MRC's Durham Defenders Back In Business After Final Report Released Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent a goodchunk of last year hyping John Durham's investigate-the-investigators probe attacking previous probes of Donald Trump, repeatedly hyping his work even as both prosecutions he attempted in court resulted in aquittals of the accused. When Durham issued a final report of his investigation -- in which he complained that Trump was investigated but did not recommend new charges or even offer recommendations on how to handle future investigations -- the MRC rushed to Durham's defense yet again. Nicholkas Fondacaro spent a May 15 post complaining that the Durham probe was essentially (and property) dismissed as a nothingburger:
On Monday, Special Council [sic] John Durham’s long-awaited report into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation fell out of the blue. The report faults the FBI and says they should never have opened Crossfire Hurricane since it was entirely based on “leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.” Despite how Durham spelled out the fact that the Trump-Russia probe was based on “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence,” ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News stood behind it.
ABC chief Justice correspondent Thomas reported that Durham’s report found the FBI “never should've launched a probe in the first place, since ‘neither U.S. law enforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion.’”
He noted: “The bureau relied on ‘raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence.’ Noting that ‘there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents.’” He even admitted the infamous Steele Dossier was part of that effort.
But Thomas still insisted that then-candidate Donald Trump provided all the evidence the FBI needed to open the investigation:
Fondacaro praised a different reporter for spoutng a conservative-friendly narrative: "In stark contrast, on CBS Evening News, senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge didn’t hold back on Durham’s swipes at the FBI. She noted he called out how 'senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor' and 'relied on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.'"
The next day, Alex Christy groused about another commentator pointing out the failure of the Durham investigation:
MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough reacted to Special Counsel John Durham’s report that was fiercely critical of the FBI and the Trump-Russia probe by dismissing it as a waste of taxpayer money and that the main takeaway of the report is how bad Durham and Republicans look.
In one of his typical rants, Scarborough tried to find a silver lining, “The only good news is at least his four-year taxpayer funded boondoggle, that was funded by working Americans, paying him to walk through the fevered swamps of Trumpism is over.”
Bursting MSNBC’s bubble is not the same thing as destroying one’s reputation, but after a ranting about the GOP’s poor relationship to the FBI and at no point considering the demise of the Russia collusion narrative might have something to do with that, Scarborough returned to Durham, “Four years, millions and millions of dollars, and nothing to show for it but some really bad, humiliating headlines for pro-Trump newspapers.”
Curtis Houck similarly whined that pro-Durham narratives weren't followed in non-right-wing media:
Trump-Russia probe Special Counsel John Durham’s report dropped late Monday afternoon and, with only one criminal conviction (via a plea agreement), the liberal media were ebullient in celebrating the lack of mass indictments some billed as a foregone conclusion. It was nonetheless damaging as it found “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
On CNN and MSNBC, they were only missing in their initial coverage was champagne bottles as they falsely claimed “there’s absolute nothing new here,” there was still Trump-Russia collusion, and Crossfire Hurricane was wholly necessary.
Hours after the Department of Justice released the long-awaited report from Special Council [sic] John Durham into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, finding the FBI had no evidence and no reason to open the investigation to begin with, former FBI deputy director-turned-CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe finally crawled out from his hidey-hole Monday night to address the story. Of course, AC360 host Anderson Cooper gave him the floor to freely lash out at Durham and continue to lie about the investigation.
Going to McCabe only a couple minutes into his timeslot, Cooper noted that McCabe’s “name comes up 58 times in the Durham report” and tried to spin the fact that the Durham report found “the FBI never had evidence of collusion.” He asserted “[t]hat's not a legal term” when everyone understood that to be shorthand for Donald Trump being a Russian asset.
“What's your response?” Cooper simply teed up McCabe to defend himself, with little citation from the report to press his guest on. McCabe was fired for lying to federal investigators about his leaking to the press regarding the Hillary Clinton-e-mail probe.
Actually, McCabe was fired by Donald Trump just days before his retirement in a fit of retaliation over, and he was eventually awarded his full pension. But Fondacaro continued his attacks, huffing that "Cooper gave McCabe free rein to lash out at Durham and the investigation. McCabe proclaimed that Durham’s work 'was never a legitimate investigation,' just a 'political errand' for Trump."
Houck returned to rant about another person who didn't adhere to right-wing narratives:
In much the same way he did hours earlier on Monday’sNBC Nightly News, NBC Justice correspondent Ken Dilanian — who should be known as CIA Ken for his fealty to the agency — surfaced on Tuesday’s Today show to further spin for his real bosses in the intelligence community on Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the Trump-Russia probe.
Dilanian was shameless from the get-go in dismissing the report that found the Trump-Russia collusion investigation should have never even be launched: “Durham’s report is filled with blistering criticism of the FBI...but critics say Durham’s investigation ultimately fell flat, even though it lasted more than a year longer than the actual Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”
Channeling the criticisms of the Clinton special counsels on their length, Durham similarly tut-tutted over the fact that “Durham brought just two criminal cases that ended in acquittals and his report called for no major changes.”
[ABC's Pierre] Thomas closed by implying the probe was a waste: “Durham’s investigation, which cost more than $6.5 million, falls far short of proving that there was a deep state conspiracy against Trump. Durham only convicted one lower level FBI official of misconduct...and two major trials ended in acquittal.”
Worse yet, he further justified the hounding of Team Trump based on the Trump Tower meeting.
So, was it the Trump Tower meeting, Trump calling out to Russia to “find” Hillary Clinton’s missing e-mails, or George Papadopoulos? Hard to keep it all straight!
Houck didn't explain to his readers what the Trump Tower meeting was, let alone why it should not have resulted in an investigation.
The MRC also published a May 17 column by Ben Shapiro defending Durham, as well as a May 20 column by Jeffrey Lord claiming that Pulitizer Prizes awarded to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their work exposing connections between the Trump campaign and Russia were somhow invalidated by Durham's investigation, though he offered no specific claim in any of that work that Durham contradicted.
Calrson's Firing Sends WND's Root Into Conspiracy Mode Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Fox News settled the defamation lawsuit Dominion filed against it for a whopping $787 million, WorldNetDaily columnist Wayne Allyn Root had a fit, insisting that the settlement didn't affect his pet election fraud conspiracy theories. When Fox News fired right-wing host Tucker Carlson shortly afterward, it was for another fit by Root, and he delievered in his April 29 column, which began this way:
Did you hear about the new Fox News TV series? "Two spoiled brats and a clueless RINO." It's the tragic story of Rupert Murdoch's two spoiled-brat sons from liberal, woke Europe, and the quarterback running their Fox News playbook: hapless, clueless, bitter Paul Ryan.
