberg claimed “he does this all the time. This may be one of the reasons she doesn't call on him, because he can be combative.” And she scoffed at the idea that he might be right “about being ignored at the briefings.”
“You have to look at your behavior, sir. You have to look at your behavior because nobody wants to be jumped. Nobody wants to be jumped up there. The gig is tough enough,” she would later whine on Jean-Pierre’s behalf.
Hostin did suggest that Ateba was more legitimate than Peter Doocy since Fox News was “infotainment” in her eyes. And Behar decried him for going on Tucker Carlson’s show later that night. “He ran to Tucker Carlson right after this, so that tells you where he's at,” she chided.
The fact that Ateba ran to Tucker Carlson for his victory lap is another reason the MRC is defending him.
Tim Graham didn't quite defend Ateba in his March 22 column, but he did play the "he's just like Jim Acosta card":
The briefing room is usually a tank of hungry sharks for a Republican press secretary, and a classroom full of teacher’s pets for a Democrat press secretary. The news cycle has to be pretty negative for reporters to sound hostile to Biden’s press aides.
On March 20, black reporter Simon Ateba from an obscure website called “Today News Africa” began screaming at the very top of the briefing that current press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was not calling on him so he could ask his questions. Other reporters joined the fight, insisting Ateba press his complaints off camera.
There should be decorum at press briefings. The White House is not a place for egotistical shouting by reporters, no matter the outlet. But some people have thought they could secure fame and fortune by doing it. Ateba scored friendly interviews with Fox and Newsmax.
Before him, CNN’s Jim Acosta routinely yelled at President Trump, and was celebrated as heroic and was gushed over by Stephen Colbert. Acosta constantly suggested Trump would get journalists brutalized or killed, and wrote a self-congratulatory memoir titled The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.
In 2017, April Ryan squabbled with Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, and then she joined CNN as a political analyst. That year, she also was named “Journalist of the Year” by the National Association of Black Journalists.” This will never happen to Simon Ateba. She also wrote a self-promoting memoir titled Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House.
Brian Karem, who wrote about Trump for Playboy, also secured a political-analyst gig at CNN after yelling at Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So it was remarkable hypocrisy for Karem to scold Ateba about how this “isn’t just about you” and to “mind your manners.”
LIie Houck, Graham offered no evidence that Ateba's ranting are exactly the same as what Acosta, et al, did. Instead, he offered himself as a model of decorum in his brief attempt to pass himself off as a real repiorter:
I was a White House reporter in the first two years of President George W. Bush for World magazine, a Christian news weekly. I didn’t always get called on, but I never raised my voice, since that wouldn’t have reflected well on my employer. I resisted the temptation to ask press secretary Ari Fleischer naughty questions like “do you think Helen Thomas has become a crackpot?”
Of course, because he was "covering" a Republican administration -- that is, fluffing Bush and crew for a similarly biased audience -- Graham would never hae been so gauche as to ask an even remotely unfriendly question of Fleischer, which he proved by offering that the only critical question he would have asked involved attacking another reporter.
In other words, he was doing exactly what he accuses reporters with the "liberal media" of doing right now.That's a big reason to never take him and the MRC seriously in their "media research."
Newsmax Cranked Up Outrage Machine As Trump's Arraignment Arrived Topic: Newsmax
The freakout at Newsmax when Donald Trump was indiced on fraud charges (for real) continued as he the day of his arraignment approached. Trump flew to New York from Florida on March 3 for the arraignment, and Newsmax was cranking out attack and defense articles:
Surprisingly, there was also an wire article featuring newly announced Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson arguing that Trump should drop his 2024 candidacy over his instigating the Capitol riot.
On the day of the arraignment on April 4, Newsmax unsurprisingly went nuts with the attack-and-defend narrative:
Newsmax also published an article on how Trump "was awarded close to $122,000 in attorney fees from Stormy Daniels, the same porn star at the center of a hush money case that led to Trump's indictment in a Manhattan courtroom just a few hours earlier." But amid all the bias, Newsmax not only published a surprisingly balanced account of the arraignment itself (written even more surprisingly by Trump stenographer Eric Mack, with wire contributions) but it also actually slipped in a few largely straightforward stories on the indictment that day:
WND Spreads Lie That Pelosi Refused Trump's National Guard Aid Before Capitol Riot Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 2 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh begins with a lie:
Questions about why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused President Trump's offer of National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being raised – again – after a government report faulted a number of law enforcement agencies for allowing the riot to develop that day.
