MRC Hypes Paid Propagandist Matt Palumbo Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Palumbo has been a favorite of the Media Research Center over their shared hatred of both fact-checkers and George Soros. But as we'vedocumented, Palumbo has spent the past few months discrediting himself by writing (paid, one would hope) propaganda on behalf of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, which were in turn published as paid content on websites like Newsmax and Gateway Pundit, taking time away from his day job working for right-wing radio host Dan Bongino. (Mother Jones has a new article examining some of this.)
Meanwhile, the MRC has promoting Palumbo's work for quite some time:
An August 2020 post by Tim Graham touted how "Matt Palumbo at Bongino.com took issue with the extremely biased nature of PolitiFact's 'Truth-O-Meter' in assessing 'facts.'"
An October 2020 post by Graham noted Palumbo defending his nominal boss, right-wing radio host Dan Bongino, over accusations he had been spreading unfounced misinformation that liberals planned to riot if Donald Trump won the election.
A June 2021 post by Joseph Vazquez referenced Palumbo whining that Soros advocates higher taxes for the wealthy though he paid no income tacxes himself.
In January, an MRC report obsessing over Soros' spending on causes he likes referenced an attack by Palumbo, followed by a post by Vazqueztouting how "Bongino Report Content Manager Matt Palumbo peeled back “the layers” of leftist billionaire George Soros’ global political and media influence during a recent interview with The Epoch Times."
A Feb. 1 post by Vazquez hyped a New York Post editorial calling Soros "the mosdt dangerous man in America," approvingly citing attacks from Palumbo.
An April 10 post by Vazquez noted Palumbo complaining about right-wingers being called out for trying to discredit Trump prosecutor Alvin Bragg by linking him to Soros.
As Palumbo ramped up his moonlighting propaganda for Guo -- which one would think is disqualifying -- the MRC continued to promote him. Curtis Houck gushed in an April 18 "editor's pick":
Writing in Tuesday’s print edition of the New York Post, our friend Matt Palumbo of the Bongino Report took a blowtorch to the liberal media-selected, so-called fact-checkers for their latest antics and lies in order to defend far-left Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in his efforts to prosecute former President Trump.
“So-called fact-checkers know more about spinning the facts than checking them,” Palumbo began, citing Bragg as the latest proof they’ll go to any length “to circle the wagons and ‘debunk’ actual truths.”
[...]
Taken together, Palumbo argued that “[a]nyone can see exactly what happened here — yet the fact-checkers were more than happy to further demolish their credibility in arguing the contrary with pure semantics” and while one could argue these acts of mental gymnastics are comical, they’re actually disturbing as the intent is “to censor” dissent.
Houck did not mention how Palumbo was destroying his credibility by writing paid propaganda. A post three days later by Tom Olohan touted Bongino citing his employee in making the same argument.
A May 2 post by Olohan hyped Palumbo attacking a "George Soro lackey" for critiicizing right-wing attacks on prosecutors for allegedly having linksto Soros. A May 22 post by Vazquez cited Palumbo in promoting a right-wing Rasmussen poll claiming that a bare majority of Americans have an "unfavorable" view of Soros -- thus show how the millions of dollars spent by the likes of the MRC and Palumbo to spread anti-Soros hate are paying off.
Vazquez ran to Palumbo's defense in a June 15 post:
The George Soros-funded Southern Poverty Law Center threw a temper tantrum over Bongino Report Content Manager Matt Palumbo for his criticism of the group’s leftist financier.
The SPLC grumbled in a June 8 "Hatewatch" how Soros “has been that boogeyman for right-wing pundits, politicians and TV personalities.” SPLC then tried to launch nonsensical hyperbole in order to shield Soros from criticism and cast any opposition as being anti-Semitic in nature: “Soros has become the extreme right’s go-to antisemitic trope, and its ubiquity speaks to the mainstreaming of antisemitic rhetoric in the United States.” The SPLC then turned its sights on Palumbo and his book The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros (2022) as an anecdote, and smeared his work as “antisemitic-trope laden” without citing any evidence to support the allegation.
SPLC, of course, omitted from the blog any disclosure that Soros’ organizations funneled at least $160,000 to its coffers between 2016 and 2019 alone. Palumbo mocked the SPLC for its absurdity in comments to MRC Business, stating: “I’m shocked that an organization funded by George Soros would resort to such absurd lies to defend him!” Palumbo is right on target.
Vazquez then tried to help Palumbo perpetuate the false anti-Semitic smear that Soros is a Nazi sympathizer:
The SPLC twisted the facts around an April interview of Palumbo with Daily Wire host Candace Owens. SPLC claimed: “[Owens] suggested that ‘because of his contempt for Americans,’ it was ‘plausible’ that George Soros, a Holocaust survivor, was actually ‘sympathetic to the Nazis.’” The leftist organization accused Palumbo of agreeing with the notion.
However, the SPLC characterization of the discussion was completely devoid of context. Owens cited Soros’ own apathetic admission, saying “No,” that he had no feeling of guilt for being even tacitly connected to the Nazi confiscation of property from the Jewish people as a young teenager during the former’s occupation of Hungary during World War II.
“It seems very bizarre that he has such hatred for — really — the people that liberated him. Right? If he believes that the Nazis were so backwards and were so awful, how could he then spend his life having such contempt for Americans,” Owens asked. She continued: “Why would he be trying to foster the end of America? Why would he be wanting the cities to be crime-filled and releasing criminals onto the streets via his district attorneys? It doesn’t make sense.”
Owens then asked: “Is it plausible that he was actually sympathetic to the Nazis because he was taken care of and he was protected and maybe he saw them through a different vein?” Palumbo correctly pointed out that the question surrounding Soros’ indifference and motivation against America is difficult. “The Occam’s Razor answer is the simplest one, which is: He’s just an evil guy. And what the exact, you know, reason was, we don’t exactly know.” But even broaching the topic in order to explain Soros’ creepy apathy is supposedly anti-Semitic, according to the SPLC’s logic.
Soros also happens to be notorious for using his fortune to fuel anti-Israel causes.
But Vazquez, Palumbo and Owens omitted important context as well: A teenage Soros was posing as the nephew of a Hungarian official who was inventorying property already seized from the Jews, and that the Nazis found out his Jewish identity, he would likely be sent to a concentration camp and killed. In other words, he was trying to survive, and Vazquez and Co. appear to be demanding that he feel guilty for surviving the Nazis.
As with many other right-wingers who similarly irrationally hate Soros, it seems that Vazquez, Palumbo and Owens wish that the Nazis had executed just one more Jew.
And, needless to say, Vazquez made no mention of Palumbo's side gig writing pro-Guo propaganda -- propaganda he is continuing to write. A June 20 article at Gateway Pundit -- paid content listed as a "sponsored post" by "NewNoah," presumably a Guo front group -- complained that Guo was "unjustly denied" a hearing related to the fraud charges he facees, "adding yet more evidence that the system is rigged against him." He ended the article in full propaganda mode:
In the interest of judicial fairness, it is essential that Guo be granted bail. By bestowing upon him the freedom to combat the baseless accusations hurled his way, we ensure the preservation of bedrock principles like due process and the right to mount a defense. The mistreatment suffered by Guo serves as a chilling reminder of the potential for power abuse within our judicial system. The time has come to prioritize truth, fairness, and the safeguarding of individual liberties, by granting Guo the opportunity to champion his innocence.