Fox News in a matter of days ended relationships with the No. 1 host on cable TV (Tucker Carlson) and the No. 1 host of weekend cable TV (Dan Bongino).
Great moves, if you want to be the new Bed Bath & Beyond.
Think of what destroyed Bed Bath & Beyond. The company made one fatal decision: to fire Mike Lindell and stop selling "My Pillow" products. What a terrible miscalculation. Their audience was middle-class America: the Silent Majority. That audience is overwhelmingly conservative. From the moment they fired "My Pillow," their sales imploded. Bed, Bath & Beyond committed economic suicide by offending their own base of customers.
As we've noted, what actually bankrupted Bed Bath & Beyond was spending money on stock buybacks instead of investing it in business operations, not refusing to sell products from a discredited conspriacy theorist.
Root then moved on to insulting the Murdoch family that runs Fox News, sneering that "Rupert Murdoch is a very old, out-of-touch billionaire who is now semi-retired and busy trying to marry gals 30 years younger" and that his children "are kids that were born on third base and think they hit a triple." He also lashed out at Fox News board member Paul Ryan: "Paul Ryan is a clueless deep state RINO (Republican in Name Only) who has no idea how real conservative patriots think. His life is dedicated to destroying former President Donald Trump – because Paul Ryan is blind with rage and envy at how conservatives hate him, but love and adore Trump. Paul Ryan is "The Grinch" of GOP politics. His heart is filled with rage and envy."
Because Root is a salesman at heart (albeit one that believes in crazy conspiracy theories), Root plugged his own book:
I just wrote a No. 1 bestselling book, "The Great Patriot BUY-cott Book." It's about the huge divide in America. I believe conservative patriots need to start building a parallel conservative economy. We need to separate from the extreme, radical, madness and destruction of the Left. We need to spend our money only with companies led by conservatives. We need to punish and defund the Left.
But my book is also about the main issues that the Silent Majority and real conservatives care about:
No. 1: The communist takeover of the USA … and along with it, the weaponization of government.
No. 2: Rigged and stolen elections (the hallmark of communism).
No. 3: The COVID-19 vaccine disaster – the deaths and crippling injuries from this poison vaccine, and the cover-up by Big Pharma, government and the mainstream media.
No. 4: The fraud and corruption of the Ukraine war funding and how the deep state is leading us into World War III.
Fox News doesn't want to talk about those issues. Fox News is scared to death of those issues. My book went to No. 1 bestseller without one FNC interview.
Root offered no evidence that his book is a "No. 1 bestseller." He was already moving on to a new/old conspiracy theory:
I believe the final decision about firing Tucker was based on his commentary just a few days ago about the dangers and deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine and how mainstream media are responsible for taking bribes (i.e., hundreds of millions in advertising sales) from Big Pharma to cover up the biggest health care scandal in human history. Think about how many of their own loyal viewers may have died because Fox News covered up the truth?
Keep in mind James O'Keefe of Project Veritas exposed and humiliated scores of liberals with his undercover videos for many years – and he never faced any repercussions. But as soon as his undercover videos exposed the alleged corruption and deception of Pfizer and the COVID-19 vaccine, his own board fired him within days.
Just like Tucker. Come out against Big Pharma, expose the vaccine dangers and suddenly your job (no matter how successful you are) evaporates overnight. That's the power and hold Big Pharma has on the media.
Actually, O'Keefe was fired because of financial improprieties, including spending company money on himself.But why let the facts interfere with a pet conspiracy theory?
Root ended with another conspiracy-related comment: "I believe Fox News is finished. The question is, what's their next move? Maybe Fox News is about to sell the network to Pfizer. Maybe Pfizer plans to convert Fox News to a 24/7 vaccine propaganda network."
Newsmax Continued To Defend Trump On Arraignment Day Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax had beenfreakingout over Donald Trump's latest indictment, and when arraignment day came on June 13, it ramped thins up even more. A paywalled article called the indictment and coming trial an "October surprise," followed by a fairly straightforward article by Jeffrey Rodack about efforts to allow cameras during the arraignement. Then came the usual attack-and-defend mode:
Trump sycophant Dick Morris, meanwhile, cranked out a column that day trying to divert attention away from the indictment to, yes, Hillary Clinton:
The real loser here is Hillary Clinton.
The indictment has had the effect of turning the political clock back to 2016 and Hillary’s e-mail scandal.
Even as people see President Trump in the dock for keeping a small number of classified documents at his home, we all wonder why Hillary, who did not just have classified documents but actually erased more than 30,000 of them, has escaped trial.
And, if Hillary is the real defendant in how this case is playing out politically, her co-defendant is Joe Biden.
Actually, there's no comparison between the two. Hillary did not have 30,000 classified documents -- in fact, none of those emails on her personal server were marked as classified, and an investigation found that Clinton did nothing illegal. By contrast, Trump had documents that were clearly marked as classified and had his lawyers lie to the feds about whether all classified documents in his possession had been returned.
Morris then ranted about how Hunter Biden had been "purportedly bribed," and that "The Trump indictment is nothing but a tactic to take coverage away from the $5 million bribe Zlochevsky is alleged to have paid to then vice-president Biden." But there's no actual evidence to back it up at this point -- hence Morris' weasel words "purportedly" and "allegedly" -- whereas with Trump there are tapes.
CNS Blog Attacks Biden Over Litigation Started Under Bush Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 26 post at the deprecated CNSNews.com blog at MRCTV carried the headline "Farmers Cheer SCOTUS WOTUS Decision Returning Property Rights to Landowners from Biden’s Clutches." Craig Bannister wrote:
The nation’s farmers are cheering Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that American citizens, not the Biden Administration, have the right to manage the water on their property.
In 2014, the Obama Administration concocted and issued the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, greatly expanding the federal government’s claim to control of water in the U.S. - including on private property - under the guise of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative. The rule was repealed by President Donald Trump, but reinstated last year by President Joe Biden.
In Thursday’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency decision, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that the EPA can’t prohibit Idaho residents Michael and Chantell Sackett from building a home on their property near a wetland.
In fact, the case has nothing to do with either Biden or Obama. The Sacketts' litigation began in 2008 -- when George W. Bush was president, meaning that the litigation predates the WOTUS rule Bannister is complaining about.
