MRC's Joke Policeman Strikes At Kimmel Again Topic: Media Research Center
Alex Christy is the Media Research Center's joke policeman, frowning on any humor deemed to be insufficiently right-wing. The day before he ruled that Jimmy Kimmel's mocking of men unfamiliar with women's bodies, he was angry with Kimmel for something else in an April 13 post:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel took time out of his Wednesday monologue to attack a college student who attended a recent Mike Pence speech at the University of Alabama for daring to be fearful that Democrats were redefining what it meant to be a woman. For Kimmel, the concern highlights why universities should “have another look at the minimum GPA required” for admission.
After going through some of the details of Pence’s talk, Kimmel reported: “And then they had a Q&A with the students and one of the young women, in particular, has some very serious concerns.”
Kimmel then played a video of the woman declaring: “As I wake up every day and I sometimes don't feel safe because I'm a woman and I feel that that's being taken away.”
Cutting her off, Kimmel asked, “Really? By who?” The video then resumed, “By our president.”
Whether Kimmel genuinely failed to understand the questioner’s concern or he simply didn’t care was hard to tell, but either way, he dismissed the concern, “Oh, whoa, Joe Biden's taking your vagina away? That’s, I mean, my god, the man can barely ride a bicycle.”
The irony was that some red states were seeking to prohibit the severing of minors’ body parts and people like Kimmel called them bigots for it, but here he was unwittingly acknowledging that being a woman (or a man) was biological and not a subjective feeling.
Or maybe he was mocking right-wingers who are claiming to protect women as an excuse to spew anti-transgender hate and who don't understand that letting one group of people have rights doesn't diminish the rights of others. The questioner is no less of a women because transgender people exist, and Chgristy is lying (or parroting right-wing narratives) by suggesting otherwise.
Christy concluded by trying to be profound: "Kimmel may dismiss the student’s concerns as a “non-issue,” but such concerns revolve around one of life’s most pressing questions: who am I and why does it matter?" Transgender people are also asking themselves those same questions, but it doesn't suit his hateful partisan narrative to acknowledge that.
Remember, this is a late-night comedy show that Christy is getting all upset over. He has decided that if Kimmel won't reinforce his partisan worldview, he can't possibly be funny.
WND Can't Stop Lying To Readers About Retailer's Issues Topic: WorldNetDaily
Over the past couple years, WorldnetDaily has spreadthefalsehood that the retailer Bed Bath & Beyond is in financial trouble because it stopped carrying MyPillow products after company head Mike Lindell started started going off the deep end of conspiracy theories by spreading his own falsehoods about purported election fraud. It did that again in an April 23 article carrying the headline "Major retailer that 'canceled' MyPillow guy Mike Lindell files for bankruptcy."
But the article itself -- taken from the right-wing Western Journal -- doesn't mention Lindell or MyPillow at all. It's actually a fairly straightforward story about the bankruptcy and what will follow.Nevertheless, the article was accompanied by a poll question: "Is Bed, Bath & Beyond's bankruptcy a direct result of its dropping Mike Lindell's MyPillow products?" You will not be surprised to learn that 77 percent of respondents said yes -- even though no evidence whatsoever has been presented to support that view.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, other things -- including billions of dollars spent on stock buybacks instead of investing into the business -- are the actual reasons why Bed Bath & Beyond is going out of business.
If WND thinks it can lie to its readers because doing so fits its right-wing narratives, why should anyone trust it as a "news" organization?
MRC Complains That Right-Wing Anti-Trans Hate Is Being Called Out Topic: Media Research Center
It's been a while since we lastchecked in on the rampant transphobia at the Media Research Center (outside of attacking Dylan Mulvaney, that is). Let's see how that's going, shall we? A Feb. 24 post by Brad Wilmouth complained that the hate behind anti-trans state laws was called out:
On Tuesday' The Lead show, CNN host Jake Tapper did his part to promote transgender surgery for underage teens as he devoted a segment to fretting over Idaho's push for a state ban. Republicans only stood for "cruelty" and "meanness" that is somehow against God.
Teenage transgender activist Eve Debitt and father Michael Debitt were given an extremely sympathetic forum to complain about the Idaho legislature's actions with no serious consideration of the view that such surgery causes irreversible harm through amputation.
The CNN host began the segment by playing a clip of the teenager giving testimony claiming that such surgery would be "my final step into the body that I should have been born into." The teen also employed the trope that if teens don't get what they want, they'll kill themselves:
Wilmouth didn't explain how criticizing transphobia equated to "promot[ing] transgender surgery."
Jay Maxson whined that a winning athlete did what athletes do in overcoming obstacles erected by haters like him(or her) in a March 15 post:
There’s only one thing more appalling than a male robbing females of opportunities in the field of sports. It’s when the transgender dude out-muscles the girls, then lords it over them and tells them to deal with the injustice. That’s just what happened in Massachusetts when Chloe Barnes, a male ringer, helped the Brookline girls win the high school state championship in the 4x200-meter relay this season.
After doing the girls dirt, the haughty Barnes rubbed it in. “Deal with it. Just deal with it,” the insensitive punk told them.
We doubt that Maxson has ever criticized any other athlete who engaged in this mild form of trash talk as "haughty" or an "insensitive punk." Instead, there was a haughy rant claiming that allowng transgender athletes to play was "the brainchild of some woke nitwits who thought it would be wonderful to hand LGBTABCD fascists a victory."
The MRC's chief trasnphobe, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, spent a March 21 post cheering that a Christian high school inVermont quit a state girls basketball tournament rather than play a team with a transgender athlete:
I don’t blame the Christian school. Men have a significant size and strength advantage over women, especially in something like basketball where those characteristics are imperative. This set LTS at a significantly altered and unfairly high position against MVCS.
Yet, Vermont and its leaders clearly care more about identity politics than the safety of their students.
What’s funny was that in an attempt to say that the Christian students were discriminating against the transgender student, [State senator Regecca] White discriminated against the group of Christian girls.
It's not surprising, however, that THIS is the side that CNN decided to highlight.
Mandelburg didn't mention whether the team's players had any say in the matter.
Matt Philbin (who would be out of a job a month later) raged in a March 23 post that the Washington Post reported the inconvenient fact that (gasp!) most transgender people are happy with their lives, baselessly insisting that those who believe that are lying to themselves and the pollsters:
The Washington Post has released a survey of post-transition transgender adults. You’ll be shocked to learn that most of the results bolster various assertions of the trans movement. I leave it to smarter people than me to critique the survey methodology. Suffice it to say this is The Post, where democracy dies in data.
The big headline for the main Post article announcing the results says “Most trans adults say transitioning made them more satisfied with their lives.”