By the way, Palumbo's new (Bongino-published) book is out this week, which is dedicated to attacking fact-checkers as being too far "left." When you can't attack the facts, you attack the fact-checkers -- and why would anyone trust a paid propagandist to be honest about facts?
Newsmax's Reagan Melts Down Over Hate Crime, Red Flag Laws Topic: Newsmax
Minnesota fascists hope to be making a list in the near future and checking it twice.
State Rep. Samantha Vang, D-Dist. 38B, wants to change state law and make statements she doesn’t like grounds for putting people she doesn’t like on a North Star State "bias list."
We tried to tell gullible Republicans in the past that voting for a hate crime law was volunteering to schedule yourself for the left's enemies and canceled lists.
Hate crime laws are really "thought crime laws" because the law criminalizes thought instead of action.
That didn’t stop "Rep. Gomer Pyle" from supporting the laws and it didn’t motivate Republicans to repeal the laws if they gained power.
Bias crime lists are just another avenue to criminalize and marginalize people the left doesn’t like and also wishes to punish.
[...]
Minnesota also has a red flag bill advancing through the legislature that takes guns away from people deemed to be dangerous without a trial.
If you aren’t dangerous, you still have to spend money on a lawyer to get your weapons returned.
Another example of the process being the punishment.
Here’s how the bills could work together:
Angry sister-in-law has had it with her MAGA ("Make America Great Again") brother-in-law.
She sees him wearing his MAGA hat in his car and he inadvertently drives past the "Saint" George Floyd Memorial in Minneapolis.
She calls the bias registry and anonymously reports her brother-in-law. That puts him on Big Brother’s list.
A month later at a family gathering, brother-in-law starts talking about the clot (COVID-19) shot and he wonders aloud why people harmed by shot side effects don’t grab a gun and demand accountability from Big Pharma.
That’s all she needs.
Sister-in-law calls the state police and makes a red flag report on her brother-in-law claiming he’s making violent, threatening statements and is a danger to the public.
The state police check Big Brother’s big bias spreadsheet and low-and-behold brother–in–law is already on the list!
Two strikes and he can kiss his guns goodbye.
The left’s conservative-targeted laws don’t work in isolation; the laws are an all-out, all fronts attack on political enemies. Which would be you.
Summer Fashion Tips For Ladies, From Larry Tomczak Topic: WorldNetDaily
Would you take fashion tips from someone who bills himself as a "cultural commentator with over 50 years in vocational ministry"? That person, Larry Tomczak, thinks you should, since he devoted his entire May 23 WorldNetDaily column to discussing how people -- well, women -- ought to dress.
He began by noting tweets attacking bikinis and yoga pants, then asking: "Are these unreasonable perspectives? Are they biblical? We can avoid legalism and it really does matter." He then went into lecture mode:
Scripture clearly reveals the direction Jesus gave us to never "look on a woman to lust after her" (Matt. 5:28) and Ps. 101:3 tells us, "I will set no wicked thing before my eyes." What follows are six guidelines pertinent to women but having application for men as well.
• We are to "present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God, which is [our] reasonable service of worship ... [and] "not be conformed to this world [pop culture] but be transformed by the renewing of [our] mind[s]" (Rom. 12:1-2a).
We should look sharp, not seductive. We can dress cool without appearing cheap. Let's draw attention to our countenance and eyes (which Jesus said are the "lamp of the body," as opposed to body parts and flesh that often show where a person's heart and focus really are). Let's not rationalize either ("I get a better tan line, and guys shouldn't be looking anyway").
• We know that we should never wear clothing that draws lustful looks, causing others to "stumble" into sin (see Matt. 18:6) or commit adultery in their heart by fantasizing after viewing us dressed provocatively or immodestly (Matt. 5:28), as in wearing a swimsuit akin to walking around in revealing underwear. Let's get real: Is some beach attire a bathing suit, or almost a birthday suit? We must not allow ourselves to become desensitized to the message of modesty today.
• Modesty is a positive principle emphasizing inner beauty and character over outward vanity and cheapness. "I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly" (1 Tim. 2:9a, NASB). Sprayed-on yoga pants or see-through, braless blouses don't get a thumbs-up here.
If men are not supposed to "look on a woman to lust after her," it shouldn't matter what women wear, so Tomczak's demand that women "never wear clothing that draws lustful looks" is a bit nonsensical. Nevetheless, he conluded:
Here's the deal: When there is a question raised (by yourself, a parent or a faithful friend) concerning an article of clothing, length of a skirt, level of a neckline, tightness of pants, message on a shirt, follow the following:
• Doubt – do without (Rom. 14:13)
• Flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22a, NASB)
• Honor your father and your mother" (Eph. 6:2a, MEV)
Advertisement - story continues below
Let's help our young women learn to discern the deception of pop culture advocating "empowerment." Remember, modest attire starts in the heart, not a dress code. Let's focus on the abundant life Jesus promised!
Yet the entire point of Tomczak's column is to demand that women follow a dress code of which he approves.
NEW ARTICLE -- New Press Secretary, Same MRC Hate: April-May 2023 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continued to praise conservative reporters who dutifully hurl biased questions on the right-wing talking point du jour to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Read more >>
MRC Both Sad And Happy That CNN's Licht Got Fired Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was rooting for Chris Licht to humiliate anyone at CNN who wasn't sufficiently pro-Trump, while pressuring him to force the channel to become a Fox News clone. When not only none of that came to pass but Licht effectively got fired -- which threw a wrench in the MRC's hope that Oliver Darcy would get fired for telling thetruth about CNN's town hall debacle with Donald Trump -- the MRC managed to be both sad and gleeful. Chief cheerleader/tormentor Curtis Houck wrote in a June 7 post:
In news first broken Wednesday morning by former CNN media reporter Dylan Byers of Puck, embattled CNN chief executive Chris Licht is stepping down from the network and parent company Warner Bros. Discovery after a tumultuous tenure marked by his inability to have buy in from a far-left employee base still loyal to their former puppetmaster, Jeff Zucker.
Warner Bros Discovery chief executive David Zaslav told staff of the change and said in a statement that he has “great respect for Chris, personally and professionally” and correctly added that “[t]he job...was never going to be easy, especially at a time of huge disruption and transformation.”
According to The Washington Post and others, longtime CNN executives Amy Entelis, Virginia Moseley, and Eric Sherling will lead the network with newly-minted chief operating officer David Leavy also playing a key role.
Licht, who was hired in March 2022 and began a month later by killing off the bloated CNN+ after hilariously low interest at its launch. It was all downhill with Licht promising to change the culture at the network after years of ardent, vicious punditry and a singular obsession with Donald Trump and, well, not much else (despite umpteen other stories around the world).
All the while, he made a litany of mistakes. Along with refusing to clean house of Zucker loyalists, Licht’s drab scheduling changes failed to improve ratings.
Yes, we remember how bizarrely giddy the MRC was when CNN+ was shut down after little more than a month, which was more a function of new owners deciding to kill it before it had a chance to be successful than any faults of its own. And, yes, Houck is still hanging the anti-Semitic "puppetmaster" slur on the Jewish Zucker.