Pelosi, and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, refused Trump's offer of additional security that day – and hundreds of people rioted, some breaking into the Capitol to vandalize it and others walking past security guards who held doors open for them and taking selfies in the building.
As the conservative website the Dispatch reported:
The claim that Pelosi rejected Trump’s request for a National Guard presence on January 6 is false.
“The speaker of the House does not have the power to block an order from the commander in chief,” Drew Hammil, deputy chief of staff for Pelosi, told The Dispatch Fact Check via email. “This is fiction.”
Josh Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, similarly told The Dispatch Fact Check that “the speaker does not have control of any branch of the armed services.”
“The National Guard can only be activated by the president or a governor,” Huder added. “In the case of D.C., it can only be mobilized by the president of the United States.”
A statement from Ryan McCarthy, secretary of the Army under Donald Trump, on the “National Guard response to timing and coordination with other States,” does not mention Trump’s request for a National Guard presence, nor does it mention anything about Pelosi rejecting the alleged request.
Also, it’s with noting that during the first day of hearings by the January 6 committee, Rep. Liz Cheney said: “Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Mike Pence did each of those things.”
Unruh offered no evidence to support his claim that Pelosi "refused President Trump's offer of National Guard troops" -- presumably because neither the offer nor refusal ever happened. Instead, the rest of his article is about reports that law enforcement may have known about plans for a riot but didn't adequately prepare, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Pelosi.
Unruh treating lies as fact hardly inspires confidence in WND as a trustworthy source of news.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC Flips Over Elon Musk, Part 8: The Stenography Continues Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center remained highly devoted to serving as Musk's handmaiden in promoting every "Twitter files" release -- even as they dropped around holiday time when people were busy with other things. Read more >>
MRC's Double Standard On Children Testifying On Cultural Matters Topic: Media Research Center
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, the Media Research Center's chief transphobe, spent a March 17 post attacking a child:
I didn’t realize that people are having kids these days to simply to force them to be parrots of what adults are too scared to say themselves.
In a now widely viewed video on Twitter, a 10-year-old “transgender” and “non-binary” child who uses “they/them” pronouns read from a speech (totally not written by his mother) about his rights and desires as a transgender individual. The child struggled through the speech that his mother had to have written, and the charade sparked outrage online.
“Hello, my name is Zipp. I am 10 years old. I use they/them pronouns, and I am transgender non-binary,” the child began.
How is someone "transgender" and "nonbinary" at the same time? Transgenderism means identifying as the opposite gender, while "non-binary" means you don’t associate with either…right? Geez this alphabet mafia keeps me guessing every day.
It’s heartbreaking to hear this child, who is obviously struggling to even read the words of his (or his mother's) speech. These are the kids that need extra protection and love - not the “love” that helps them change their gender or identify to something they clearly are not, but the love that encourages them to embrace who they truly are and love their God-given bodies.
The child’s main point was that he wanted to use the bathroom and “change space” that he “safe and at peace.”
“I urge council to allow transgender people access to the bathrooms and change rooms they need because when trans adults thrive, trans kids survive,” he said.
I bet my bottom dollar that kid doesn’t know what “thrive” means. Good job, mom.
My heart goes out to kids like this whose parents are clearly and blatantly abusing their privilege to indoctrinate and groom their own children.
Strangely, when Mandelburg wrote a post a couple weeks earlier on a similarly aged child providing testimony, she didn't accuse him of "strugging to read" or being a mindless parrot of his parents' viewpoints -- of course, that's beause the kid was sticking to her preferred right-wing narratives. Note the difference in tone (starting with "SAVAGE" in all caps in the headline):
While I wish the kid wasn't exposed to such a graphic book, I think his point was heard.
Knox Zijac, an 11-year-old student at Windham Middle School in Maine, read a page from the book “Nick and Charlie” about a gay couple having sex. The book was a featured novel on display in his middle school library.
The child, “still at a tender-enough age that he mispronounced ‘library’ without the final ‘r,’” as The Blaze reported, read every single word exactly as it was written, swears and graphic content included, certainly not because he wanted to but instead because that was the only way to get the school board to care even a little about what the heck was being distributed to kids in schools.