And maybe they are. But consider: You crossed the Rouge Rubicon. You’ve made a dramatic life decision to defy biology, theology, and the accumulated commonsense of 5 millennia in a way that probably can’t be undone socially or, if applicable, medically. Now strangers want to know if you’re happy with your decision. Choose your answer:
No, I can’t believe how gullible and deluded I was. I’ve made a mess of my life and maybe my body and I still have the same neuroses I thought I was escaping.
Yeah, it’s great. My fantastic new life is just super and I’ve really got it together now. No regrets. Goodbye.
Human nature (which is still there, despite your efforts to ditch it) dictates you put your smiley face on no matter how you’re really feeling.
Philbin then manufactured a conspiracy about "Big Trans," whatever that is:
So if most of these people knew they had gender issues when they were young, and most didn’t do anything medical about it, and today, they’re happier and more satisfied, why the rush to sell kids expensive, dangerous drugs and drastic irreversible surgeries? The end – happy people living as their preferred gender/genders/combination thereof – can be attained without drastic and dangerous means?
Why are plastic surgeons lobbying government to allow more younger patients to get sex change operations? Why does the most powerful pro-trans medical figure in America talk about the “return on investment” for facilities that offer those surgeries?
Could it be that Big Trans is also big business?
We thought Philbin and the MRC supported big business and capitalism.
Clay Waters complained that anti-trans hate was again called out in a March 26 post:
Thursday’s edition of Amanpour & Co., which appears on PBS, went wild in defense of radical transgenderism, comparing American anti-trans bills to truly insidious legislation in dictatorships.
Host Christiane Amanpour set the table with an ignorant international comparison of supposed female/LGBTQ repression:
[TransLash Media founder Imara] Jones laid out the grand “far right” conspiracy against transgenders, while sneakily boosting the numbers of actual transgenders in America (a UCLA study finds 0.5 percent of the population to be transgender, three times less than the 1.5 percent Jones slips in, calling it “a tiny group of people”).
Waters didn't explain what "radical transgenderism" is -- unless he assumes that all transgenderism is "radical" -- and he didn't bnother to dispute that there is an "anti-trans hate machine," as Jones asserted. Instead he whined that "Jones smeared groups like Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, as if it was a conspiracy for social conservative groups to push social conservative policy."
Tim Graham had his own meltdown over anti-trans hate being called out in an April 2 post:
The Left's energetic attempt to take a mass shooting at a Christian school with a transgender murderer and turn this around on the Christian conservatives is a shameless exercise to behold. On MSNBC's The ReidOut on Wednesday night, host Joy Reid welcomed transgender activist Charlotte Clymer and Jim Wallis of the Center for Faith and Justice at Georgetown to spit nails at conservatives from Tucker Carlson to Michael Knowles.
Reid said she wanted to take down (well, take on) the Christian element of this. She began with a clip of "Fox's hate entertainment broadcaster Tucker Carlson" proclaiming the transgender ideologues are the mirror image of Christianity and "therefore, its natural enemy."
In reply, Wallis said "LGBTQ are initials that all stand for somebody who's beloved of God, made in the image of God. Let`s be clear about that."
The bad Christians are the gun-lovers, Wallis said. "There was an ancient God called Moloch. Leviticus talks about Moloch, who was a God that children were sacrificed to in flames. And the Bible is very tough on Moloch. Guns are our new Moloch. Guns are the Moloch. We`re sacrificing our children to Moloch, when we could do easy commonsense things about guns."
From there, Wallis proclaimed that "White Christian nationalism, which is behind all this, is literally a biblical heresy."
So Reid is hosting a segment on the warping of Christianity, as Clymer claims God is a "her" that "made me transgender." Call it the Church of MSNBC.
This name-calling was the closest Graham got to a rebuttal.
CNS Managing Editor Cheered Uganda's New Anti-Gay Law Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman hatesgaypeople, and he has previously written approvingly of anti-gay laws in Africa. He got in one more shot at them before CNS' shutdown by cheering an anti-gay law in Uganda in a March 22 article that lovingly described what the law did:
The Parliament of Uganda voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to pass the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2023," which seeks to "protect the traditional family" by prohibiting homosexual behavior and its promotion or recognition. The legislation now goes to the desk of President Yoweri Museveni, who is expected to sign it into law.
"Homosexuality is a human wrong that offends the laws of Uganda and threatens the sanctity of the family, the safety of our children and the continuation of humanity through reproduction," tweeted Ugandan Parliament Member Basalirwa Asuman.
As part of protecting the traditional family, the bill is designed to protect "the cherished culture of the people of Uganda" and the "values of Ugandans against the acts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda," reads the legislation.
In the bill, the "offence of homosexuality" is defined as a person who "penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption," or who "holds out as a lesbian, gay, transgender, a queer or any other sexual or gender identity that is contrary to the binary categories of male and female."
If a person engages in such behavior, they could face imprisonment of 10 years.
In a related rule, a person is guilty of "aggravated homosexuality" if they engage in same-sex behavior with a person under the age of 18, if the offender is HIV-positive, if the victim suffers from a disability, or if the offender uses a drug to stupify the victim.
In such cases, the criminal penalty is possible imprisonment up to 10 years.
Brothels for homosexuals are prohibited under the bill, as is same-sex marriage.
In addition, promotion of homosexuality through media -- magazines, books, pictures, the Internet, mobile phones -- is prohibited.
The bill further allows for victims of homosexuality to receive assistance and payment of compensation for the crime committed against them.
Strangely, Chapman omitted the fact that the law permits the death penalty for anyone found guilty of "aggravated homosexuality." instead, he quoted Ugandan officials praising the law:
Uganda's Speaker of Parliament, Anita Annet Among, said "Congratulations. Whatever we are doing, we are doing it for the people of Uganda," after the legislation passed on March 21.
When asked about LGBTQ organizations, she said, "[W]e don’t appreciate the money that they are bringing to destroy our culture. We don’t need their money, we need our cultures."
Member of Parliament David Bahati, as reported by Aljazeera, said, “Our creator God is happy [about] what is happening.... I support the bill to protect the future of our children."
“This is about the sovereignty of our nation, nobody should blackmail us, nobody should intimidate us," he added.
Last December, the archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Samuel Stephen Kaziimba, warned the youth about the dangers of homosexuality and those who promote it.
Finally, in the 19th paragraph of his article, Chapman got around to noting criticism of the law:
Human Rights Watch sharply condemned the passage of the legislation. Oryem Nyeko, a reasearcher for HRW, said, “One of the most extreme features of this new bill is that it criminalizes people simply for being who they are as well as further infringing on the rights to privacy, and freedoms of expression and association that are already compromised in Uganda."
“Ugandan politicians should focus on passing laws that protect vulnerable minorities and affirm fundamental rights and stop targeting LGBT people for political capital," he added.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that the bill "would undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans and could reverse gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We urge the Ugandan Government to strongly reconsider the implementation of this legislation."