As he did in his review of the massive Atlantic profile of Licht that ended up being the final nail in his CNN coffin, Houck insisted that Licht was doing the right thing, just not hard and fast enough, attacking anyone at CNN who missed Zucker and resisted Licht's changes as being part of a "mob":
In the end, Licht’s public promises and perhaps too-eager expounding on his applaudable view of what journalism should look to The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta like was a death knell as he and Warner Bros. Discovery boss David Zaslav refused to clean house of a employee base still fixated on being told what to do and follow the snobbery Zucker micromanaged from his control room and newsroom office.
Refusing to accept the fact Licht hammered home that their network’s brand and trust had taken a hit and needed to be restored, the mob was allowed to grow.
Zaslav’s challenge going forward will be whether he can find someone that, a, wants the job and, b, concurs with his vision (shared by influential shareholder John Malone) that CNN spent recent years throwing away its reputation in the name of feigning outrage and a fixation on destroying Trump.
By contrast, we don't recall Houck ever criticizing the micromanagement of Fox News executives such as Roger Ailes, and he certainly hasn't complained that Fox News is "throwing away its reputation" in the name of feigning outrage and a fixation on destroying President Biden (and Hunter). He concluded by whining that "In the interim, expect CNN employees to feel liberated to return to flashing more of their visceral hatred for Trump and conservatives," while remaining silent about Fox News hosts expressing their visceral hatred of Biden and liberals.
Houck then appeared on Tim Graham's podcast later that day, where he repeated his previous talking points on Licht and CNN while refusing to apply those same standards to Fox News. Both Graham and Houck made sure to keep up its nasty attack on Darcy as a "Benedict Arnold" because he escaped the right-wing media bubble.
Jeffrey Lord spent his June 10 column complaining about Lichts' firing and laughably portraying CNN's content as "far-left":
Suffice to say, as the dismissal of CNN CEO Chris Licht this week illustrates vividly, CNN staff and employees are long gone from Ted Turner’s founding vision. The star at CNN now is supposed to be woke leftism, not journalism. In today’s world the entire point of CNN’s woke lefties existence is to present the news in a decidedly far-left fashion. And if you disagree with that - as Chris Licht did - they are coming for you.
[...]
The entire Atlantic piece, not to mention the magazine itself, is all about virtue signaling woke leftism. That’s fine as far as it goes. Free speech is a good thing. God Bless America.
But the problem vividly illustrated both in the Atlantic article and the firing of Chris Licht mere days later as a result is that the American left is intolerant of dissent. It is populated by would-be media totalitarians who will brook no dissent in the world of what they see as an exclusive left-wing platform. It is no small thing that when Licht had CNN host a town hall with Donald Trump, CNN’s ratings soared. And CNN’s employees rebelled.
Graham returned for a June 11 post to complain that CNN deserves competent management:
Fox News media reporter Brian Flood reported that former New York Times columnist and podcaster Kara Swisher proclaimed Warner Bros. boss David Zaslav "needs to get the f—k out of the way" and "let the professionals take over" and try to fix CNN.
Zaslav's pick as CNN CEO, Chris Licht, was pushed out this week after the CNN employees were in revolt after CNN's town hall with Donald Trump. After that show, CNN's ratings dipped even lower, losing to Newsmax on some nights.
"I think they can be news without having to declare constantly they're centrist," Swisher said on her "Pivot" podcast for New York magazine. "That was… very much David Zaslav. Let me just say, I think Chris was a proxy for him."
[...]
Swisher recently tweeted Rupert Murdoch and his "minions" are a "coven of toxic ghouls."
Graham made no effort to disprove that last point.
Houck served up a June 15 post whining that CNN employees are happy Licht is gone (complete with Zucker "puppetmaster" smear):
Puck’s Dylan Byers ended last week with some scuttlebutt on his ex-employer following the axing of CNN boss Chris Licht that, as we’ve repeatedly documented (see here and here), came down to a Mean Girls-like disgust and smear campaign by the litany of CNN employees Licht and Warner Bros. Discovery head honcho David Zaslav not only failed to jettison for loyalty to former puppetmaster Jeff Zucker, but gain buy-in for CNN to be more centrist and less toxic.
According to Byers, the inmates are ebullient over Licht being canned and replaced (at least for now) with a triumvirate of longtime CNN executives that have left them with “feelings of relief and optimism” and able to return to how they behaved during the Trump presidency. What children.
The thin-skinned CNN employers were said, as per Byers, to be nearly uniform in possessing “widespread feelings of relief and optimism, a sense that their long national nightmare has finally come to an end.”
How self-important are these people? Byers added that “[s]ome” CNNers cited “the lifting of the” smoke in New York from Canadian wildfires “as a fitting metaphor for their own condition.”
[...]
Despite Byers reminding readers Zaslav and those around him haven’t shown any signs of wanting CNN to change (for the better), it’s nonetheless a eye-rolling endeavor for anyone who has to stomach this network.
Of course, Houck's idea of CNS changing "for the better" means turning it into another Fox News. Houck did eventually concede that CNN employees did learn to hate Licht for good reasons that had nothing to do with alleged loyalty to Zucker:
Earlier in the piece, Byers added new color on why Licht initially lost trust as, after CNN had insisted they would be immune from layoffs by their parent company (except for CNN+), Licht was clotheslined by news from corporate that, actually, CNN would have to lay off scores of employees in late November.
This, Byers explained, caused CNNers to see Licht as “a hypocrite, a leader who could not be trusted, maybe even a patsy.”
So maybe Houck hates Zucker to obsessively to be able to see past him and perform an honest, unbiased examination of things at CNN that are divorced from his employer's desires to destroy the network for not being Fox News.
The MRC also published a June 19 syndicated column by Cal Thomas lamenting that Licht's firing "makes my point" that the media is too liberal -- but he refused to attack Fox News as too conservative.
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Wayne Allyn Root Division Topic: WorldNetDaily
We are living in an age of mass deception, distraction and denial, of mass brainwashing. We might as well all be living in Jonestown, Guyana, and following the orders of Jim Jones.
That's how bad it is. It's all laid out right in front of us. But no one can see it. Or maybe no one wants to see it. The Durham report is "the canary in the coal mine."
I believe it's all former President Barack Obama. It's always been Obama. Obama is the REAL "big guy." Obama is the REAL criminal mastermind. Obama was the head of the snake. Obama was the John Gotti of the U.S. government, overseeing a massive criminal conspiracy. Obama was the head of the "Obama Crime Family."
Obama committed TREASON.
And the worst part of all: Obama's still in charge. Obama is pulling all the strings. He's the one calling the shots. He's the ventriloquist, speaking for the wooden dummy puppet President Joe Biden. Obama is the real president of the United States, back for his third term.
[...]
Just like John Gotti. The mafia Don always gets a piece of every scam run by the capos under him. Or they get whacked.
And where was all the corrupt loot run out of? The Clinton Foundation. That's why it was based offshore – far away from prying eyes. As one more layer of protection, Obama ordered the DOJ and FBI to look the other way.
This is all called TREASON.
Obama, Hillary and Joe Biden used the power of the federal government as their own mafia extortion operation. Hillary and Biden were the capos who carried out the crimes, thereby keeping Obama's hands clean. Obama gave them full license to steal, and freedom from prosecution. In poker it's called a "free roll."
That was the point of the made-up "Russian collusion" story: to frame the new president, and keep him too distracted defending himself, to prosecute Obama, Biden and Hillary.
