How Is The MRC Hating Transgender People These Days? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's hatred of transgender people and all things transgender continued in an April 22 post by Clay Waters mocked a New York Times article that used respectful terms for transgender people. When the article referenced "In place of the 12-word phrase in bold above, insert 'males.'" He went on to rant about an NPR article that discussed gender-affirming care:
The phrase “gender-affirming care” just assumes the truth of the new “woke” gospel that one can be born in the wrong type of body, and that it is everyone else’s responsibility to agree that a biological man can change into a woman, and vice versa, by believing they can.
An April 24 post by chief transphobe Teirin-Rose Mandelburg raged about an incident in a Wisconsin high school in which teenage girls were allegedly exposed to a transgender girl in the shower. She quoted only right-wing activists to back up her account of the incident, censoring the fact that the school district called that account "ill-informed, inaccurate and incomplete." Neverntheless, she huffed: "Until public schools shape up, it’s unfortunately time to go private or ship out and homeschool. These aren’t educational institutions anymore. They're indoctrination and grooming facilities that care more about the alphabet mafia than teaching kids about the actual ABC’s."
Alex Christy spent an April 28 post complaining about someone questioned the need for a debate of whether transgender peopel should be allowed to exist:
As part of a Friday report on CNN This Morning on the “free speech debate” on college campuses, Elle Reeve wondered if debating transgenderism is like debating murder.
On the specific topic of a recent debate put on by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute between The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles and gay libertarian Brad Polumbo on “Should Transgenderism be Regulated by Law” at the University of Pittsburgh, Reeve asked Vice President of College Republicans at Pitt, Josh Minsky, “But would you have a panel where someone spoke about whether or not there should be legal murder?”
Conservatives would call abortion “legal murder,” but shortly before that question, writer and activist Charlotte Clymer told Reeve that debating transgenderism would be like debating whether or not to bring back segregation.
As for Minsky, he replied, “No, because murder is objectively wrong and you're killing someone, but I would not put that on the same spectrum.”
Christy didn't disclose that Knowles is a vicious transphobe. He was also annoyed that law professor Mary Ann Franks argued that conservatives want to shut down debate by censoring others:
And it’s really the coward's way of trying to deal with any argument. Your answer should be “here’s why my ideas are interesting and why they're important” not invoking some kind of quasi-constitutional gloss for what you have to say.
Conservatives have been making arguments, especially scientific ones, so Franks is simply wrong. It’s the left that cowardly seeks to avoid debate by simply appealing to emotions, but back in studio Reeve also ignored all the intellectual problems with transgenderism that conservatives have raised to say “I think it's important to notice that it's not, like, capital gains tax that is sparking protests, it’s some scientist with a theory about black holes. It's trans rights this year.”
[...]
It says a lot about the lack of confidence transgenderism's advocates have in their own ideas that they refuse to submit them to scrutiny.
Christy didn't explain why the existence of transgender people must constantly face "scrutiny."
The same day, Elise Ehrhard discussed an episode of "Law and Order" in which "an angry dad kills a doctor for giving his gender dysphoric child puberty blockers. The murdered doctor is married to a conservative congresswoman who is fighting the LGBTQUIA+ agenda. She was pleased that the episode showed "left-wing activists who have been threatening or violent, something rarely acknowledged on television," though less so that it also showed a drag queen character who argued that right-wing politicians "want to insert themselves into the private lives of every citizen in the country":
Public readings to children and publicly playing sports on a team of the opposite biological sex are not about "private lives," of course. Still, this episode is the first time I have seen Antifa mentioned in a network cop drama at all. It was a pleasant surprise to see the Antifa member portrayed as a jerk.
Ehrhard then criticized a school counselor character who discussed puberty blockers, citing a right-wing anti-transgender site to claim that the character's "erroneous claims about puberty blockers are never questioned and the harms are downplayed later at the trial.
On the stand, Debra testifies that she consented because she feared her child would commit suicide. The "suicide threat" to coerce parents into accepting Mengele-like "medicine" is a psychologically abusive tactic that the trans movement embraces.
Apparently, Ehrhard thinks that maliciously smearing doctors who help transgender people as akin to Nazis is somehow not a psychologically abusive tactic.
Christy returned for an April 29 post in which he defended allowing teen girls to get breast implants for not allowing gender-affirming care for transgender teens:
For Saturday’s installment of CNN This Morning Weekend, host Victor Blackwell welcomed Elana Redfield of UCLA Law’s Williams Institute to attack the “very ideological” GOP for not giving “gender-affirming care” to minors and President Biden from the left for his proposed sports-related Title IX changes.