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said, “The passing of this discriminatory bill – probably among the worst of its kind in the world – is a deeply troubling development."
In 33 African nations, homosexual relations are against the law, according to Human Rights Watch.
CNS did attempt something resembling balance in an article the next day by Melanie Arter noting U.S. criticism of the law:
The White House on Wednesday expressed “grave concerns” with a bill passed by the Ugandan Parliament that criminalizes homosexuality, calling it “one of the most extreme anti-LGBTQI+ laws in the world.”
As CNSNews.com previously reported , the Parliament of Uganda voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to pass the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2023," which seeks to "protect the traditional family" by prohibiting homosexual behavior and its promotion or recognition. The legislation now goes to the desk of President Yoweri Museveni, who is expected to sign it into law.
Arter uncritically copy-and-pasted the salacious definition of homosexuality from Chapman's article, presumably for additional inflammatory effect.
WND Warms Up To Greene's 'National Divorce' Idea Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been in favor of splitting up the United States into two separate countries -- one conservative, one liberal -- for a while now. WAyne Allyn Root ranted in a June 2022 column after the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade:
But now to the good news. All is not lost. This Supreme Court abortion decision is the first step toward the solution I've been preaching for what ails America.
I call my solution "DIVORCE, AMERICAN-STYLE."
It's clear we are a nation terribly divided. It's clear we can't live together. There is no longer any compromise possible; the divide is too wide. There is no compromise for open borders and "defund the police." There is no compromise for forced vaccinations for babies and little children. There is no compromise for abortion on demand. There is no compromise for 20% inflation and $10 gas. There is no compromise for letting every rioter, mugger, carjacker and murderer loose while we order FBI SWAT teams to hunt down Republicans who believe the 2020 election was stolen. The days of compromise are over.
So, the peaceful solution is to separate. It's time to go our separate ways. Let's call it a "national divorce." Everyone is familiar with divorce. Everyone has experienced it – whether personally or through friends, family or children. We all know someone divorced.
Half of America is divorced. I've gotten divorced. It's not the end of the world. It's much better to admit you don't like each other and can't live together anymore and separate peacefully. Everyone gets to walk away and live the life they want. It's a win-win.
When far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene calledfor a "national divorce" earlier this year, though, WND didn't immediately latch onto it, publishing only an article stolen from the New York Post. It also published a Feb. 23 column by David Harsanyi calling the idea impractical and admitting that it proposes "secession," going on to insist that "federalism is not only a more desirable solution than breaking the country into two, but also far more feasible."
It took a while, but editor Joseph Farah embraced the "national divorce" thing in his March 20 column, after first claiming disdain for it:
I was troubled when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene first mentioned the idea of split between red and blue states – a "national divorce," she called it.
I didn't like it at first blush. Maybe it was because I am so opposed to "divorce." Yes, marriage is a sacred institution to God, but though only on the human level. He said nothing about nations – other than Israel. And though He punished His people greatly for rejecting Him, He will forgive them and make Israel whole again soon enough.
But the idea of "divorce" is still despicable to me.
Farah didn't mention that he himself is divorced and is currently on his second marriage. Instead, he explained how he came around to the idea:
The more I thought about her idea, however, the more it had appeal.
A recent poll by Ipsos has opened my eyes to how much vindication, mercy and aid it would offer us.
The shocking new poll shows that one-fifth of Americans agree with splitting – already.
Twenty percent of U.S. adults – which amounts to some 66 million people – want to call it quits on the 247-year-old union. I didn't think that many would be inclined. I thought it was an outlier for sure.
Infidelity is what Greene is thinking. She's just saying that Democrats are not capable or willing to be committed to things like the Constitution, simple ideas like "life" instead of "death," and the growing theory that we don't need police anymore.
It's won't happen overnight, for sure. There are no serious proposals in Washington to carve up the country, but secessionist moves in some states have gathered momentum in recent years. A campaign to have rural eastern Oregon effectively secede from the blue state and join more conservative Idaho has gained traction, with politicians in both states expressing support for moving the border.
Red and blue states don't seem to have much in common – we can't even agree on how to conduct elections. We can't decide whether we should lock up Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden – or Donald Trump.
Root returned with an April 1 column reminding us of how he has always supported the idea and the Donald Trump's (first) indictment should be a catalyst:
The indictment of Trump is your wake-up call. We cannot live with these people. They are a combination of Soviet gulag, East German Stasi and Nazi gestapo. They are intolerant communist tyrants obsessed with controlling your life and eliminating dissent.
Recently, high-profile Republicans have followed my lead. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines with her calls for a "national divorce." Now multimillionaire CEO and GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has mentioned the need for a national divorce.
Welcome to "Wayne's World." It's about time.
It's been clear to me for years now that we cannot live with Democrats any longer (i.e., crazed, radical, extreme, America-hating, white race-hating, wealth-hating, capitalism-hating, police-hating, military-hating, man-hating, woke, communist, globalist, transgender-obsessed, SUICIDE BOMBERS.
And as you might expect from a guy who making his living as a pro-Trump grifter, this process involves buying a book from him:
I repeat: We need to get away. We need to separate. We need a "national divorce." The question is how?
I have a quick, simple and easy way to start the process that we can carry out from the safety of our living rooms or kitchen tables. It's all explained in my latest book, "The Great Patriot BUY-cott Book." We start by building a "parallel conservative economy." In short, conservatives and patriots take our massive spending power and only spend and invest with companies that are run by conservatives, patriots, Christians and people of faith.
In other words, we FUND the conservative economy, and we DEFUND the leftist, woke economy.
We build a separate economy, a conservative ecosystem. We reward and enrich those on the Right. We punish and bankrupt the evil woke communists on the Left who are currently using our money to destroy America and the great American middle class.
In "The Great Patriot BUY-cott Book," we identify the 123 most conservative patriotic companies in America you can proudly buy from and invest in – without sacrificing your values or funding the destruction of everything we believe in.
A national divorce is complicated and will take many years to achieve. It may never officially happen. But our idea for a parallel conservative economy is the way to achieve an unofficial national divorce. It's a simple, easy start.
Call it a "quickie divorce."
Bob Unruh began an April 19 "news" article claiming the "national divorce" is already happening with his own right-wing-bubble interpretation of the difference between liberals and conservatives:
Greene recently suggested the split because of the seemingly unbridgeable chasm between the extremist positions of leftist Democrats in America – and the more traditional values of Republicans.
The GOP, for example, thinks parents should make decisions for their children, there's no need for taxpayers to pay for surgeries to mutilate the bodies of small children, and uncontrolled spending is not the way for government to operate.
Democrats advocate those life-altering transgender surgeries, virtually unlimited spending and the exclusion of parents from major life decisions involving their children.