That was also the point of the FBI declining to prosecute Hillary for her deleted emails. Those emails between her and Obama were enough to get them all convicted for treason. Remember Hillary's words from 2016: "If that bastard (Trump) wins, we all hang from nooses."
It's even truer today than in 2016. That is why Democrats are so desperate to stop Trump from winning in 2024. Because there is no statute of limitations for treason. Durham has opened the door. And I'm betting if Trump wins again, this time he's going after all of them with a vengeance.
Morris also devoted a June 5 column to further explaining why Trump should not debate his primary opponents and should set the rules if he does:
A Republican debate without Trump would be like one hand clapping!
And specifically, why should Trump agree to a debate sponsored by Fox News?
That’s like going into the lions’ den. Rupert Murdoch is a sworn enemy of Trump and shows it every day in Fox News’ biased coverage of his campaign — or non-coverage.
Trump should demand:
1.) No debates sponsored by Fox,CNN, or MSNBC.
2.) No press or pundit or media panel. Don’t let this become a debate between Trump and Megyn Kelly like in 2016 or between Trump and Chris Wallace as in 2020. These guys should butt out of the debates. Just the candidates, a timekeeper, and a stopwatch.
3.) Twelve candidates is too much for a debate. Just invite the top five in the polls. Trump, DeSantis, and the top three of the rest of the field.
4.) And say no to Chair McDaniel’s pretentious and ridiculous pre conditions for participating in the debate: Guaranteeing to back the GOP candidate in 24 and not participating in any debate the RNC doesn’t sponsor. Who died and left Ronna in charge?
Its no debate without Trump and he should refuse to debate under McDaniel’s rules.
There was also sucking up to Trump following his (second) indictment:
Morris also wrote a June 5 column claiming that DeSantis' anti-Trump messaging is failing:
Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., is searching for a message in his attacks on Donald Trump.
He hasn’t found one yet.
As a political consultant, it occurs to me that this search might have been more profitably conducted before — rather than after — he announced his candidacy. But each of the themes with which the Florida governor has experimented have fallen short.
He said Trump was a "loser," citing Republican defeats in 2022, but MAGA voters realize that Trump led us to retaking the House and beat Hillary Clinton in the Armageddon race of 2016.
Some loser!
[...]
Nobody will believe that Trump is soft on crime, lacking in substance, moving to the left, pro-abortion rights, or an inveterate loser.
But they will believe, and should, that DeSantis voted to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and to lower cost of living adjustments.
DeSantis, and perhaps former New Jersey governor Chris Christie — who is getting into the race soon — probably hope that Trump will be indicted by special prosecutor Jack Smith for the supposed crimes of doing what Biden did — taking the archives home — and of inciting the Jan. 6 demonstrations.
But everybody knows that Trump told everyone on that day to go home peacefully.
Actually, everybody knows that Trump didn't say that until hours after the riot started, and that he called thte insurrectionists "very special" and repeated falsehoods about the election being stolen from him.
WND Still Hyping RFK Jr.'s Presidential Bid Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily doesn't actually want Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to become president -- along with other ConWeb outlets, it's just hyping him because it thinks he might hurt President Biden's re-election bid because he's running as a Democrat and on his family name (never mind that he's not advocating any actual Democratic policies and that the rest of the Kennedy family is effectively disowning him). Plus, he's an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist like WND, so there is an attraction there. It's been borrowing (or stealing) articles from elsewhere to help spread his conspiracy theories and keep his candidacy alive:
It's done the occasional original article as well (or, more to the point, rewritten from someone else's article in an apparent bid to create "original content" for its nonprofit WND News Center). Like this anonymously written June 22 article:
A newly posted video of an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democrat candidate for the 2024 nomination for president, reveals how it was Barack Obama who actually made Big Pharma a part of his political party.
And, he said, it was when Obama "made a golden handshake with the devil."
Kennedy explains that Obama needed the pharmaceutical industry in his corner in ordered to get his Obamacare through Congress.
An anonymously written July 11 article touted more conspiracy-mongering from Kennedy:
Anthony Fauci, a former federal health official advising Joe Biden on COVID-19, now in a lucrative teaching job, 'caused a lot of injury" during that pandemic, according to Democrat presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Fauci, in fact, was behind a lot of the masking requirements, the demand for experimental and highly speculative shots for citizens, the bans on ordinary treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which proved effective, and more.
[...]
He pointed out that nations that allowed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine "had 1/200th of our death rate."
In fact, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were never proven effective.
WND columnists are promoting Kennedy as well. Ilana Mercer continued her praise of him in her May 18 column:
As it emerged from the RFK Jr. announcement for president, his worldview departs from that of the progressive Democratic Party's, which he has decried as "the party of fear, war and censorship ... neocons with woke bobble-heads."
RFK Jr.'s philosophy of liberty, moreover, appears wedded to reality. He doesn't jabber GOP-style about a return to small government and the passing of a balanced budget amendment.
[...]
Your columnist's task over the decades has been to address reality, not to levitate in the arid arena of pure thought. Kennedy does the same. As does he appear to grasp that the natural law of the Constitution has been buried under piles of statute and administrative-law precedent. He knows this all too well, having spent his working life litigating against the Deep, Regulatory, Administrative, Security, Welfare-Warfare State.
Mercer also praised Kennedy's pandemic conspiracy-mongering:
Kennedy was all teeth and talons against the lockdowns back when it counted – and now. Never forget!
Tarting-up or forgetting the lockdowns won't wash.
How right RFK Jr. is when he says nobody wants to talk about the lockdowns, as both political factions promoted or failed to stop the invasion and occupation of American bodies and businesses.
It seems Mercer would like to forget there was an actual pandemic threat that made lockdodwns a reasonable option, and that people did what they thought was best under the circumstances.
MRC Continued To Pressure CNN's Licht To Pull Channel To The Right Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center irrationally hated former CNN chief Jeff Zucker, to the point that it started hurling anti-Semitic "puppet master" slurs at him (he's Jewish). It then pressured his successor, Chris Licht, to pull CNN to the right (even though, as Media Matters' Craig Harrington pointed out, the only people who had a problem with CNN aggressively covering Trump were Republians). And the MRC continued to mock CNN's moves under Licht as insufficiently right-wing:
Tim Graham complained in a March 19 post that "Nothing CNN CEO Chris Licht has done to revamp CNN programming as helped its ratings woes," noting the failure of the channel adding a repeat of a commentary from Bill Maher's HBO show.
Graham whined about CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale in an April 12 post that began, "It’s amazing that CNN CEO Chris Licht once came to the Capitol to meet with congressional Republicans in an effort to rebuild trust, as if CNN was going to change. It hasn’t." He added, "It’s funny that Licht would fire red-hot Trump haters like Brian Stelter and Chris Cuomo, yet keep Don Lemon and Daniel Dale."
After CNN fired Don Lemon later that month, MRC chief Brent Bozell huffed: “What a trainwreck of a network this is...Licht was brought on to fix a sinking ship and he’s just been poking more holes.”
Curtis Houck mocked in an April 26 post that "The public relations skills of Chris Licht’s CNN were, shall we say, less than adequate" because Lemon's firing overshadowed the announcement of a new CNN late-night show featuring Charles Barkley and Gayle King. Which, of course, caused Houck to rehash old attacks on King for being friends with the Obama and having a purported "record of ultra-liberal punditry masquerading as common sense."