The child then proceeded to explain that when he checked the book out from the library to show his dad, the librarian not only asked him if he wanted more but also asked if he wanted a graphic novel version.
The school board's reaction was discomfort and shock.
Zijac’s father then finished off the remaining three-minute allotment of time. “This is the smut that he is finding,” Mr. Zijac began. "I don’t care whether it’s gay, straight, bisexual, whatever the terms are for all this stuff, doesn’t need to be at our school, doesn’t need to be at my 11-year-old’s library.”
The dad also brought up the book “Gender Queer” that’s been circulating school libraries as well as discussion in school boards across the nation. “This is bullshit,” he said. “We do not need to be having literature that’s showing boys how to suck dick.”
Even though it's much more clear than in her other example that the parent leaned on the child to testify and may have even told him what to say -- not to mention forced him to say those things out loud that even Mandelburg found objectionable -- the kid stuck to the narrative, so Mandelburg won't smear him like she did the transgender child.
Indeed, a couple days before that, Mandelburg praised another student for repeating right-wing narratives (so much so she put "MIC DROP" in all caps in the headline):
Brad Taylor, a now former student at Rosemount High School (RHS) in Minnesota, recently spoke in front of a his district’s school, board proving what conservatives have been saying for years now: schools are prioritizing inclusivity, wokeism and indoctrination of their students over their academic success and wellbeing.
“District 196 schools are quickly becoming a place where promoting activism is actually more important than promoting education,” Taylor said, beginning what must have been a started their spiral of discomfort for the school board members.
Taylor recounted how, on the first day of school, he was grouped, categorized and segregated by his skin color (white) during a speech from the principal. He was racially set apart from his classmates, “you must admit how uncomfortable it would be to be characterized just by your skin color on the first day of school, and you thought that you were wrong, just because of your skin color.”
Taylor announced that obvious “leftist agenda” has driven him to transfer to a private Christian school to continue in his studies. It’s unfortunate, but it's the only realistic option for a student who actually cares about academics and cares about fairness and equality for all.
As a final hurrah, Taylor announced that the school board would regret their choices to push these woke policies as he has big plans to be a leader in this country, whether it be political or as a professional golfer and “it’s a shame that you’re not gonna be able to say that I was an alumni of RHS district 196.”
Nuff said, kid.
Take it from Taylor: homeschool your kids, or get them into private school.
Again, Mandelburg refused to question whether the student's parents or his Christian school forced him to testify and told him what to say. He said conservatively correct things, and it doesn't matter who fed them to him.
How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily columnist has continued to spew hatred at LGBT people (while pretending he's not) since the last time we checked in. He began his Dec. 26 column by referencing allegations of a transgender woman exposing herself in a spa locker room (which remains disputed), then went into a rager over "semantic nonsense":
As for the rest of us – for you and me and our families and friends and the circles that we influence – may we shout from the rooftops that we will never accept this as normal.
Nor will we accept as normal 13-year-old girls getting full mastectomies simply because they are confused about their gender identity.
Or 10-year-old boys sterilizing themselves for life as they take hormone supplements to stop the onset of puberty while they figure out if they are male or female.
Or incoming college students starting their new classes by reciting their preferred gender pronouns.
Or users getting banned from social media platforms for saying that "Rachel" Levine is a biological male.
Or female athletes getting crushed and humiliated by boys who identify as girls and who are demolishing the hard-earned records of their female peers.
Or boys claiming to be girls so they can have access to the girls' bathrooms at school, where they proceed to rape and attack them.
No, no, no. I will never accept this as normal, and neither should you.
Once again, Brown played his faux-compassion card: "I truly care for those who struggle with gender identity issues, especially young people. I also know that the vast amount of confusion we're witnessing today is the result of sociological contagion." Actually, what Brown claims to "know" is wrong.
For his Jan. 4 column, Brown used a poll claiming that women are more empathetic than men as a springboard to rant again about gender:
Despite the use of radicalized leftist language, as if your sex was arbitrarily assigned to you at birth by the doctors and nurses, the survey must ask for biological reality. Otherwise, to repeat, the survey has no meaning at all.