As to expected from a biased writer like Bannister, he quoted only conservative-leaning groups cheering the ruling, such as the Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Builders and Contractors. Bannister added that "ABC’s statement calls on the Biden Administration to “refrain from regulatory overreach that harms taxpayers and job creators” -- even though, again, the litigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the Biden administration.
MRC DeSantis Defense Brigade Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has to defend Ron DeSantis from a variety of criticisms ranging from education to pudding, so it's gotten good at being an arm of his PR operation. Here's some of how the MRC defended DeSantis in March and April:
A March 17 post by Kevin Tober cheered that a reporter was fired for accurately describing the content of a DeSantis press release:
During her latest bout of DeSantis derangement syndrome, MSNBC’s vile and vitriolic ReidOut host Joy Reid brought on disgraced former Axios journalist Ben Montgomery who on Monday was fired for calling a press release from Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’s office “propaganda.” To attempt to illustrate her false belief that DeSantis is waging a war on the press, Reid used Montgomery's appearance on her Thursday night show to hold what seemed like a therapy session.
After pointing out that Montgomery was fired after his juvenile email was posted on Twitter by Florida Department of Education communications director Alex Lanfranconi, Reid bemoaned that “there is a bullying aspect and a lot of trolling” in the DeSantis administration.
“They tried to bully my dear friend and colleague Andrea Mitchell for asking a question not even to DeSantis, to the Vice President, Kamala Harris,” Reid whined, referencing a partisan interview conducted by Andrea Mitchell in which she asked, without evidence, why DeSantis doesn’t want schools to teach about slavery.
Doubling down on the very thing that got him fired in the first place, Montgomery proclaimed DeSantis’s press release “was propaganda” and “a waste of my time.”
Not wanting to be held accountable for his actions, Montgomery played the victim and claimed that Axios firing him for exposing himself as a leftist activist “has a chilling effect on the entire news media.”
Tober didn't explain how Montgomery's assessment of the DeSantis press release was incorrect in any way.
Alex Christy spent a March 24 post complaining that DeSantis' time as a Navy lawyer at Guantanamo Bay dealing with was brought up:
MSNBC keeps coming up with reasons to oppose a potential presidential campaign by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The latest reason came on Thursday from The 11th Hour guest host Mehdi Hasan and Crooked Media podcaster Juanita Tolliver where they lamented DeSantis’s popularity will likely increase because he “tortured” prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Referencing the recent interview DeSantis did with Piers Morgan, Hasan teed up a clip of the controversy, “Juanita, DeSantis was also asked about the Washington Post reporting on his time in the Navy at Guantanamo Bay, including allegations that he advised the use of force feeding against prisoners participating in hunger strikes. Have a listen.”
The clip showed DeSantis claiming that force feeding was something he had no authority on, “I was a junior officer; I didn't have authority to authorize anything. There may have been a commander that would have done feeding if someone was going to die, but that was not something that I would have even had authority to do.”
By dishonestly portraying the DeSantis clip as representative of the Post article, Christy ignored the actual content of the article, in which DeSantis is quoted as an advocate of force-feeding, adding that "He has described the hunger strikes as part of a '“jihad' against the United States, and characterized claims of abuse from detainees and their lawyers as attempts to work the system — foreshadowing his conservative views as a lawmaker on issues ranging from constitutional rights to military and criminal justice."
Christy then whined that it was also pointed out how DeSantis is in a right-wing bubble:
Back live, Hasan wondered if DeSantis’s popularity would soon fade, “Juanita, do you think that this part of DeSantis’s record is going to get more attention in the future? I mean, there's so much more that could come out about him, his time in the Navy, his time in Congress, his time before politics, as a teacher. So far he's been cocooned in his safe right-wing space of Florida for so long.”
Despite being only a governor, DeSantis has faced a hostile press that has consistently lied and misled about what he is doing. The idea he is being cocooned in a right-wing safe space is ridiculous.
Not as ridiculous, however, as one of the maintainers of that DeSantisg safe space denying that it exists.
WND, Farah Had A Sad Over Tucker Carlson's Firing Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily first reacted to Fox News' firing of right-wing propgandist Tucker Carlson by trying to blame Ray Epps. But like other ConWeboutlets, it went into fret-and-defense mode for him:
An April 25 article by Bob Unruh hyped that for a short time, he posted on his website an ad offering those who sign up on his site to be given details about 'what Tucker's up to next.'"
Later that day. Joe Kovacs promoted a video Carlson post teasing his future plans.
An April 28 article by Peter LaBarbera touted how "Tucker Carlson is viewed much more favorably than Fox News, the cable network that just let him go, among middle-aged and older voters, Republicans and conservatives, according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports, a favorite polling firm on the right."
A May 1 article by Kovacs focused on Tucker's continued status as a Fox News employee.
Meanwhile, editor Joseph Farah -- who was one of those suggesting Epps got Carlson fired -- continued to be a total Tucker stan. He was spewing conspiracy theories and going Godwin about the firing in his April 25 column:
Call it for what it is – election interference, Biden protection, next year's version of the laptop from hell.
I speak of the firing of Tucker Carlson, the bravest, most fearless man on television. No one else came close – not in a million years. Connect the dots.
You had Chuckie Schumer's spleen-felt televised message to Rupert Murdoch, directing him to fire Carlson or, at least, censor his promised multi-part series on the Jan. 6 hoax. It was effective. It turned it into a one-part series. Then there were Tucker's gutsy references to the fraudulent elections of 2020. That must have stuck in Murdoch's craw. Then came Sunday night's "60 Minutes" ode to Ray Epps, the one man safe from the Liz Cheney's House Unselect Committee of Jan. 6 – and CBS predictably blamed Tucker again. One would have to be blind or a Democrat not to see the fix was in.
America is in deep, deep trouble.
First they came for Andrew Breitbart, in 2012. Then they came for Matt Drudge, in 2018. Then they came with COVID-19 just in time for the election of 2020. Then, in 2022, they came for WND and some other defiant ones in the internet (via demonetization). Then they came for Tucker Carlson.
Am I being overly dramatic by drawing parallels to the era of Nazis? Not on your life! Figure out what I am saying. The Deep State plays for keeps.
And being utterly shameless, he managed to turn this pro-Tucker rant into self-victimhood and a money beg:
Will he be back on television, ever? Why not? Ask yourself that question. He had the ratings – even for Fox. But it was not enough. That's the way the media work now. It happened years ago for WND, too. We were the first. We were popular. We stood here for 25 years. But Google took away the money. Facebook took away the money. Amazon took away the money. All we have left is your support.