We've documented how the MRC cheered that Licht reportedly "put the fear of God" in CNN media resporter Oliver Darcy over his apparently factually accurate coverage of CNN's debacle of a town hall featuring Donald Trump. Houck followed with a sneering May 18 post headlined "Everyone Point and Laugh at How Much Lefty Journos Now Hate Working at CNN":
A former CNN media reporter, Puck News’s Dylan Byers wrote Wednesday night that CNN is currently “a seismic mess” and in a state of “depleted morale” and “overwhelming sense of frustration and resentment” with employees enraged by boss Chris Licht in general and, specifically, his decision to host a town hall with former President Trump.
The employees remained hellbent on running the asylum as they longed for the days of former boss and puppetmaster, Jeff Zucker, directing their every move and enabling them to be as wildly progressive and hateful toward conservatives as their heart’s desired. Instead, they’ve been beset with someone CNNers see “as Captain Queeg, the antagonist from Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny.”
Byers framed his piece through the lens of a Columbia Journalism commencement address and CNN International/PBS anchor Christiane Amanpour gave that directly lambasted Licht.
Byers conceded that “Licht has a difficult job” consisting of, along with “replac[ing] a legend” in their Dear Leader, “oversee a global news organization during a time of foreign war and a looming presidential election, manage through the exigencies of a fresh corporate merger… oh, and oversee a unit of thousands of journalists, many of whom are world famous, some of whom are prima donnas, and some more of whom are indifferent to managing up, his vision, etcetera.”
Yes, Houck repeated the "puppetmaster" slur of Zucker again. He also complained that "Byers also had [CNN host Christiane] Amanpour take a childish potshot at Kaitlan Collins, who was the Trump town hall moderator and named Wednesday as the new host of CNN’s 9:00 p.m. Eastern hour." The MRC actually defended Collins' performance at the town hall, but it didn't tell readers that she started as a right-wing reporter for Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller.
Then it was back to whining that Licht was still allowing criticism of Republicans; Brad Wilmouth complained in a June 1 post about the author of a book noting conservatives' bent toward authoritarianism: "CNN CEO Chris Licht told Republicans it was going to be different....but it's not."
Then came a massive profile of Licht in The Atlantic, which demonstrated that Licht was mismanaging CNN by fundamentally misreading the channel, thinking (like the MRC) that it is much more liberal than it actually is and demanding this his employees pull thing further right. Unsurprisingly, Houck declared that the victim of the Licht profile was Licht, and he devoted a lengthy June 6 post to defending Licht's methods and blaming CNN employees who still fondly remember Zucker as the real bad guys:
Starting Friday with a 15,000-word tome The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta, CNN boss Chris Licht’s legitimacy took on a deluge of water with one story after another seeking to end Licht’s tenure beset by a disastrous morning show, a lack of network cohesion, and sagging ratings.
Licht was hired by Discovery head honcho David Zaslav to move CNN to the center and away from the permanent hysteria, but he had one problem: His predecessor and former puppetmaster Jeff Zucker.
Between Alberta’s story and others from former CNNer Brian Stelter (writing in New York magazine), Axios, the Daily Beast, The New York Times, Puck, and Semafor, they revealed a fatal error by Licht, which was a refusal to clean house of Zuckerbots that, while seismic, would have allowed for real changes. Instead, Zucker undermined Licht through his team of minions.
[...]
And, based on any recent NewsBusters blog on CNN, it’s easy to see how so many Zuckerbots have felt no need to change their tone as, if Licht ever did become a micromanager like Zucker, they could just whine in the press.
Houck went on to gush that "Licht gave an admirable answer about what the mission of CNN should be," adding:
Licht further denounced his network (and the press writ large) for their all-hysteria, all-the-time, Trump-centric approach as “everything is an 11” (on a scale of one to 10) and, in turn “it means that when there’s something really awful happening, we’re kind of numb to it.”
Likely to the chagrin of CNNers who read the piece, Licht said the press made it their “mission ...to go after” Trump by “put[ting] a jersey on and got into the game” to actively fight Trump out of “visceral hatred”.
Licht added that, by doing so, no one’s “mind” was being “change[d].” He also believed Republicans should be welcome (though Alberta pitched a hissy fit over allowing any Republican who voted to object to the 2020 election results).
He continued to put Zucker’s version of CNN on blast, touching on everything from COVID to CNN being a bubble to elitism to liberal definitions of diversity fixating on race to policing to transgenderism (click “expand”):
[...]
In one particular anecdote, Licht spoke to a group of college students and blasted MSNBC as “trafficking in hysteria” and Fox News as “a duplicitous propaganda outfit,” but insisting it’d be seen as “noise” if CNN kept obsessing over Fox.
Houck, meanwhile, didn't appear bothered by the fact that Fox News takes an "all-hysteria, all-the-time" approach with all things Biden. He also didn't explain why Republicans shouldn't be criticized for voting to object to the 2020 election results given that they had no credible evidence to justify it.
Houck demanded that Licht fire anyone who he and the MRC didn't like for failure to be right-wing enough, offering a convenient hit list:
Licht should be given credit for pointing CNN in the right direction. But that’s where the praise should stop.
Alberta portrayed a man fixated on wanting to do things differently (even grunting about Zucker at the gym). But if Licht wanted to do that, he and boss Zaslav should ripped CNN down to the studs.
Imagine if Warner Bros. Discovery had come in and not only had Stelter and John Harwood been axed, but also disingenuous leftist journos and pundits such as Alisyn Camerota, Laura Coates, S.E. Cupp, Daniel Dale, Jamie Gangel, Brianna Keilar, Andrew McCabe, Donie O’Sullivan, Abby Phillip, Arlette Saenz, Sara Sidner, Jim Sciutto, Bill Weir, and, of course, Jim Acosta and Oliver Darcy.
Houck concluded by further complaining that Licht didn't clean house to his satifaction and expressing an additional fit of Zucker Derangement Syndrome:
Given this tsunami of negative stories, there are a host of conclusions. One, even media executives fall victim to treating national journalists as their friend when they should know most (if not all) will sell out their best friends for a story.
Second, Licht and Zaslav’s mismatched strategy of talking big changes but not cleaning house came back to bite them. It’s hard to have a company pulling in the same direction when most of the workforce actively hates because you’re not Daddy Jeff.
That leads to a third point: Never underestimate Zucker's vindictiveness.
Next: Has Licht watched a second of his own network? Aside from covering more stories, an occasional Republican appearance, a vapid new line-up, and new lower-third, nothing has changed on the bias front.
And, finally, Licht made a mistake he could have avoided if he watched more than a few minutes of Zucker’s CNN (or asked any of us at NewsBusters): Please fire, don’t empower, Don Lemon.
A few days later, an update was added to Houck's post noting that "Licht left the company amid a mountain of resistance and controversy."
WND Columnist Takes Pelosi Out Of Context To Misrepresent Her Topic: WorldNetDaily
Hanne Nabintu Herland's May 10 WorldNetDaily column started with nonsensical ranting about how America is purportedly turning into soviet Russia:
The rise of totalitarianism in modern societies happens in nations where Marxism first is infused into society. It is a must to create Marxist repressive revolutions that bring fear and terror into the population and thereby silence political opposition in order to fundamentally alter the whole culture and the social fabric of the nation.