Quite tellingly, in today's upside down culture, you can't simply ask, "What is your sex?" Instead, you need to ask what was written on your birth certificate when you were born. Your actual, biological sex matters!
As I wrote in 2017 (with reference to "menstruating men"), "There is an all-out war on sexual difference (often referred to as 'gender'), and if it wins the day, it will lead to societal chaos."
That chaos is already here, growing by the day. But for a moment this week, quite unintentionally, reality crept back in and sanity prevailed as news outlets reported the simple, verifiable (and, widely known) fact that women, on average, are more empathetic than men.
Men and women exist, and there are differences between the two.
Brown's Jan. 11 column was a rant about too many comic characters failing to be heterosexual:
In 2011, when I first wrote about "mutant" being a codeword for "gay" in the "X-Men" movie series, I was ridiculed on some LGBT websites for being late to the party. To paraphrase their words, "You're just realizing this now? The comic books have been pushing this message for years already."
That's why it was no surprise to see that, in a recent DC Comics storyline, the Joker, the arch-nemesis of Batman, got pregnant and had a baby. But of course!
We've been familiar with "pregnant men" for years now, and semantic activists want to substitute "birthing persons" for "mothers." Perhaps the only surprise is that it took this long for a male comic book character to get pregnant and have a baby. The larger agenda of pushing LGBTQ+ characters has been crystal clear for quite some time now, even to someone like me who is not a comic book reader or superhero aficionado.
Against this backdrop (remember, as just stated, that there are more than 65 LGBTQ+ superheroes and villains) is it any surprise that "right-wing culture warriors" spotted an agenda behind a pregnant male character?
We know that comic book writers do not live in an abstract world devoid of cultural and moral values. To the contrary, many of them are quite socially aware and use comics to convey a larger message. There's nothing surprising about that at all, nor is this something hidden.
So, at the very least, the fact that so many of us immediately pointed to LGBTQ+ activism in connection with the pregnant Joker is quite reasonable.
What seems less reasonable to me is the idea that no one at DC Comics made this connection at all or there was not even a tacit wink or a knowing smile. Really?
He complained that a commentator noted the right-wing freakout over the storyline, but dismissed it as ignorance of the cultural wars.
Brown used his Jan. 20 column to praise a hockey player for refusing to wear a warmup jersey celebrating LGBTQ pride, then whined that publicly hating LGBTQ people now has consequences:
In short, you can not graciously disagree. You can not respectfully opt out. Instead, you must deny your convictions, rewrite the Bible, run roughshod over your faith and publicly celebrate something you believe to be wrong. Otherwise, you are a crass human being and a small-minded bigot. Those are your only choices!
Already in 2011, in my book "A Queer Thing Happened to America," I could point to the Riddle Homophobia Scale, used in schools to evaluate whether the students were "homophobic." According to the scale, both tolerance and acceptance were considered homophobic, since homosexuality was not something to "tolerate" or "accept."
Instead, the only way not to be homophobic was to embrace a "positive" attitude, which called for "support, admiration, appreciation, and nurturance."
Yes, if you don't want to be a homophobe, you must admire your lesbian friend. You must nurture your transgender colleague's new identity. Otherwise, you will be marked.
Are you surprised?
Well, consider this: "The Riddle homophobia scale was developed by Dorothy Riddle in 1973–74 while she was overseeing research for the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gays and Lesbians."
That's how far back it goes, although it wasn't widely released until 1994. That's why I started my article with this question: "Do you remember when the main goal of LGBT activism was creating an atmosphere of 'tolerance and acceptance'?"
Most young people, including young adults, do not remember this time because they never experienced it. Instead, they have grown up with the choice to celebrate LGBTQ+ pride or be branded, to comply publicly or be ousted.
Brown went on to cite "the consistent Christian teachings of the last 2,000 years (or, more broadly, the consistent biblical teachings of the last 3,000-plus years)" as a reason to hate LGBTQ people. It seems he's starting to give up pretending to be compassionate toward them -- and that he's quite unashamed of pegging the Riddle homophobia scale.