Unruh then revealed his alleged evidence, which is just cherry-picked census data forwarded by right-wing writer Paul Bedard:
Now Bedard reports that "national divorce" already appears to be happening "organically."
"A new analysis of Census Bureau data shows that since the 2020 election year, nearly 2.6 million have moved out of counties won by President Joe Biden and into those won by former President Donald Trump," he explained.
The analysis, from Issues and Insights, notes, "More than 61% of the counties that voted for Biden in 2020 lost population, while 65% of Trump-supporting counties gained population."
But correlation does not necessarily equal causation, and no proof is offered that it does here. Also, those stats doesn't take into account that the COVID pandemic created opportunities to work remotely and reduce the need for people to live in expensive cities.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Transgender Targets Topic: Media Research Center
In addition to loathing transgender people in general, The Media Research Center loves to lash out at specific people -- like Rachel Levine and Dwyane Wade's child -- who have offended it by committing the offense of existing as transgender in public. Read more >>
MRC Continued Fretting Over Tucker Carlson's Firing, Defending His Extreme Views Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had a sad about Fox News firing Tucker Carlson, but it cheered CNN's firing of Don Lemon, then falsely tried to conflate the two even though they didn't have equivalent jobs. It was ultimately more concerned about Carlson's firing though. An April 24 post by Curtis Houck examined speculation over the firings -- but he gushed more about the speculation over Lemon while dismissing specuation about Carlson as coming from "liberal journalists" and "the ever-hacktastic Daily Beast." An April 26 post by Alex Christy -- who previously played joke policeman by whining that late-night comedy shows told too many jokes about Carlson -- complained that NBC's Seth Meyers "piled on Tucker Carlson" with Democratic Rep. Katie Porter.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson broke his silence Wednesday night in a two-minute-long video posted to Twitter. In it, he torched the establishment media and what he describes as both political parties and their donors reaching "consensus on what benefits them and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it." He ended the video with a hint that his future in conservative media was far from over.
Tucker started the video by remarking about his perspective since leaving Fox News: "One of the first things you realize, when you step outside the noise for a few days, is how many genuinely nice people there are in this country. Kind and decent people. People who really care about what’s true and a bunch of hilarious people also. A lot of those! It’s got to be the majority of the population even now. So that’s heartening."
Maybe Carlson will release a nightly monologue on Twitter. His monologues on his former Fox News show frequently made news and got people talking on Twitter. He can easily do that again by going directly to the newly liberated Elon Musk-owned Twitter.
It should be noted that as of publication, Carlson's video had over six million impressions, which was double what his old cable news show received on an average night.
Jeffrey Lord tried to manufacture a conspiracy about Fox News not being right-wing enough in his April 29 column:
One can only wonder, as many have, why in the world Fox would shut down its number one host. Tucker Carlson is a very popular conservative and a decidedly smart guy as well. All of which has been evident on his nightly show, and all of which his audience both understands and loves.
It boggles the mind that the people who created, own and run Fox News could be this far along in their creation and ownership of this network and not understand in a blink that the “blowback” from silencing Tucker could in fact be “this bad.”
All of which leads to the larger questions of what, exactly, Americans are really seeing as all of this drama unfolds. Is Fox deliberately turning its sights into becoming an “establishment” network?
That, I suspect, gets right to the real reason the Fox management cut Tucker loose. He was saying things on air that went against the grain of Establishment “truths”. Whether it was his opposition to the war in Ukraine, his thoughts on the transgender obsessions or saying that illegal immigrants were literally littering the countryside of the American Southwest, Tucker was fearless.
Notably he happily showed the January 6 inside-the-Capitol videos given to him by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Tellingly others in the GOP leadership - like Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell - were livid at Tucker’s presentation of internal videos that directly contradicted the presentations of the House January 6 Committee. Tellingly, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer was so incensed that he demanded Rupert Murdoch take him off the air. And also tellingly, Schumer has now been granted his wish.
In fact, it's been proven that Carlson's cherry-picked videos don't accurately reflect the reality of the riot.
Luis Cornelio spent a May 1 post hyping speculation from podcaster Joe Rogan that Carlson might be moving to right-wing video site Rumble. MRC executive Tim Graham, meanwhile, ran to Newsmax to complain about leaked audio of unflattering behavior by Carlson and defending his right to be a nasty whiner:
NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham appeared on the Newsmax evening show Eric Bolling The Balance to discuss Tucker Carlson's dismissal and the aftermath at Fox News, and whether Fox is becoming too "establishment."
Bolling ran video of the latest leak of Tucker running down the Fox Nation website, saying it's dysfunctional and it drives him crazy. Bolling said "the speculation is that Fox is leaking that stuff from the inside."
TIM GRAHAM: Well that's the weirdest stuff. It's like we're sitting here on a day where Trump is going to do a live town hall on CNN and Fox is leaking stuff to Media Matters? (Laughs) Where are we living?!
Look, I think, just like we heard Tucker saying nasty things about Trump in the text messages or emails in the Dominion suit. People should have a right to have moments where they're upset with people. Right? I mean, we all have this inside our own office. Sometimes where we're not happy with the way things are going, But there's just you blow off steam. It doesn't mean that you're going to be a disloyal employee. I mean, the people that should be seen as the disloyal employees are all the Fox people who talked to Brian Stelter for his nasty books!
BOLLING: Yeah, and Gabe Sherman back in the day.
Graham didn't explain what, if anything, in Stelter's book about Fox News was "nasty," or why those who spoke to him for the book were "disloyal" while Carlson wasn't.
After one leaked audio clip showed Carlson making racist-leaning comments, Mark Finkelstein took offense when "Morning Joe" featured it, using whataboutism to distract from it:
In the course of a long Morning Joe segment today focusing on an exposed Tucker Carlson text message to a colleague that the way some January 6th rioters were beating up an Antifa guy isn't "how white men fight," Michael Steele commented:
The fact that something like that could be sent to a colleague and it sort of sits there, and nothing happens or comes from it, and it's not until you get into this sort of adversarial, prosecutorial setting in which it becomes public or potentially becomes public that they see some reaction. So it really speaks to the culture inside the building in many respects that that type of communication doesn't rise to a point where, you know, he's brought in by the leadership of the company saying, what the hell are you talking about, how white men fight?"
If Steele is shocked that there would be no immediate corporate repercussions for Tucker saying that in a private communication between two people, how about a TV host bragging—live on the air—about how he would threaten and attack someone merely doing something he didn't approve of? Steele need look no further than across the morning's panel, at certified very-white-man Joe Scarborough.
Want to know "how white men fight," Michael? Last year, we caught Macho Joe, commenting on tourists in the Capitol the day before January 6th, bragging about how he'd attack one. Mind you: not someone who had confronted or attacked Joe. Just someone doing something Scarborough didn't approve of[.]