It is the fruits of Marxism that over time change the population from being independent thinkers with individual rights protected by a conservative Constitution to becoming subordinate, groupthink, indoctrinated communities full of fear of the government.
But then she served up this claim:
Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi summed this strategy up as she on tape explained how Democrats smear their opponents with falsehood and lies. She states: "You demonize, it is called the Wrap Up Smear. You smear somebody, with falsehoods and all the rest. Then you merchandize it, you write it and say, 'It is reported in the press' this and this, so you have the validation that the press reported the smear. That's what's called a Wrap Up Smear. So, we merchandize what the press has reported on the smear that we made. It is a tactic." Pelosi is among the long lines of Americans who fell for the neo-Marxist deception, and to use Vladimir Lenin's often attributed term, have become very "useful idiots."
But according to a fact-checker, Pelosi was describing how Republicans smear their opponents, not "explaining" what Democrats do. Herland is taking her words out of context and misrepresenting their meaning.
Looks like the one who's acting a bit Soviet here -- and serving as a useful idiot -- is Herland.Ironic, given that we've previously caught Herland acting as a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin, whose authoritarianism is very Soviet while under acting the guise of what she insisted was a "traditionalist, religion-friendly, capitalist society."
MRC Falsely Attacks MSNBC Over Something That Didn't Happen On MSNBC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kevin Tober wrote in a June 4 post:
Roland Martin Unfiltered, the always unhinged Elie Mystal who serves as the justice correspondent for the left-wing rag The Nation, melted down when previewing upcoming decisions the United States Supreme Court is due to hand down. The case that got Mystal especially triggered is a case on the constitutionality of certain sections of the Voting Rights Act.
When giving his prediction on how he thinks the high court will rule, Mystal slimed Chief Justice John Roberts as a racist who doesn't want black people to vote. "For all the people for all the media people especially. All the generally kind of mainstream media people especially who tend to act like Roberts is some kind of moderate good guy influence on the Supreme Court," Mystal wailed.
Note where this interview happened: on a podcast. But because Mystal has appeared on MSNBC, MRC writers started attacking MSNBC over the interview even though -- again -- it didn't take place on MSNBC. Tghe NewsBusters Twitter account quote-tweeted out a clip of Mystal from Tober (who has petulantly blocked us from seeing his tweets) with the message "The M in MSNBC stands for 'Misinformation.'"
The tweet was later deleted.
In his post, Tober quoted a tweet from co-worker Nicholas Fondacaro that quote-tweeted the Tober clip of Mystal and added; "James Hodgkinson, the man who tried to assassinate congressional Republicans at a baseball practice in 2017, was a avid MSNBC watcher. This is kind of hate he was exposed to." First: Hodgkinson has been dead since 2017, so it's highly unlikely he heard aything Mystal said. Second: It's an article of right-wing faith at the MRC that MSNBC somehow made Hodgkinson commit his crime, even though they could never cite any evidence of that beyond the guy once stating that he liked Rachel Maddow's show. Maddow reported that the shooter had no contact with anyone at her show, but that didn't keep Tim Graham from mocking her looks in the process.
By contrast, there's a much more solid through line bdetween Fox News and another mass shooting. Robert Bowers appears to have been inspired to shoot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, killing 11 people, in part because a Jewish agency that aids immigrants had an office there; Fox News regularly demonizes immigrants, and Bowers echoed the denigrating "invasion" rhetoric Fox News uses. We don't recall Fondacaro ever criticizing violence-inducing "hate speech" when it happens on Fox News.
And, again, Mystal's interview didn't take place on MSNBC. But then, clicks are more important than facts at the MRC.
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' Biased Reporting Tricks Topic: CNSNews.com
Prior to its shutdown, CNSNews.com manufactured a lot of "news" by cherry-picking data and taking it out of context to make liberals look bad and its fellow conservatives look good. Read more >>
MRC Flip-Flops On Twitter's Community Notes Under Musk Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has generally approved of Twitter's "Community Notes" feature , which allowed people to append fact-hecks to tweets -- especially when non-conservativfes get fact-checked. In April, for example, Curtis Houck went on Fox News to praise how Community Notes were among tools right-wingers used to "push[] back on the insane notion 'that George Soros has nothing to do with the Alvin Bragg campaign.'" Houck gushed in a May 2 post:
Bob Hoge with our friends at RedState had a hilarious piece Tuesday pulling together the latest saga and kid-in-a-grocery-store meltdown MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan pitched last week after he was roundly condemned and fact-checked for one insane claim after another about crime and, of course, racism.
At the heart of it, Hoge noted that Hasan has objected Twitter’s Community Notes feature, which allows users to fact-check false claims, seeing more play under Elon Musk’s ownership and he was “getting awfully sick of” it.
Two days later, Houck cheered that "Twitter’s Community Notes sprang into action on AOC’s colleague Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) as she tweeted video of [Jordan] Neely dressed like Jackson on a subway. Joseph Vazquez hyped Community Notes further in a May 18 post:
NBC News used deceptive imagery in an apparent attempt to gloss over an outrageous sexually explicit book being pushed on children. Twitter’s Community Notes participants were having none of it.
NBC News tweeted out its story of how “[a]n Illinois teacher offered her middle schoolers a bestselling LGBTQ-themed book. Parents filed a police report over her book choice.” But the featured photo for the article included the teacher in question holding up a book titled: “Igniting Social Action in the ELA Classroom: Inquiry as Disruption.”
Except, that wasn’t the book parents reportedly complained about, as Community Notes exposed.
But when that exact same tool is used by liberals to counter right-wing falsehoods and misinformation, it suddenly became a terrible thing. David Marcus complained in a June 2 post:
Musk’s most significant change to content moderation policies at Twitter has been “Community Notes,” a crowdsourced alternative to professional fact-checking, and while some conservatives appear to like the results better, the warning labels are still a form of censorship, albeit by a different name.
To the extent we can understand the Byzantine practices at Twitter, it goes something like this: Users see a tweet they disagree with, they create a note either fact-checking, or worse adding context to the tweet. These notes are voted on by other users, and eventually, Twitter somehow decides what warnings appear below the offending tweets.
While this is more democratic than traditional fact checks, it still falls into many of the same epistemological traps that all efforts to censor do eventually. Let’s start with a fundamental problem: crowdsourcing is no guarantee of truth.
[...]
But the problems run much deeper. The most insidious tool in the fact-checker’s quiver is the phrase “Missing Important Context,” which is employed when a statement is true but the people in authority deem it misleading because it doesn’t include counter arguments that they prefer.
Let’s be completely clear, deciding what “missing context” is “important” is a wholly subjective enterprise, and when tweets are subjectively given warning labels, that is absolutely a form of censorship.
Further, the Community Notes do not appear to operate independent of leadership at Twitter, with however many thousands (again we just don’t know the details) of suggested notes, it is eventually Twitter itself — whether through human decision-making or an algorithm — that decides what gets the censorship treatment.
[...]
The obvious question here is why these warning labels are needed at all, given that the platform already has a very simple way for the community of users to challenge the subject matter of a tweet: more tweets.
Honestly, there is no more popular sport on Twitter than users finding ridiculous statements by high profile accounts and spending hours publicly dragging the offender on the platform. Is there some reason this is not sufficient?