Don't let the woke mob and the ruling elite take it away.
Please consider helping us continue to expose the Deep State that has canceled Tucker by making a generous tax-deductible donation to the nonprofit 501(c)(3) WND News Center. You can designate a one-time gift or a repeating monthly donation, using credit/debit card or PayPal.
Farah spent the first half of his April 26 column taking credit for building Newsmax leader Christopher Ruddy's success in right-wing media, whining at one point:
His idea was always to start a TV station – which he finally achieved in 2014. I was not impressed and have not become a fan. It was not ever very conservative, and lately, one of his ex-hosts, Grant Stinchfield, told me a story of how Newsmax advised him to "attack" Tucker Carlson. In fact, in this news report and video Stinchfield claims his refusal to attack Tucker was the reason he was fired from Newsmax. So, not a chance Tucker will ever work there.
Actually, Newsmax wants you to forget it ever criticized Carlson for being a pro-Russia shill -- which seems like as good a reason as any to criticize him -- because it's trying to woo him to Newsmax. Farah, however, wants Carlson to go even further right:
How about Tucker joining Glenn Beck and Blaze Media? He likes Glenn Beck and so do I. But it's not TV. So, I don't think so.
That leaves MSNBC and CNN. Incredibly bad blood there for Tucker.
So that about does it. Where else can Tucker Carlson go?
I would cajole Tucker to consider a quiet, up-and-coming new TV network, Real America's Voice. It may soon supplant Fox because it lives up to its name. They have some stars in their constellation – Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, the aforementioned Grant Stinchfield, Dr. Gina Loudon, who once worked at WND, and Fox's super-talented Ed Henry, not to mention John Solomon – a real journalist. There are others worth mentioning, but you can do a little research on the next great network in America.
But former President Donald Trump is very aware of Real America's Voice. It broadcasts every Trump event, every rally, every speech. He loves it. And so do his fans. You've probably seen many of them televised on WND via Real America's Voice.
I would say it's the only game in town.
It's the kind of career move Tucker would consider – unless he wants to run on Trump's ticket. That's another possibility – but I would love to see Tucker back on TV.
You might remember that Loudon wrote a WND column defending her teenage daughter's relationship with a 57-year-old man, which WND quietly disappeared a few years later as she tried to boost her standing in pro-Trump circles.
For his May 1 column, Farah was angry to learn that people outside his right-wing bubble hate Carlson:
For most of us, the firing of Tucker Carlson by Fox News left us with a hole in our heart and our lives – much like the untimely death of Rush Limbaugh. The only difference was one hour a day versus three hours a day to look forward to.
But for the fake media and Big Tech, the censorious class, they were beside themselves; they got what they wanted. In their eyes, it was like a dream-come-true, what they had been hoping for, longing for, yearning for.
How else can you characterize the hateful reviews of what he said day after day as the only Big League journalist and commentator walking out of step with the crowd? Honestly, they will soon have nothing else talk about and write about – nothing left about which their spleens could hope to ooze more toxic bile. They're like the walking dead. They got their victim – but there's nothing left to eat.
Who am I talking about?
Well, most of you probably didn't have time to keep up with all of Tucker's detractors. They were legion.
Wow! The jealously and hatred of these impostor journalists is palpable, isn't it? There's no shortage of them. They're just everywhere. From the New York Times to the truthfully named Daily Beast, they are all obsessed with Tucker. Why? Because he has a different point of view and articulates it clearly and accurately. That's his "sin." His only one apparently.
MRC Hates Twitter's New CEO For Not Being Far-Right Enough Topic: Media Research Center
Twitter's newly appointed CEO, Linda Yaccarino, has indisputable right-wing bona fides: President Trump appointed her to serve on a White House commission and she follows numerous right-wing and far-right Twitter accounts. But that's not far-right enough for the Media Research Center. Joseph Vazquez devoted a May 15 post to being mad that Vaccarino once argued in favor of content moderation on Twitter -- which he insists on framing as "censorship" without explaining why hate and misinformation must be allowed to spread unchecked:
Twitter owner Elon Musk’s newly appointed World Economic Forum-tied CEO for the platform recently tried to corner him into committing to reinstalling some of the same Orwellian censorship structures of the old regime. Gee, what a shocker (sarcasm).
Then-NBCUniversal Chair of Global Advertising and Partnerships Linda Yaccarino pressed Musk during an interview at the 2023 MMA Global POSSIBLE Miami Event on whether he would pledge to reinstate an “influence council” akin to the old censorship-obsessed regime. “So Twitter 1.0 had a very well-populated, much loved influence council,” Yaccarino mourned. She propped the “council” up as a supposedly necessary “recurring feedback loop from your key stakeholders — your advertisers — where they had recurring access or would have recurring access to you.”
The kind of so-called “influence” Yaccarino pushed involved giving advertisers some control over Twitter’s “product development, ad safety” and — of course — “content moderation,” which is a cute euphemism for censorship.
Musk didn’t take the bait and deflected Yaccarino’s attempts to corner him. “It’s totally cool to say that you want to have your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not in other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do.” Musk was adamant that if his stance meant “losing advertising dollars, we lose it. But freedom of speech is paramount.” Musk also asserted that a so-called influence council would make him “wary of creating a backlash among the public because the public thinks that their views are being determined by” elitists.
But this begs the question in retrospect: why would Musk appoint a clearly liberal individual to lead a platform that is apparently not nearly as committed to protecting free speech? Yaccarino chairs the Taskforce on Future of Work and sits on the Media, Entertainment and Culture Industry Governors Steering Committee at the globalist WEF. WEF has actively promoted asinine views pushing Big Tech censorship.
Vazquez didn't mention that his defintion of "free speech" on Twitter that must be allowed to spread unchec apparently includes hate speech -- it's indisputable that anti-Semitism has spiked on Twitter since Musk took over. As a result of this, advertisers are fleeing the platform; Twitter ad revenue dropped by more than half since last year -- after all, no advertiers wants their ad to be posted next to a hate-filled tweet. (One might call it a case of "go anti-woke, go broke.") Meanwhile, Yaccarino has done the requisite sucking up to Musk that presumably helped her get the job.Also, Musk has made a mess of Twitter's finances in other ways, refusing to pay bills for rent, cloud services and other things, and Yaccarino is trying to fix that.
If Twitter continues to be overrun by hate speech, it will scare users away who want nothing to do with that. Yaccarino appears to understand that. Musk and Vazquez do not. Yaccarino wants to save the company; Musk and Vazquez want to own the libs.