Graham complained more about the leaks in his May 3 podcast:
Don Lemon's firing at CNN was not mysterious, but we're in week two of trying to figure out why Fox News parted ways with Tucker Carlson. Was he too insubordinate with the Murdochs? Did he use the C-word for women too often? It seems like nobody really knows yet.
New leaks to Tucker-hating liberal outlets and "watchdog groups" seemed intended to damage the ex-Fox host's standing, but conservatives largely found they liked him more. One video showed Carlson complaining about flaws on the Fox Nation website. Another showed him suggesting one man's wife looked "yummy"....then he took it back when he thought someone might find it from a satellite transmission. He told one Fox-hating watchdog group to...."GFY."
Graham ranted about the leaked Tucker videos again in a May 7 post, with added indignance that Carlson was labeled (accurately, it can be argued) as a racist:
On Wednesday's World News Tonight, ABC reporter Terry Moran reveled in a leaked Tucker Carlson text message about a mob of white men beating up an "antifa kid." He claimed "For years...Tucker Carlson promoted racist views on his show, the highest-rated program on Fox...viewers had long heard Carlson give voice to a message of white supremacy, especially on the issue of immigration."
ABC anchor David Muir introduced the story with these words behind him on screen: "NYT UNCOVERS RACIST CARLSON TEXT."
To describe Carlson's show as "racist" in general is a smear not only of the host, but the audience that makes it "the highest rated program on Fox." In The New York Times, A.O. Scott said the same thing, only fancier: "His most successful on-air persona, perfected on Fox after the departure of Bill O’Reilly, has been a volatile mixture of upper crust and salt of the earth. Whiteness was the glue that held the package together, and in this text you can see it coming unstuck, even as Carlson tries to work through some inherent contradictions."
Graham went on to play whataboutism rather than actually try and prove Carlson isn't racist. You may remember that the MRC tried to lamely insist that the Carlson-promoted racist replacement conspiracy theory -- which seems to have inspired a gun massacre -- wasn't racist or a conspiracy theory.
We'veshown how Newsmax flip-flopped on Tucker Carlson, going from bashing him over his pro-Russia stance to treating him as a victim after Fox News fired him (in part because it would desperately love to hire Carlson). Newsma 's columnists also fretted over Carlson's firing. Michael Dorstewitz declaring that his firing was "bad for all of society" in an April 26 column:
The release of Tucker Carlson from Fox News, coming one week after conservative political commentator Dan Bongino was also let go, represents a disturbing and evolving trend in American society: freedom of thought is out; totalitarianism is in.
Afterwards, dressed in what appeared to be the same jacket and tie, Carlson delivered the keynote address at The Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary Gala. He talked about freedom.
"I am not a slave," he said. "I am a free citizen, and I'm not doing that, and there's nothing you can do to me to make me do it, and I hope it won't come to that, but if it does come to that, here I am. Here I am. It's Paul on trial. Here I am."
Carlson also spoke about truth and lies.
"The truth is contagious," he said. "the more you tell the truth, the stronger you become. . . .the more you lie, the weaker and more terrified you become . . . you see these people and some of them really have paid a heavy price for telling the truth . . . but they do it anyway. . . "
Dorstewitz didn't mention that Carlson's record of spreading falsehoods and misinformation is so egregious that Fox News lawyers resorted to defending him against him by declaring that nobody should believe a single word he says.
Bill Donohue whined that the media is accurately labeling Carlson's views:
Today, these terms have lost their meaning. The lead story in today's New York Times is: "Fox News Ousts Carlson, a Voice Of the Far Right."
What did Carlson do to merit this invidious tag? The news story says he took "far-right positions on issues like border policy and race relations."
Carlson believes that people who break the law by crashing our border and entering the country illegally should be prosecuted. The surveys show so do most Americans.
Carlson also believes that critical race theory, which teaches that every white person is a racist, is irresponsible. The surveys show most Americans agree with him. In other words, according to the New York Times, most Americans are Nazi-like creatures.
Most fair-minded observers would say that Carlson is to the right of center the way Don Lemon is to the left of center. Accordingly, if The New York Times were fair, it would brand Lemon "far left." But that is not what they called him recently: He is called a "fiery political commentator."
This could also be said of Carlson, but that is not what they say about him. He is an extremist.
Donohue offered no proof that Lemon is as far left as Carlson is to the right.
John Burnett argued that Carlson's firing is good news ... for Newsmax, because Fox News has decided it would rather "dominate the political center, which requires it not to be too far right to capture Democrats and independents":
So, where do the defecting 3.7 million center-right Fox viewers go? Newsmax is the optimal choice, and the network is well-positioned to gain viewers, streamers, and subscribers requesting the station in cable network channel packages.
And the timing is excellent for Newsmax, having recently resolved its dispute with DirecTV as we enter a period of presidential politics that will yield more campaign announcements and Republican debates set to kick off in August this year.
The floridly bylined Tamar Alexia Fleishman, Esq., thinks that Carlson's firing means that Fox News will not support Donald Trump in 2024:
The ignominious firing of a top performer — often the No. 1 show on cable — seemed to strike a chord across America. But as his audience was generally only about 1% of the U.S. population and so many of us already switched to Newsmax, there was something incongruous about the collective reaction. It felt more like a death in the family, even if it was someone you didn’t see too often.
Why? Carlson was one person in the mainstream media who dared to look at things in a different way, even if sometimes utterly unpopular.
Whether you agreed or not, he articulated a certain point of view. This was generally the America First, MAGA lens: on the topics of the vaccine, Ukraine, immigration or President Trump, he was not milquetoast.
Paradoxically, the more popular he became, it appears the more he rubbed Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch the wrong way. Murdoch, a billionaire born in Australia, doesn’t have a natural love for the viewers. The audience is a necessary evil for him to deal with: Grab their money and use their numbers to wield disproportionate power.
What did he want to do with his power? Clearly, Murdoch expects to use it to prevent Donald Trump from being president again. If Murdoch can create a news blackout, there goes the “earned media” that was part of the secret sauce for Trump’s first victory.
It should make every thinking American shudder to envision himself as a mere pawn of Rupert Murdoch. He can never be president himself.
We cannot allow the Murdochs to silence us, or trample our will.
Josh Hammer insisted that Carlson needs a massive platform again to hate transgender people:
Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity has never been more necessary.
This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson's framing of America's fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man.
Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead "fluid," wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone's subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?
Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-sitting governor, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had "come out publicly as 'pro-choice' on the question of chemical castration of children." Oof.
That is not a debate where the "best white paper wins." It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.
Dennis Kneale also mined a pro-Newsmax angle to Carlson's firing in his May 1 column, in which he also touted three previous Newsmax appearances by him in the span of just a few paragraphs:
Tucker Carlson's ouster is downright rude; it had to hurt, as I mentioned on Rita Cosby’s show on Saturday morning on Newsmax TV, here.