MRC Can't Stop Hating Dwyane Wade For Having A Transgender Child Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's sports bloggers have long hated NBA legend Dwyane Wade for refusing to hate his transgender child. Jay Maxson pushed that hate again with an assist from his ex-wife in a Feb. 27 post:
You'd never know it from watching Saturday’s NAACP Image Awards, but not everybody approves of ex-NBA player Dwyane Wade exploiting his transgender son. and current wife Gabrielle Union-Wade received the NAACP's Presidents Award and took the opportunity to soak in the adoration of the alphabet mob. But Wade’s former wife accused him of grandstanding in hopes of gaining a financial windfall.
Zion Malachi Airamis Wade is a biological male, who on Friday legally changed his name to Zaya. Since 2020, he has presented himself as a girl – against the wishes of his birth mother, now divorced from the father.
The former Miami Heat star, the ever-woke Wade, melted into mush as he explained to the NAACP awards audience that it is his duty to kneel to the wishes of his confused 15-year-old male child.:
Siohvaughn Funches-Wade filed a lawsuit alleging that her ex-husband is hyping the child’s gender confusion to profit from his advocacy, at the expense of his son. There is a lot of money to be made from his endorsements of the alphabet lifestyle, the ex-wife charged. D-Wade “is positioned to profit from the minor child’s name and gender change with various companies through contacts and marketing opportunities including, but not limited to deals with Disney.
“I have concerns that [Wade] may be pressuring our child to move forward with the name and gender change in order to capitalize on the financial opportunities that he has received from companies,” Funches-Wade said. Additionally, D-Wade admitted to his former wife that he expects to make a bundle of money over the son’s gender confusion.
“[Wade] told me that he intended to make our child very famous due to the name and gender issue and also informed me that there would be endorsements/contracts associated therewith,” Funches-Wade commented.
Maxson noted only that "Wade denied the allegations, even though he’s turned public appearances with alphabet mob members, like Ellen DeGeneres and awards programs, into a cottage industry." In fact, he has said much more about the situation, which Maxson apparently doesn't want you to know. By contrast, an actual news outlet reported in November, when the ex-wife started going public with her attacks:
Dwyane Wade is firing back after his ex-wife, Siohvaughn Funches-Wade, accused him of trying to exploit their transgender daughter, Zaya, by applying for a legal name and gender change for the teen.
The sports star took to his verified Instagram account after Funches-Wade filed an objection in a Los Angeles court in an attempt to block his petition filed in August to have the 15-year-old’s birth name changed to Zaya and her gender to female.
“Since this must be the new way of parenting, I guess I have to address these allegations here, which is a damn shame,” he wrote in a lengthy note posted on his Instagram.
In his post, Wade wrote that “No one in our house would ever force Zaya or any of our children to do anything against their will, much less force an identity on them.”
“This isn’t a game for my family and definitely not for Zaya,” he wrote. “This is her life!”
In his social media post, Wade alleges that Funches-Wade is an absentee parent to Zaya, who was 12 years old in 2020 when she went public with being transgender.
“Siohvaughn has decided to pretty much be an absent parent to Zaya ALL ON HER OWN,” he wrote. “I will not sit on my hands this time and allow her to make a mockery of my dedication to my family. The high road has run out of real estate.”
Wade also responded in a court filing later that month, accusing the ex-wife of possibly trying to relitigate their divorce or carry out a “campaign of personal attacks”:
But the documents filed Tuesday say Funches-Wade responded to an email alerting her to the petition by declining to discuss “‘elective matters’ until her relationship and bond with her child was ‘completely healed and restored.’”
And the documents described her profit-seeking claims as “nonsensical” and “libelous at their core.”
“Dwyane filed this Petition because Zaya asked him to,” the documents say. “It is unclear if Siohvaughn’s goal is to relitigate her divorce and custody dispute with Dwyane, or to resume her campaign of personal attacks against Dwyane, but it is clear that her objections have little, if anything, to do with Zaya’s best interest.”
Strange how Maxson doesn'tthink you need to know about any of this -- the ex-wife peddled right-wing narratives, and that's all that matters.
Maxson also ranted: "The alphabet movement has long attempted to compare their demands for special rights to those of black Americans seeking civil rights. It’s a mixture of apples and oranges. Black people were born that way; homosexuals and transgenders were not." Maxson offered no evidence to back up his biological claim. And it's an odd claim to make for someone with a sexually ambiguous first name who provides so little personal information that it's unclear whether what sex Maxson even is. What is Maxson hiding?