NEW ARTICLE: The Nepotism Behind CNS' Promotion of Ted Cruz Topic: CNSNews.com
Did CNSNews.com devote so much space to articles touting Ted Cruz because the daughter of its editor worked for Cruz? Plus: CNS gave promotional space to GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and Judicial Watch, while its hyping of Mark Levin declined. Read more >>
MRC Gets Defensive When It's Pointed Out Musk's Attack On Soros Leans Into Anti-Semitism Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center gets touchy whenever it's pointed out that critics of George Soros are leaning into anti-Semitism -- and now it has merged that defensive posture with its fawning over Elon Musk. Joseph Vazquez was stuck with that duty in a May 17 post:
Forbes magazine had an absolute cow over Twitter owner Elon Musk calling out leftist billionaire George Soros’ nutty open society agenda.
Forbes railed against Musk for daring to criticize Soros and accused him of “closely mirror[ing] right-wing conspiracy talking points about the billionaire.” Musk mocked Soros on Twitter following news of the billionaire completely divesting from Tesla stock: “Soros reminds me of Magneto.” Forbes exploited the conniptions of leftist Twitter users to accuse Musk of “repeating antisemitic tropes.” The headline was laced with agitprop: “Musk Fans Conspiracies About George Soros After Billionaire’s Fund Dumps All Tesla Holdings.”
Anti-trump obsessed Twitter personality Brian Krassenstein tried to pull the race card on Musk’s comparison by pointing out Soros and Magneto’s common Jewish origins, which literally had nothing to do with Musk’s tweet. “Soros, also a Holocaust survivor, get's attacked nonstop for his good intentions which some Americans think are bad merely because they disagree with this political affiliations,” tweeted Krassenstein. But Soros and “good intentions” is an oxymoron, and Musk was quick to point that out: “You assume they are good intentions. They are not. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity.”
Forbes attempted to victimize Soros in a tweet of its story: “Musk was called out for using antisemitic tropes to attack Soros, who has been the target of multiple right-wing conspiracy theories.”
Vazquez cannot possibly know whether Musk's Soros-Magneto crack "literally had nothing to do" with Jewishness, since he cited no evidence that Musk denied there was such a link and he presumably cannot read Musk's mind. Vazquez then tried to justify his irrational anti-Soros rage (which theMRC pays him well to spout):
But media outlets and leftists whipping out the race card to insulate Soros and demonize critics isn’t new. In fact, MRC Business conducted a massive three-part study showing how Soros spending millions to buy influence in major media around the world have pretty much secured him an elaborate shield, which includes creating the false impression that anyone who criticizes Soros at all is anti-Semitic.
Soros is notorious for his virulent opposition to American nationalism and sovereignty, and he isn’t even shy about it. Soros advocated in Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000) for an “Open Society Alliance” led by “developed democracies.” He said the United States “must subordinate our sovereignty” and lambasted America as the “greatest obstacle to establishing the rule of law in international affairs.” But it gets worse. Soros doesn’t even attempt to mince words about what his wild open society philosophy undergirded by abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism means when taken to its logical conclusion.
In essence, Musk was right, and Forbes’ impulsive ploy to defend Soros looks ridiculous in retrospect.
Vazquez didn't explain how, exactly, Soros wanting more of an international role in the rule of law made Musk right "in essence" in claiming that Soros "hates humanity."
Luis Cornelio cranked out his own defense of Musk the same day:
Twitter owner Elon Musk is doubling down on his defense of freedom of speech, despite CNBC trying to grill him over his tweets.
In a CNBC interview Tuesday, Musk stood stunned when CNBC Squawk on the Street co-anchor David Faber asked why the Twitter owner shared his opinions of George Soros on social media. Faber claimed that Musk’s unfiltered speech hurt his companies’ financial stakes. But Musk, who has made freedom of speech the bedrock for Twitter 2.0, didn’t back down: “I will say what I want to say. If the consequence of that is losing money, so be it.”
Faber brought up a May 15 tweet in which Musk ripped Soros for seeking to “erode the fabric of humanity” and asked whether Musk cared about losing advertisers. “You just don't care? You want to share what you have to say?” Faber asked. Referencing a line from The Princess Bride(1987), a fired-up Musk had stated during the tense exchange: "I don't care."
Cornelio curiously failed to report that after Faber asked his question, there was 12 awkward seconds of dead silence before Musk spouted his bizarre "Princess Bride" reference.
Cornelio followed by echoing Vazquez in claiming something he cannot possibly know about Musk's Soros-Magneto tweet:
“You tweeted today this thing about George Soros,” Faber said in reference to Musk’s criticism of the leftist billionaire. “You said, ‘[Soros] wants to erode the very fabric of civilization, and Soros hates humanity,” the CNBC reporter continued. Musk answered: “That's true. That's my opinion.“ Musk’s tweet alleging Soros wants to “erode” civilization came as a response to infamous anti-Trump personality Brian Krassenstein, who invoked the race card on Musk’s Magneto comparison by pointing to both the supervillain and Soros’ common Jewish origins. Race, however, had nothing to do with Musk’s tweet.
Vazquez returned for a May 18 post lashing out at more critics of Musk's attack on Soros:
Both New York Magazine Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher and MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle clearly don’t understand the American principle of free speech. And neither appear to know who George Soros is.
Following Twitter owner Elon Musk’s criticism of the leftist billionaire’s gambit to “erode the very fabric of civilization” on his social media platform, Ruhle went apoplectic in a May 16 interview with Fisher on MSNBC’s 11th Hour: “Why is Elon Musk permitted by shareholders, employees, his board to behave in a way that no other CEO in the world can act?” So-called tech journalist Swisher harrumphed that Musk is “steeped in this stuff, it looks like. I don’t think he’s just playing around. I don’t think he’s just saying what he wants. I think he’s starting to believe this stuff.” Swisher went back to the leftist well and quipped that “misinformation ultimately grabs people’s heads and squeezes it dry.” Later in the segment, Swisher accused Musk of having a “god complex” because of his supposed tendency of “saying things over and over again so that they’re true.”
For Swisher to accuse Musk of having a “god complex” while Soros is in the same conversation sounds like harebrained satire. Soros admitted in his magnum opus, The Alchemy of Finance, that he “always harbored” an “exaggerated view” of his “self-importance.” He continued: “[T]o put it bluntly,I fancied myself as some kind of god or economic reformerlike [John Maynard] Keynes (each with his General Theory) or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”’
To put a point on it, Soros’ own “god” complex is reflected in the ungodly fortunes he’s spent manipulating media and politics around the world to fit his distorted view of an “open society,” even if it means knee-capping national sovereignty. As he said in Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve: “‘Of course, what I do could be called meddling, because I want to promote an open society. An open society transcends national sovereignty.’”