One clear winner in this Tucker trauma has emerged, says veteran political advisor Dick Morris, whom I joined in a Newsmax segment on Monday of last week.
"The obvious fact is that Newsmax has won. Newsmax is now the sole conservative voice in media, and Fox News can talk about that, but by firing Carlson they have decidedly moved to the left and the center."
He added, "I think ratings are going to increase dramatically, I think that people that are used to watching Fox are going to flock to Newsmax."
Newsmax ratings were up 261% in the 8 p.m. slot, up 220% in prime time over all, and up 113% for total day, for Monday to Wednesday last week, compared with the two previous weeks. I discussed this with anchors Lidia Curanaj and Michael Grimm on Sunday morning on Newsmax's "Wake Up America Weekend."
Scott Powell's May 2 column took the doom-and-conspiracy route:
But there are profound lessons that have come to the fore via his departure from Fox, which reveal more nuance and depth about what's wrong with America’s mainstream media; that is, how it's influenced by America haters who manipulate advertisers to defund truth tellers, and how weak leadership of our media utterly fails our country and helps our enemies.
Tucker had the largest viewership of any talk show in the genre, and he was waking people up more effectively than any other "talking head."
But he was relentlessly attacked by left-wing critics who succeeded in intimidating advertisers from continuing their support of his show.
This may have been a factor in Fox management’s decision to cancel him.
Many have noted that Fox received advertising revenue from Pfizer.
Did that affect the network's coverage of an important and lasting story of our time: COVID-19 vaccines?
One can’t help but recognize that what makes Tucker Carlson so powerful is his God-given combination of compelling and disarming qualities of being an extraordinarily likeable truth teller. So, if that iron law is true, the best for Tucker Carlson must be yet to come.
And like an exceptional performance's encore, let’s bring him back, unleashed — now.
But Fox News stopped liking him, and that's what matters at this point.
WND's Defense Of Man Who Killed Protester Aged Poorly Topic: WorldNetDaily
Peter LaBarbera wrote in an April 10 WorldNetDaily article:
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is pledging to "work swiftly" to pardon Army Sgt. Daniel Perry, who was convicted of murdering AK-47-toting BLM extremist Garrett Foster to death in 2020 after Perry accidentally drove his car for Uber into an Austin street mobbed by leftist, anti-cop protesters.
The conviction of Perry, who could face life in prison, is clouded by allegations that Rick Garcia, the George Soros-backed, "progressive" Travis County D.A. who successfully prosecuted him, instructed an investigator of the case to leave out exculpatory information about Perry in his court testimony during the trial.
The Perry case is potentially as incendiary as that of Kyle Rittenhouse, who in 2021 was acquitted of several homicide charges after defending himself with his weapon in riots the previous year in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The accusation that "exculpatory information" was removed from testimony comes from a claim from Perry's attorneys regarding retired detective David Fugitt. But as prosecutors pointed out, Fugitt's claim was addressed and rejected before Perry's trial.
But as with the Media Research Center's similar defense of Perry, it didn't age well. A few days later, unsealed documents from the case revealed that Perry had a history of making racist and violent comments on social media, stating just a couple months before the shooting that “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," and stating in another post that “It is official I am a racist because I do not agree with people acting like animals at the zoo."
LaBarbera seemed to try to inoculate his reporting from this by writing a section of his article wiht the subhead "Liberal media ignores and distorts context":
Online broadcaster and self-described "disaffected liberal" Tim Pool (@Timcast on Twitter) gave a tutorial of sorts on press bias in analyzing liberal media coverage of the Perry case. In his Rumble broadcast, Pool accused media like the Austin Chronicle of selectively taking portions of past remarks by Perry, out of their proper context, to make it appear as if Perry relished the idea of shooting BLM protesters.
Pool also warned of the danger to Americans' basic rights if past comments they made defending their Second Amendment right to self-defense can later be used and distorted to provide supposed evidence of murderous- or harmful intent.
LaBarbera then tried to argue that Foster deserved to die:
Pool cited a tweet by former Army Green Beret Jim Hanson who explained how Foster, by having his weapon "employed" or "brandished" (as opposed to merely carrying it), posed an immediate threat to Perry sitting in his vehicle, surrounded by protesters:
In a follow-up tweet, Hanson said: "I've seen arguments Garrett Foster was only defending himself when Daniel Perry shot him. The easiest way to actually stay safe would have been stop mobbing his car & brandishing a rifle. But even if he was 'defending' himself, that doesn't remove Perry's right to do the same."
LaBarbera didn't update his story to address the newly released statements by Perry, and WND hasn't touched the story since. So much for LaBarbera being a fair and balanced reporter.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade: Transition Time Topic: Media Research Center
After helping Ron DeSantis win another term as Florida governor, the Media Research Center is now trying to pave the way for his presidential ambitions. Read more >>
Transgender Lawmaker's Rhetoric Gives MRC The (Hypocritical) Vapors Topic: Media Research Center
When Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, who is transgender, gave a passionate speech in which she warned her fellow lawmakers they would have "blood on your hands" if they approved an anti-transgender law -- which got her barred from the legislative floor for the rest of the session while that law passed -- the Media Research Center got the vapors over the remark (as if its haven't attacked its enemies with greater vitriol; see George Soros). Tim Graham spent an April 21 post complaining that people who aren't transphobes weren't scandalized by Zephyr's rhetoric:
This could be a poll question: Which speech is more offensive?
--"Misgendering" a trans woman as a "he"?
--Telling someone who opposes trans amputations and chemicals they have "blood on their hands"?
The Washington Post picked (A). Their headline was "Montana Republicans misgender trans lawmaker in letter calling for civility." Reporter Maria Luisa Paul explained state Rep. "Zooey Zephyr" claimed Republicans were shameful for making gender-dysphoric kids go through puberty without chemicals:
So telling people they have blood on their hands for failing to support amputations sounds like it needs a fact check as well as a civility check. Who's eroding norms here as they nuke the gender binary?
Graham won't tell you that accusing others of having blood on their hands is not uncommon in political rhetoric -- even on the website he manages. Last June, for example, John Simmons said that doctors who perform abortions have "blood on their hands, and in December, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg declared that those who support abortion rights "are stained with the blood of the 63 million + babies who have been killed as a result of Roe." And in January 2022, as we've documented, the MRC praised singer John Ondrasik for writing a song called "Blood On My Hands," which attacked the Biden administration over the messy U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Graham was also being hypocritical about inflammatory language, bashing Zephyr's rhetoric while maliciously portraying being transgender as all aboaut "chemicals" and "amputations."And his outrage over Zephyr's remarks is doubly hypocritical given his own history of inflammatory rhetoric, most notoriously trying to slut-shame Monica Lewinsky.