In fact, this combat bad speech with more speech approach is what most conservatives called for prior to Musk taking over. Good will towards the eccentric billionaire has seemed to make many on the right give Musk’s Community Notes the benefit of the doubt. This is a mistake.
Ultimately, the problem here is that “content moderation,” of which Community Notes is a type, is inherently an Orwellian business that winds up meaning censorship. Placing official warning labels on true statements is censorship whether you use a euphemism for it or not.
[...]
For now, some conservatives are celebrating Community Notes, others cutting Musk some slack on it, but at the end of the day, censorship is censorship, whether you like the results or not.
Twitter should take its thumb off the scale of discourse by abandoning Community Notes and trust the users to police themselves organically without making some more equal than others with special privileges. That, and only that, will truly be free speech.
When a fellow right-winger faced fact-checking from Community Notes, Catherine Salgado ran to their defense in a June 14 post:
Twitter’s Community Notes slapped a “Context” warning label on an actual photograph of a miscarried unborn baby, trying unscientifically and inaccurately to claim that the depicted embryo was not seven weeks old.
When pro-life organization Live Action tweeted out photos and an article about 7- and 8-week-old unborn babies, with the back stories of the two tiny humans (Riley and Annabelle), Twitter’s Community Notes users attempted to discredit the photos.
Live Action President and Founder Lila Rose stating in a tweet, “Twitter posts a blatantly false ‘correction’ on our tweet showing a 7-week-old embryo from fertilization, who had been miscarried. What’s going on, @elonmusk?” The Community Notes “context,” shown in Rose’s screenshot, appears to have been removed since.
“This just goes to show the problem with so-called fact-checks, and ultimately the problem with Twitter’s Community Notes,” MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris said. “As columnist David Marcus pointed out in a recent piece, ‘“Community Notes” are a crowdsourced alternative to professional fact-checking, and while some conservatives appear to like the results better, the warning labels are still a form of censorship, albeit by a different name.’ Marcus is absolutely right.”
The "context" that was added was the fact that the embryo, as Salgado conceded, was the size of a blueberry -- the size of a coffee bean in the original Community Notes language -- important context when when you're representing an image as an "unborn baby" when you provide no sense sof scale. Salgado did not explain why Rose and Live Action chose to censor this relevant information in their original post.
WND's Brown Melts Down Over Pronouns, Cheers Right-Wing Anti-LGBT Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Our playing catch-up on Michael Brown's anti-LGBT activism continues: In his March 31 WorldNetDaily column, Brown had one of his occasional glimmers of self-awareness of how condescending he is by lecturing to LGBT people about how terrible they are while pretending to have compassion for them:
I am fully aware that some readers of this article will be deeply offended, accusing me of extreme condescension and transphobia. In a word, they would say, "We don't need or want your help or compassion. To the contrary, it's people like you who create problems for us."
Yes, I fully expect such reactions, but it is love for God, love for people and love for truth that compel me to write.
To be clear, I am not saying that we can generalize about trans-identified individuals based on the recent mass shooting at a private Christian school in Nashville by a trans-identified female shooter. That would be cruel and unfair.
But I am saying that we should focus on the serious needs within the transgender community, needs that no amount of surgery or hormones can fully address.
In the words of Robert L. Vazzo, M.M.F.T., a California-based, licensed marriage and family therapist and professional clinical counselor, "We need to educate pastors that the human condition is full of contradictions, paradoxes, and failings due to the fallen condition of the human race. There are many physical and psychological phenomena that illustrate this including autoimmune disorders, inflammation, mental retardation, autism, and yes, transgenderism."
[...]
Vazzo's point was well-taken. There are underlying mental and/or emotional issues that lie at the heart of gender dysphoria, and affirming people's struggles and delusions is the worst thing we can do.
Treating transgender people as if they are diseased is not the way to show compassion, Mike. Still, Brown went on to hype that gun massacre aswell as a planned "transgender day of vengeance" that was later called off, as well as ranting about "the social insanity of allowing biological males to compete against biological females." Brown closed with leaning into his compassion schtick again:
Do I believe that a disproportionate number of trans-identified people are violent? No. Do I believe that, as people, they are a special menace to society? Certainly not. Are they our enemies? God forbid. Jesus died for them the same way He died for each of us, and we must recognize that our fight is with spiritual forces, not with people (see Ephesians 6:12).
But I do believe that trans-activism, sponsored enthusiastically by the Biden administration, is a real threat to our societal stability. And, more importantly, I believe that we need to recognize that the transgender community is filled with wounded and hurting people, and even with endless affirmation and unlimited medical options, their pain will not go away.
Let's continue to do our best to find constructive ways to help them, even as they view us as enemies, accuse us of genocide and, in some cases, threaten us with vengeance.
Brown had a pronoun meltdown in his April 5 column, first responding to a father whose college-age daughter was asked to identify her pronouns:
I immediately wrote back, "I would not list mine for sure," adding in jest, "or else I'd say my pronouns are 'He is Lord.' They either accept this or they don't."
I continued, "I would not comply, and the school has no right to require it."
The father fully agreed, being reinforced in his own convictions.
Brown then cited a "former lesbian feminist professor" who declared that her use of "transgendered pronouns" was a "public sin," adding:
Having interacted extensively in the past with trans-identified Christians (in particular), and having dealt with the question on a more personal level with a trans-identified, non-Christian relative, I do understand the extreme sensitivities involved in this discussion.
I can honestly say, without judgment or condescension, that I fully understand why some Christians would argue for the use of PGPs for the sake of compassionate outreach. I really do get it. Why risk hurting someone who has already been hurt many times? Why risk driving someone away who might be very fragile emotionally?
But at the end of the day, reality is reality and truth is truth, and to collaborate with someone's deep, heartfelt confusion is to hurt them more than to help them.
Do you agree?
Brown's tactics are more about hurting LGBT people than helping them, given how he sees LGBT people as "confused" targets to be converted rather than individual people.
Brown once again showed his true sympathies in an April 12 column lashing out at anyone who refuses to hate transgender people like he does, denigrating them by declaring that they suffer from a "mass delusion":
I have often written about "transanity," by which I mean the social madness that has swept our nation (and other nations). It has reached the point that biological males share locker rooms with biological females and compete against them in sports, often obliterating female records and accomplishments in the process. It has gone so far that a Supreme Court justice nominee could not answer the question, "What is a woman?" And it has reached the point that minors are undergoing chemical castration and young teenage girls are having full mastectomies, with the avid support of the Biden administration. This is what I mean by transanity.
How can it be, then, that so many Americans strongly support those who identify as transgender? How can it be that the current administration is fighting so passionately to guarantee the "rights" of trans-identified kids, meaning, the "right" to identify contrary to biological realities and the "right" to undergo irreversible chemical or surgical changes to their bodies? Has everyone become complicit with this social madness?
Part of the answer is yes, we have lost our minds, corporately speaking. We are celebrating the emperor's new clothes, which are not clothes at all. We have embraced a mass delusion.
Brown complained that it's hard to personally hate transgender people for the heck of it, then blamed social contagion for them existing:
But the other part of the answer is that there is a compelling, personal, pro-transgender argument. It is something we will need to understand if we are to have a full perspective of the challenges at hand, remembering that we are dealing with both people and issues.