A quote from Soros chronicled in late New York Times reporter Michael T. Kaufman’s book Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire summarizes how he seeks to encourage the global society to adopt his leftist ideology: “‘Yes, I do have a foreign policy, and now I have it more consciously. My goal is to become the conscience of the world.’” In 2019, Soros told The New York Times that “‘[t]he arc of history doesn’t follow its own course. It needs to be bent.’” He continued: “‘I am really engaged in trying to bend it in the right direction.’”
Oh, but it's Musk who has an issue with a “god complex,” right Swisher?
We suspect that Vazquez has never described the money from right-wing billionaires that seek to change the world by funding the MRC -- and, thus, his paycheck -- as being "ungodly." (The MRC has previously ranted about Soros criticizing Trump as a narcissist while accusing him of being a "self-absorbed billionaire.)
The same day, Tom Olohan whined about another Musk critic:
A prominent leftist talking head at CNN just went all-in on a smear campaign, egging on his guests to paint Elon Musk as an anti-Semite for daring to call out leftist billionaire George Soros.
On May 17th, CNN anchor Jake Tapper spoke to CNN Analyst Sara Fischer and former Congressman Ted Deutch about three recent Musk tweets about Soros. After introducing leftist billionaire Soros as a “philanthropist”, Tapper said that Musk “launched a baseless twitter attack against George Soros, the progressive Jewish philanthropist, who has been the target of antisemitic conspiracy theories.” Tapper emphasized insane interpretations of Musk’s tweets on the leftist mega donor, including a tweet comparing Soros to fictional supervillain Magneto. While Tapper hid behind the words “critics say” and let his guests do most of his dirty work, he said this later in the interview:
“Its interesting, in terms of how Elon Musk has chosen to run the platform. He’s constantly engaging with people who are bad faith actors, I mean, people who subscribe to QAnon, people who are white supremacists, people who are focused on black-and-white violence, I mean he’s, people who criticize diversity in Hollywood casting, I mean these are choices he’s making.” No question followed, as Tapper was simply trying to elicit more criticism of Musk from his guests.
Olohan offered no evidence that Tapper is "leftist." He then tried to retcon Musk's tweet to prove he was right that Soros "hates humanity," starting with a rant about "Soros' litany of leftist prosecutors he backs who share his soft-on-crime philosophy":
While encouraging a criminal justice approach that makes Americans unsafe is serious, this is not the only reason why Soros might be said to “hate humanity.” Soros has also financed Planned Parenthood’s slaughter of millions of unborn babies, donating over $21 million to Planned Parenthood and affiliated organizations since 2016, while also donating tens of millions from 2000 to 2014. Soros has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to NARAL and four other organizations that promote abortion, while giving millions to another.
Olohan didn't explain how, exactly, Soros believing that women should be able to make their own choices about having children equates to "hating humanity."
MRC Blew Up CNS To Turn It Into A Right-Wing Blog Topic: CNSNews.com
When the Media Research Center abruptly shut down CNSNews.com in April, it declared that CNS was being merged into its MRCTV hot-take website "to form a new conservative media platform, designed to deliver news and commentary on all of the top issues of the day." Well, that hasn't happened. MRCTV is still all about right-wing hot takes,; witness Brittany Hughes whining that buring a pride flag is onsidered a hate crime. CNS, however, is nothing but a blog -- to which the CNSNews.com domain now redirects -- featuring the biased rantings of Craig Bannister, the only CNS staffer apparently still with the MRC.
Interestingly, Bannister is pulling the same biased reporting tricks that a fully staffed CNS did -- apparently as a condition of funding it has received. A May 5 post fulfilled Susan Jones' old job of repoprting on the April's employment stats -- an unusually positive report without Jones' usual bias -- carries the tagline "The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold." That article was joined, however, by another claiming that "The number of jobs created in each month of 2023 has been revised down in subsequent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, making the current month’s growth look better in comparison.." A June 2 Bannister post on May's unemployment numbers was back to the usual biased shenanigans, under the headline "Unemployment Rate Rose in May as Number of Employed Fell for First Time in 6 Months." Apparently, the Wold money mandates talking down positive economic news when a Democrat is president.
Bannister repeated one of CNS' biased reporting tricks -- cherry-picking statistics to make Democrats look bad -- in a May 4 post headlined "CEO Survey Ranks Texas #1 State for Business, California #50 - 9 of 10 Worst Have Dem Governors." That article also carried the Wold-money tagline.
Bannister did more cherry-picking -- this time to make a certain former Repubican president look good -- in a May 10 post:
In April, consumer prices for all items increased a seasonally-adjusted 0.4% from March and were 4.9% higher than they were a year earlier, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Wednesday.
While the all-items Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of 4.9% for the 12 months ending in April was the smallest year-over-year rise since the period ending April 2021, inflation thus far during the Biden Administration is still more than three times higher than it was under his predecessor, Donald Trump.
Bannister made no mention of the fact there was was a global pandemic that messed with the economy, and he censored the fact that inflation in the U.S. is lower than in most other major countries.
The CNS blog is also continuing to be a whore to its parent, just as the "news" operation was. Bannister touted his boss in a June 12 post:
“Another Joe Biden middle finger to America,” Media Research Center (MRC) Founder and President Brent Bozell reacted Monday, retweeting a post by Pres. Biden declaring America an LGBTQ nation - and displaying a “Pride” flag - at the White House.
“Today, the People's House – your house – sends a clear message to the country and to the world. America is a nation of pride,” Biden tweeted, along with the flag photo looking out from the White House at the crowd at Saturday’s Pride celebration on the South Lawn.
As we documented, the MRC killed CNS just two months before its 25th anniversary terminating several longtime employees from an operation that used up 13 percent of thte MRC's budget -- and notoby cared (aside from us), not even the MRC, which refused to publicly acknowledge its shutdown despite being so close to a significant anniversary. It's also notable that deprecating an entire"news" operation to a one-person blog didn't significantly change the tone of what came out under the CNS nameplate. If nobody cared about CNS as a "news" operation, why does the MRC apprently believe people will care now that it's been reduced to an opinion blog on a different website that's dedicated to right-wing hot takes?