The next MRC writer to get the performative vapors over Zephyr's rhetoric was Curtis Houck, who ranted in an April 26 post:
Wednesday’s broadcast networks brought the first batch of broadcast network stories trashing the push to protect women and girls from biological men and children from medical castration by the Montana state legislature and cheering the latest leftist hooliganism.
Worse yet, they cheered transgender Representative Zooey Zephyr (D) — a man pretending to a woman — threatening anyone who supports such legislation means they wholly support murder and suicides of transgender people since they’ll have “blood on [their] hands.”
So much for civility. It’s hard to have a country and civic society when the left and their media allies accuse tens of millions of eagerly supporting mass killings and suicides. Remember that the next time the press insists they’re for all Americans.
As if nastily smearing Zephyr as "a man pretending to a woman" is not designed to be inflammatory.
Clay Waters was next up to whine in an April 29 post:
The tax-funded PBS NewsHour on Wednesday night was the latest outlet to leap upon the cause of Montana legislator and transgender Democrat Zooey Zephyr, barred from the House chamber for violating rules of decorum during a debate on a bill that would ban so-called “gender-affirming care” for gender-dysmorphic minors wishing to surgically or chemically “transition.”
The vote came after a nasty speech by Zephyr, a biological male, accusing colleagues who oppose such care: “If you vote yes on this bill, I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.” Zephyr also claimed failing to provide such care was “tantamount to torture.” But those inflammatory quotes, delivered on the Montana House floor, didn’t make PBS’s hagiography.
Nawaz hosted Zephyr (who for a legislator representing 11,000 constituents certainly gets their share of publicity) and the resulting conversation was more therapy session than journalism: "You know, when you spoke in your defense before the vote today, you said that you felt you were being asked to be -- quote -- 'complicit in the eradication of your community.' What did you mean by that?"
Yes, Waters' complaint that Zephyr got too much publlicity while giving her publicity came without a hint of irony.
Graham name-checked Zephyr in his May 5 podcast devoted to complaining that "While the national liberal networks tout Democrats fighting the GOP in red state legislatures, radical left-wing bills in blue states are going ignored." He similaly whined in his May 10 column: "Just as allegedly prestigious outlets like NPR have championed transgender legislator Zooey Zephyr in Montana and the Bullhorn Justins in Tennessee, the only point of view worth exploring and defending in state politics right now is on the radical left. "
WND Promotes False Attack On Trudeau From Fake-News Website Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh wrote in an April 6 WorldNetDaily article:
Canada has moved, on several issues, to an extreme, such as assisted suicide (freely available), transgenderism (a protected class), and speech limits.
Now it apparently is trying to take the point in the move to make drugs legal. That would be hard drugs – for children.
A report from Newpunch has revealed, "Justin Trudeau has announced plans to legalize hard drugs for children, including heroin and crack cocaine, as part of a new radical policy aimed at destigmatizing drug addiction."
The report said the city of Toronto is setting the pace.
Unruh's source is actually named NewsPunch, not "Newpunch," though it has since changed its name to The People's Voice. Media Bias Fact Check calls NewsPunch/The People's Voice a "clickbait news website that promotes extreme right-wing conspiracy theories and pseudoscience misinformation," where "Headlines use loaded emotional language" and "story selection almost always favors the right through negative stories regarding liberal policy and politicians." It concluded: "This website has zero credibility due to the routine publishing of fake news." Ad Fontes Media similarly calls the website "unreliable" and notes that it "has been accused of publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories."
Indeed, the article's claim that "Justin Trudeau has announced plans to legalize hard drugs for children" is unsupported; no proof is offered that he has announced that specific plan. In reality, Trudeau has allowed provinces to decriminalize drug possession on a province level in pilot projects in an attempt to treat drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. While the Toronto pilot would decriminialize drug possession for all ages, it is false to claim that equals "legalizing hard drugs for children," given that the sale of such drugs is still illegal.
Unruh clearly doesn't understand the difference between decriminalization and legalization, because later in the article he falsely called Toronto's pilot "drugs-for-all policies."
Repeating a false story from a known fake-news operation is not the way WND should be trying to rebuild its lost credibility among readers, and it will only keep the website on its lengthy death spiral.
MRC Still Trying To Cover Up Musk's Twitter Blue-Check Debacle Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has done its best to bury the debacle that is Elon Musk's plan to deprecate Twitter's blue-check symbol from offical assurance that an account is authentic to a meaningless dot that proves only that the user is enough of a sucker to pay Musk $8 a month to have one. When a tiny fraction of people actually bought the blue checks -- understanding the ruse -- Musk arbitrariily slapped the blue check on accounts that didn't even pay for it, including celebrities (even dead ones). (Meanwhile, Twitter awarded a gold verification badge, which reportedly costs $1,000 a month, to a fake account purporting to respresent the children's channel Disney Junior.)
But the MRC would rather you not talk about any of this. Instead, it's doing Musk PR by raging at the hated George Soros for buying a blue check (even though it shows he's a smart businessmann by refusing to pay for something that offers nothing of value in return). An April 24 post by Clay Waters was another PR piece that lashed out at a report that pointed out how Musk had rendered the blue check meaningless:
A double panic attack took place on Friday’s edition of the talk show Amanpour & Co, which co-airs on CNN and PBS, over Twitter chief Elon Musk no longer handing out account verifications (i.e. “blue checks”) to liberal journalists willy-nilly, but instead giving them to anyone willing to pay the fee.
Liberal journalists like the New York Times’ Paul Krugman have developed a complex over blue checkmarks, with Musk himself< seeming to enjoy toying with their fragile self-regard online.
Musk’s move apparently threatens an onslaught of “disinformation.” Amanpour fill-in host Bianna Golodryga’s overwrought fears were on display in her introduction:
Waters then tried to fame former Twitter executive Vivian Schiller pointing out that the blue check means nothing as a complaint coming only from "liberal elites":
Liberal elites are impressed by their blue-check status, suggesting concerns about “misinformation” are window-dressing over their real concern, that the hoi polloi can now pay $8 a month for the mark of prestige previously reserved for themselves, although Schiller defensively denied such thinking:
When it was pointed out that Musk is rolling back anti-hate policies such as dropping punishments fordeliberately misgendering transgender people, Waters tried to play the victim card:
The liberal whining began in earnest, with Golodryga asking Schiller about Twitter “quietly rolling back some of its protections, specifically for transgender people,” including “misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”
Schiller: ….the policy specifically called out transgender individuals who we already know are subject to a lot of abuse online. And by removing that line and keeping it broadly, targeting of others, it removes tha added protection…
Conservatives get smeared and cursed and throttled on Twitter thousands of times a day, often by radical transgender activists. Yet it’s transgenders who require “added protection” from being called by their birth names?