To be sure, I do believe that the vast majority of young people identifying as transgender today have been heavily influenced by the society at large, without which many would never have been confused about their gender identity.
Brown then took another stab at compassion:
But, to repeat, we do need to understand the pro-transgender argument and why some are so passionate about it.
In short, there are people, young and old alike, who have been deeply tormented with the sense that they are trapped in the wrong bodies. Try as I might to understand how this feels, I can't come close to wrapping my mind around it. It must be something terrible to live with.
But there are people who have felt like this for decades, suffering silently and feeling that hormone therapy and sex-change surgery are their only hope.
There are people who truly believe that accepting their transgender identity saved them from suicide. And there are parents who feel that the truly loving thing is to affirm their child's perceived identity. They are convinced that this is the path to wholeness.
And, just as quickly, he rejected that compassion:
Naturally, we would push back against many, if not all of these points, especially the idea that affirming our child's trans-identity is a healthy and good thing to do. There are plenty of professional counselors, therapists and psychologists who would heartily disagree.
As expressed by the American College of Pediatricians, "Americans are being led astray by a medical establishment driven by a dangerous ideology and economic opportunity, not science and the Hippocratic Oath. The suppression of normal puberty, the use of disease-causing cross-sex hormones and the surgical mutilation and sterilization of children constitute atrocities to be banned, not health care."
Brown didn't tell his readers that the American College of Pediatricians is a fringe-right group that peddles anti-LGBT hate like him.He concluded by once again pretending he's not attacking people, just "activism":
Trans-identified people are not our enemies, even if they consider us as such. And as much as we oppose their activist agenda – and we should oppose it wholeheartedly and unreservedly – we must always care about them as fellow image-bearers of God and objects of His redemptive love.
Brown did it again in his April 14 column cheering the rise in anti-LGBT hate:
Before speaking recently at an event at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., a pastor approached me and said that we had met 20 years ago when I spoke at a particular church in Virginia. Then he said, "You warned us back then about all the stuff that would be coming with gay activism and how everyone thought you were crazy. And now," he added, "it has all happened."
I smiled at him and said, "The same God who showed me what would happen with LGBTQ+ activism back then also showed me there would be a pushback!"
Day by day, that pushback continues, as the radical left continues to overplay its hand.
Btown was particuarly gleeful over right-wing rage against Bud Light for working with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. And he tried yet again to pretend he hates only "activism" and not people:
As I've said endlessly over these years, my issue is with the activism, not with the people. (In fact, I addressed that again just a few days ago.) But I will continue to speak out against the corrosive effect that LGBTQ+ activism is having on our nation while reaching out to individuals on a personal level.
Thankfully, more and more Americans are pushing back, be they parents who are offended by drag queens grooming their kids or by major companies pushing males as females.
May the pushback continue to gain ground (but without crushing LGTBQ+ people in the process).
Oh, please. Brown would be more than happy to see people like Mulvaney crushed for the crime of being transgender in public -- after all, crushing activism inevitably means crushing people.
Buttigieg Derangement Syndrome Surfaces Again At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center does have a bit of a case of Pete Buttigieg Derangement Syndrome -- we've documented how it tried to blame the effects of an Ohio train derailment (even though right-wingers typiclly oppose governmental intrusion in local matters and that the railroad, not the government, was really to blame).Alex Christy followed up in an April 26 post complaining that Buttigieg appeared on "The Daily Show" and "accused some Republicans of not being tough enough on railroad companies when it comes to rail safety," then whined that he "incorrectly use[d] the word 'literally.'"
Tim Graham, however, had a total meltdown over a Wired magazine profile of Buttigieg in a May 18 post headlined "Internet Ipecac":
Wired magazine used to tout itself as “the Rolling Stone of technology,” and like Rolling Stone, it enjoys publishing sticky valentines to leading Democrats. Conservatives are pointing and laughing at this profile by Virginia Heffernan, a Los Angeles Times columnist and Wired contributor:
Pete Buttigieg Loves God, Beer, and His Electric Mustang Sure, the US secretary of transportation has thoughts on building bridges. But infrastructure occupies just a sliver of his voluminous mind.
This clearly invokes 2007-era Obama hagiography, minus the admiration for Barack’s “chiseled pectorals.” Liberal minds are so incredibly sharp and expansive! Even their photographs of Buttigieg are ponderous:
Graham went on to whine that the profile noted that Buttigieg is religious, going on to sneer: "Anyone touting the 'robust Catholicism' and religious sincerity of President 'Rosary in my Pocket' Biden is clearly a Democrat. Biden is robustly pro-abortion and devoutly pro-LGBTQ." Graham did not provide evidence that Catholicism demand that people hate LGBTQ people the way that he and his fellow right-wingers do.
Graham closed with one more meltdown:
After a pile of denigrating remarks about Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson and the “androgen-addled, Putin-besotted ideologues” on the right, this question takes the religion cake:
HEFFERNAN: Running DOT seems to suit you. Are there more ways the challenges of transportation speak to your spiritual side?
BUTTIGIEG: There’s just a lot in the scriptural tradition around journeys, around roads, right? The conversion of Saint Paul happens on the road. I think we are all nearer to our spiritual potential when we’re on the move. Something about movement, something about travel pulls us out of the routines that numb us to who we are, to what we’re doing, to everything from our relationships with each other to our relationships with God....
Virginia Hefferman is paid by Wired, but she clearly earned a generous payout from Buttigieg in his persistent attempts to paint himself as Caucasian Obama.
That complaint is rich coming from someone who turned the blog he runs into an aggressive PR division of RonDeSantis that he and his subordinates really should be on his payroll.
(Graham wasn't alone: Fox News was also bothered by the interview, pulling the MRC-style rhetorical trick of portraying a single article as a purported indictment of the entire non-right-wing media.).
Matt Palumbo has been a favorite of the Media Research Center over their shared hatred of both fact-checkers and George Soros. But as we've documented, Palumbo has spent the past few months discrediting himself by writing (paid, one would hope) propaganda on behalf of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, which were in turn published as paid content on websites like Newsmax and Gateway Pundit, taking time away from his day job working for right-wing radio host Dan Bongino. (Mother Jones has a new article examining some of this.)
Minnesota fascists hope to be making a list in the near future and checking it twice.
Would you take fashion tips from someone who bills himself as a "cultural commentator with over 50 years in vocational ministry"? That person, Larry Tomczak, thinks you should, since he devoted his entire May 23 WorldNetDaily 
The Media Research Center was 
We are living in an age of mass deception, distraction and denial, of mass brainwashing. We might as well all be living in Jonestown, Guyana, and following the orders of Jim Jones.
Newsmax's Dick Morris is nothing if not a totally committed Trump sycophant, and his full Trump suck-up mode has continued since 
WorldNetDaily doesn't actually want Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to become president -- along with 
The Media Research Center irrationally hated former CNN chief Jeff Zucker, to the point that it started 
Hanne Nabintu Herland's May 10 WorldNetDaily 
The Media Research Center has generally approved of Twitter's "Community Notes" feature , which allowed people to append fact-hecks to tweets -- especially when non-conservativfes get fact-checked. In April, for example, Curtis Houck 
Our 
The Media Research Center does have a bit of a case of Pete Buttigieg Derangement Syndrome -- 