MRC's Bulldog Awards Take A Hateful, Transphobic Bent Topic: Media Research Center
Last year, the Media Research Center started giving out Bulldog Awards to fellow ideologues who push right-wing narratives, and it was as lame and predictable as you'd expect. This year's awards were just as lame -- but with a clear bent toward hate and transphobia.
Another winner is Chaya Raichik, whose homophobic Libs of TikTok inspires death threats against her targets and whose exposure as the Twitter account's author drew rage from the MRC against the reporter who expoed it. Other winners include right-wing writers Mary Margaret Olohan, Karol Markowitz and Andrew Kerr and right-wing radio host Chris Plante.
The MRC went on to demonstrate how it doesn't understand how genuine awards work:
On Monday, the biggest journalism awards, the Pulitzer Prizes, were announced. Inevitably, they honored left-wing journalists who pushed the liberal agenda. The Washington Post won for “unflinching reporting that captured the complex consequences of life after Roe v. Wade, including the story of a Texas teenager who gave birth to twins after new restrictions denied her an abortion.” The Atlantic was honored for a “compelling accounting of the Trump administration policy that forcefully separated migrant children from their parents...”
In announcing the 2023 winners of the Bulldog Awards, Media Research Center founder and President Brent Bozell III said: “The Bulldog Award winners are trusted truth-tellers, unlike left-wing operatives who win Pulitzers. These are courageous individuals dedicated to informing Americans about stories the leftist media ignore. Congratulations to all!”
The MRC didn't identify any factual errors in those stories, nor did it explain how covering those topics without the right-wing spin it demands means a "liberal agenda" was pushed.
The MRC also gave out a "Bulldog Award for Lifetime Achievement" to Fox News' Brit Hume. We doubt he was being honored for his pre-Fox News work in the "liberal media," though the MRC would like you to believe otherwise:
For decades, Hume stood as a rarity in the established media, a reporter for ABC News who showed respect for conservatives while displaying honesty and candor in his years as a White House reporter covering both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Hume’s 23 years at ABC News, with the final eight as White House correspondent, earned him a reputation as a reporter who delivered the news with honesty and candor. In January of 1997, he moved to the brand-new Fox News Channel, following his wife Kim, who started the D.C. Bureau months before. Hume took on the role of managing editor and chief Washington correspondent, tasked with building up the TV news bureau.
That was followed by two more paragraphs gushing over Hume's work for Fox News, along with noting that "In 2009, the Media Research Center honored Hume with the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence." In the MRC's world, "media excellence" equals right-wing media bias.
WND's Brown Gets Trolled By Satanic Panic Topic: WorldNetDaily
Newsmax's James Hirsen is not the only ConWeb columnist to be successfully trolled by the Satanic Temple over May's SatanCon gathering in Boston. Michael Brown was triggered in a May 3 WorldNetDaily column:
How should we feel about the satanic conference held in Boston this past weekend? Billed as "the largest Satanic gathering in history," SatanCon 2023 was "a three-day event which include[d] everything from satanic rituals, entertainment and panels." And it began "with the tearing apart of a Bible and the 'Thin Blue Line' flag, an item which has come to be viewed as a sign of supporting law enforcement and as opposition to theBlack Lives Matter movement, MassLive reports." What should we make of this conference?
The first thing that came to my own heart and mind was pity, not anger – to the extent these people are serious satanists, to that extent they are blind and darkened, fighting a guaranteed losing battle. Barring their own repentance and transformation, they are heading for disaster.
To the extent that Satan is simply a metaphor for their denial of God and their opposition to biblical values, to that extent they are ignorant of the incredible goodness and beauty of the Lord. Either way, I feel bad for them. (According to Dex Desjardins, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, which sponsored the event, "We do not believe in or worship a literal Satan. We do not believe in or worship symbolic 'evil.'" We believe that unnecessary suffering is bad, and that things which reduce unnecessary suffering are good." He added that for members, Satan is "a central metaphor representing the pursuit of knowledge, personal liberation, and rebellion against arbitrary authority.")
I also feel bad for them because this highly touted, sold-out event reportedly drew 800 people. That's it! Yet this, we were told, was "the largest Satanic gathering in history"? There are thousands of churches across America where, every Sunday morning, far more than 800 people gather to worship the Lord.
Both the Bible and the police force were viewed as "symbols of oppression," forces that oppose justice and equality and liberation, forces to be rebelled against and rejected. And while the police are far from perfect in doing their jobs, overall they do stand for law and order, without which society would collapse. Is anarchy the desired satanic outcome?
As for the rejection of the Bible, which is perfect, this is just the latest instance of human beings saying, "We do not want the Lord and His Anointed One [meaning, Jesus] to rule over us!" (If you've never read Psalm 2, or if you need a refresher, take a moment to read it. You'll find it more relevant than ever.)
In this light, it's worth noting that the conference also featured chants of "Hail Satan" – not something to be done as a joke or, far worse, as an act with serious intent – and it offered seminars including: "Sins of the Flesh: Satanism and Self-Pleasure," and, "Reclaiming the Trans Body: Atheistic strategies for Self-Determination and Empowerment."
The bad news is that a conference like this garnered national attention and that it was held in such an open and overt way.
The good news is that some of those attending the conference might well become fervent followers of the Lord, loving the Scriptures and sharing the good news with their former colleagues.
Brown dramatically concluded: "May the Lord have mercy on those who attended SatanCon 2023, and may we hear stories of dramatic conversion to Jesus in the days ahead."
MRC Still Defending DeSantis' Anti-LGBT Education Plans Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been an enthusiasticdefender of all things Ron DeSantis, but especiallyhis efforts to make education in Florida skew more toward right-wing indoctrination. Kevin Tober complained in a March 22 post:
With the news of Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis giving a lengthy sitdown interview with Fox Nation’s Piers Morgan in which he called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal,” ABC’s World News Tonight used that as an opportunity to bemoan DeSantis also seeking to ban LGBTQ and other forms of sexual indoctrination and grooming in 4th through 12-grade public schools. Since the Democrat Party [sic] narrative was more important than facts on ABC, anchor David Muir referred to Florida's Parental Rights in Education law as "don't say gay." This was despite the fact that the word "gay" appears nowhere in the text of the law.
Regardless, Muir was either ignorant of that basic fact or he knew what he was saying wasn't true and decided to say it anyway. After teasing the story on DeSantis's comments during the Piers Morgan interview, Muir previewed the news, saying, "DeSantis and a potential plan to extend Florida's don't say gay policy in schools all the way to the 12th grade."