Waters appears not to have considered the possibilty that he and his fellow right-wingers could simply stop obsessively hating transgender, and he didn't explain why right-wingers must misgender people.
Luis Cornelio turned a Twitter user's confusion about the proliferation of various colored check marks for Twitter users (he thought the blue check for President Biden's account had been dropped; instead, it had been changed to a newly invented gray check given to accounts of government officials)into an April 25 post which cheered right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro ranting about it, then tried to relitigate Donald Trump's social media suspensions:
Shapiro’s slap-down response to Dobrofsky’s tweet made reference to Big Tech’s censorship efforts to ban then-President Trump from all major social media platforms amid the January 6 Capitol riot.
At the time, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Chinese communist-tied TikTok and even Shopify participated in the coordinated effort to ban a sitting president. Digital store Shopify went as far as to block stores that sell Trump-related content.
According to an MRC Free Speech America study, the same Big Tech companies that banned Trump allowed seven dictators, including embattled Russian President Vladimir Putin, to post government propaganda, reaching approximately 50 million followers.
Cornelio omitted the fact that Trump was credibily accused of inciting the Capitol riot through his false claims of election fraud. He aldo didn't menetion that his fellow right-wingers like Putin's policies, particularly his similar hatred of LGBT people.
NEW ARTICLE: The Root of COVID Misinformation Continues To Grow Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Wayne Allyn Root just can't stop spreading false and misleading claims about the safety of COVID vaccines -- even creating a rigged lie detector test to spread them. Read more >>
MRC Still Spewing Hate At Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long hated transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney for failing to be heterosexual, and it hates Bud Light for doing a promotion with her, joining other right-wing haters in irrationally trying to destroy the company for doing so.' An April 19 post by Matt Philbin -- his last before he mysteriously parted ways with the MRC, a departure neither he nor the MRC has discussed publicly -- was a total insult-fest complete with misgendering:
Dylan Mulvaney is “trying really hard to maintain a relationship with God.” Admirable. Of course, it might be easier if Mulvaney didn’t reject His handiwork.
If you didn’t know (and if you didn’t you’re one of a happy few), Mulvaney is a 26 year-old actor and TikTok pest who publicly “transitioned” to being a “woman” and now runs around as a campy Audrey Hepburn look-alike.
For this, he’s been celebrated by leftist elites and received lucrative endorsement partnerships with Bud Light and Nike. Apparently, actual women are hard to come by in giant corporations. You can buy swag from his website. Mocking God’s Creation seems to be a good way to earn your daily bread.
According to Neil Munro at Breitbart, back in March somebody interviewed Mulvaney about faith and Relevant Magazine posted it because of the Bud Light brewhaha. “I don’t think He made a mistake with me, and that maybe one day, I will actually be grateful for being trans, that this isn’t some curse, but it’s just a different path to the same destination,” Mulvaney said.
Maybe, Aquinas. But self-obsession and acute narcissism are a tough place to start.
Philbin's apparent obsession with Mulvaney sure didn't keep him from losing his MRC job.
The next day, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg cheered the right-wing hysteria over Bud Light while mixing in a little vicious transphobia:
No matter how many times we say “get woke, go broke,” it seems like it never really clicks for the left.
Amid the weeks-long controversy surrounding Bud Light’s marketing choice to use a transgender person, essentially a biological man parading as a little girl, for a partnership, the company seems to face more and more backlash daily. As a matter of fact, a Rasmussen poll indicated that 50 percent of middle-income earners are less likely to buy Bud Light over it’s new transgender face.
When Bud Light’s Marketing VP suggested the use of Dylan Mulvaney, a man who makes his living from sponsorships with tampon brands, makeup companies and social media, its aim supposedly was to generate more “inclusivity.” Well, if you know anything about Bud Light, its main demographic is men, typically middle-aged men who like cracking open a cold one with their buddies out fishing, by a fire, grilling hamburgers, etc. Men who like doing manly stuff, not men who like pretending they’re Eloise at the Plaza.
Obviously the marketing move was a flop. Bud Light has lost more than six billion dollars since its partnership with Ms. Man and after “5,600 news articles were published about the controversy in two weeks,” things aren’t looking great for the future of the company.
Mandelburg didn't mention the right-wing bias of Rasmussen polls. And contrary to her assertion, the dip in valuation of Bud Light's parent company AB InBev, is making the stock a recommended buy. Still, she insisted that "it's kind of funny to watch the left squirm when their plans yet again fail." Finally, she forgot to mention that the company's facilities have been the target of violent threats, presumably from people who hate transgender people as much as she does.
Alex Christy devoted an April 25 post to complaining that "The Daily Show" defended both Mulvaney and Bud Light:
Each of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show temp hosts have used their time to talk about issues they care about and Desi Lydic was no exception, using Monday’s show to talk about the status of women in the workplace, but before she did that she undermined any point she would make when she defended Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney marketing campaign, “I am so sick of this ‘trans women are not real women.’ Having a vagina does not make you a woman.”
Lydic began the show by referencing the Bud Light-Mulvaney partnership, “and I just have to talk about it.”
She then proceeded to declare, “Okay, so last month, Bud Light did a social media campaign with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney and conservatives absolutely lost their shit over it. They were filming themselves shooting cans, running over cans, hitting cans with a baseball bat. It was like a Saw movie but starring Bud Light, but now their meltdown has even its own merch.”
Lydic then played a video from Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders that parodied Bud Light’s Real Men of Genius ads by focusing on “real women of politics” and fellow female GOP Govs. Kristi Noem, Kay Ivey, and Kim Reynolds.
Curtis Houck spent a May 5 post whining, as the MRC usually does, that that non-right-wing media didn't rush to parrot right-wing narratives, this time regarding Mulvaney and Bud Light:
After over a month of silence as corporate liberalism suffered a massive blow as ordinary Americans rose up against Anheuser-Busch InBev and dumped Bud Light (and the company’s sales) for worshiping at the alter of transgenderism and Dylan Mulvaney, NBC’s Today cracked one open Friday with the first story from a broadcast network morning or evening news show about the fallout.
Despite the controversy having started back on April 1 with Mulvaney’s infamous video announcing Bud Light had sent a can with their face on it to commemorate “my day 365 of womanhood,” NBC’s Today acted like this had happened only recently.
Right-wing transphobes shouldn't be confused with "ordinary Americans." But Houck pushed that narrative anyway, claiming that "As the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles and others have explained, conservatives successfully had their morals make an imprint on business (as opposed to the church of wokeism)." Irrational hate is not "morals," and Houck forgot to mention that Knowles is the guy who demanded that "transgenderism must be eradicated," a form of extremism that typically turns into the eradication of actual transgender people.