Leftist hack and ABC senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott used a portion of her report to bemoan how DeSantis was expanding his anti-grooming legislation to include fourth through twelfth grades:
The term "anti-grooming" doesn't appear in the text of the law either, which means that by his own rules, Tober is not allowed to refer to it as "anti-grooming legislation." He also did not explain how merely acknowledging the existence of LGBT people in a school setting equates to "grooming."
Tober went on to rant that "Regurgitating the talking points of gay and transgender activists, Scott ghoulishly suggested the legislation could cause some students to commit suicide: '[O]pponents say students all the way up to their senior year who may be struggling, could be cut off from teachers who could help.'" Tober, of course, is reguritating the talking points of right-wing anti-LGBT activists, and he didn't disprove anything Scott said, despite whining that "leftists like her want to impose their sexual issues on young school children." How is acknowledging that LGBT people exist a "sexual issue"? Tober didn't explain.
Houck spent a March 23 post complaining that a non-right-wing news outlet didn't sound like DeSantis' PR team:
Thursday’s Good Morning Americacontinued ABC’s smears of Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) by lamenting he’s “doubl[ing] down” on the “controversial” “Don’t Say Gay policy” as part of his obsession with exacerbating “hot button issues” and “cultural divisions” that pose a risk to the mental health of students by not allowing them to explore sex.
“DeSantis doubles down. Details on the Florida governor’s new move to expand what critics call the Don’t Say Gay policy and the reaction this morning,” announced fill-in co-host Whit Johnson, adding later at the start of the formal segment that DeSantis wants to expand “the controversial law.”
Senior White House correspondent and Biden shill Mary Bruce was on the case. After she said “DeSantis has become a real champion for conservative, cultural concerns” and has “lean[ed] even more into...hot button issues,” she also dubbed his call to expand the Parental Rights in Education Act.
Shifting into defensive mode, she posited that “opponents say it could put students at risk, barring young people, even those in their senior year, from seeking a teacher’s help if they’re struggling with their identity.”
Ah, so it’s harmful that students can’t engage in gender mutilation?
Like a good, unofficial White House flack, she touted Karine Jean-Pierre’s attack on DeSantis, summarizing her thoughts as arguing he’s “part of a disturbing and dangerous trend of laws targeting the LGBTQ community.”
Houck sounds like a good, unofficial DeSantis flack, so his attack on Bruce is painfully ironic. Still, he went on to whine: "No word on what she thinks about men competing in women’s sports or what age she thinks is too young for kids to change their gender or discuss sex." No word from Houck on what age people are allowed to learn that LGBT exist -- or if thinks all mention of them should be ciomplegely eradicated from society so knowledge of their existence is punishable by law.
Proving that their DeSantis derangement syndrome is incurable, Sunday's "Powerhouse Roundtable" on ABC's This Week went after Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis for wanting to protect public school children from perverted groomers and racial arsonists. ABC contributor and former Democrat National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile lashed out at DeSantis and proclaimed he is "running on a 1950s America, not a 2050 America." Moments later Politico associate editor Alex Burns said with a straight face that President Joe Biden was "always more of a centrist." Going from trashing DeSantis to praising Biden within moments is the kind of contrast that makes even the casual viewer realize ABC is essentially state-run television on behalf of the Biden regime.
Again, Tober didn't explain how acknowledging the existence of LGBT peopel equalst "grooming," or how pointing out that slavery and discrimination is bad makes one a "racial arsonist." And if ABC is "essentially state-run television on behalf of the Biden regime," the MRC is clearly a state-run website on behalf of the DeSantis regime.
Newsmax Still Defending Trump The Day Before His (Latest) Arraignement Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax continued its aggressively pro-Trump coverage of Donald Trump's latest indictment. Here's what it published on June 12, the day efore his arraignment over charges related to the classified documents he unlawfully kept:
Columnist Larry Bell weighed in with more Trump defense in his June 12 column:
Don’t just take this from an openly conservative opinion guy.
Even the virulently anti-Trump Wall Street Journal editorial board recognizes destructive influences of Merrick Garland’s partisan legal assaults on the former president and leading GOP candidate for reelection while overtly protecting the incumbent.
Noting that “this is the first time in U.S. history that the prosecutorial power of the federal government has been used against a former President who is also running against the sitting President,” they conclude that “the charges are a destructive intervention into the 2024 election, and the potential trial will hang over the race.“
The Wall Street Journal reminds us that “It was once unthinkable in America that the government’s awesome power of prosecution would be turned on a political opponent. That seal has now been broken.”
It’s still unthinkable.
In breaking that seal of public trust, Democrats have awakened and released voter fury that will hopefully bite back in 2024 and many decades beyond.
The fact that the Journal is supporting Trump doesn't mean it's a bad idea to prosecute him. Indeed, both Bell and the Journal appear to believe that Trump is above the law.
(As noted in the screenshot, Newsmax's TV operation hasn't quite reached full professional level, seeing as how it's including events from this year in a "2021 Timeline" graphic.)
The headline of an April 25 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh stated "9 in 10 Americans oppose this deadly Biden policy!" He wrote:
Nearly nine in 10 Americans oppose a policy of the Biden administration that is so lethal that it results in one dead American every seven minutes.
That's from a new polling from Convention of States Action, in partnership with The Trafalgar Group, which contacted more than 1,000 likely general election voters from April 11-14.
It found that 87.5% of voters say "they are concerned about the large quantity of fentanyl and other illegal drugs being brought across the southern U.S. border."
That's right -- Unruh is calling fentanyl coming into the U.S. a "Biden policy." What's his proof of this? Nothing but right-wing anti-immigration talking points:
While drugs long have been pushed onto American victims across the Mexican border, it was Biden, on taking office, who destroyed virtually every facet of the carefully constructed border security plan installed by President Trump.
His moves, like the cancellation of already contracted border wall construction, also sent the message to millions of migrants that the American society – and all of its financial benefits – were available for the taking.
Along with the surge of millions of illegal aliens who immediately took aim at the U.S. were drug dealers who by now have shipped tons of deadly chemicals into the U.S.
Among those is fentanyl.
Here in the real world, fentanyl smuggling has been steadily increasing over the past decade -- including under the Trump administration, which undermines Unruh's claim that Trump had a "carefully constructed border security plan" -- and much of that smuggling is being done by U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants.
In other words, Unruh is lying -- he has no proof of a declared Biden administration policy to allow fentanyl into the U.S. Which means that WND is once againspreadingfakenews -- hardly the way to build trust with readers.