Republicans were first up for condemnation as Blackwell was stumped by the fact that Republicans are willing to give female medical care to girls, but not boys, “At the top, I said these are states that are now banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, because many of these laws do not address gender-affirming care for cis-gender teenagers. If a parent wants to allow their 16-year-old to get breast implants, a cis-gender girl or their boy to get growth hormones, cis-gender boy, those things are not dealt with in legislation. Am I right this is focusing exclusively on, or primarily, I should say, on trans teens?”
Blackwell unwittingly stumbled upon a truth: allowing a teenage girl to get breast surgery to fix a birth defect, is gender-affirming care. Giving breast implants to a teenage boy, is gender un-affirming.
Dulce Sloan kicked off her week of temp hosting Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Monday by welcoming season 15 winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race, Sasha Colby on to the program to claim there is a connection between opposition to drag shows and the murder of transgenders.
Sloan began by asking, “Now as women of color, especially, we always have to worry about representation, right? And I know you want to be an example of a happy trans person in the media. Why is that important to you?”
Colby responded by arguing the “media has been concerned with a lot of the time is telling the transition story, telling the trauma, telling the effect that it did on the family, but not showing why we go through all of that. And how happy-- being so adamant about making yourself feel comfortable in your own skin, that’s the whole reason why we do the transition. It isn't to hurt or harm or traumatize our families or anyone else. It is to be our true, happy selves and we are missing that a lot.”
The idea that the media won’t focus on Colby’s definition of happiness is absurd, but not nearly as absurd as the assertion that “There are so many happy, well-adjusted, loving trans people, but you only see us getting murdered and beaten.”
Before anybody could ask what on earth Colby was talking about, Sloan asked “Now you won Drag Race at a time where drag is being politicized for absolutely no reason. What do you think they are really trying to do?”
Ignoring all the viral videos of sexualized performances with children present, Colby reached for the typical liberal accusation that “It's always about these white men, kind of, trying to control people's bodies.”
It's telling that Christy referenced only random "viral videos" made "viral" by anti-transgender activists; he went on to whine that "The idea that people who don’t like drag shows are going around murdering people is outrageous and false." In fact, last December's massacre at a Colorado LGBTQ club occurred at the end of a drag show.
WND Columnist Melts Down Over Intersex People Topic: WorldNetDaily
Nicholas Waddy began his June 15 WorldNetDaily column by complaining that Irish people have stopped hating LGBT people as much as he does:
Recently, I visited Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I came away very impressed by the friendliness of the people, the beauty of the landscape, and the prosperity and dynamism Ireland has achieved, despite a long history of poverty and relative isolation. I also found notable how omnipresent reminders are there of Ireland's struggle for independence. References to the 1798 and 1916 rebellions, for instance, are everywhere, as are memorials to the Irish who died in the struggle for self-rule.
When I got to Dublin, however, Ireland's capital and largest city, I was somewhat taken aback. Completely overshadowing displays of the Irish tricolor flag were displays of the pride flag – that is, the gay pride flag, as it used to be known. Given that June is pride month, that is not entirely surprising, especially when we consider that the White House was recently emblazoned with rainbow flags itself, but it was jarring when I compared my experience of Dublin with my travels in the rest of Ireland, where (with the notable exception of Unionist parts of Northern Ireland) the Irish and EU flags always got top billing. I chalk this up to Dublin's urban sophistication (some would call it dissipation), which, in big cities everywhere, seems to breed broader acceptance of, and even bellicose advocacy for, "alternative lifestyles." So be it.
But what really set Waddy off, though,is that intersex [people are noew represented on the pride flag:
Who are the intersex? While definitions vary somewhat, they are essentially persons born with genetic or physical abnormalities that distinguish them from the vast majority of human beings, who, at birth, fall (neatly or problematically, depending on who you ask) into one of two sexes (or genders, again depending on who you ask): male and female. Put another way, the intersex are those who have at least some of the genetic or physical characteristics of both biological sexes. In ancient times – meaning, several months or years ago – we called such people "hermaphrodites." They now no longer like to be called that, although they sometimes use the terminology among themselves. Keep in mind, moreover, that instances of intersexuality or hermaphroditism that are pronounced enough to occasion medical notice, let alone treatment, are incredibly rare. By this definition, intersex births represent considerably less than one-tenth of 1% of the total.
Wow! So where does this leave us?
First, as the intersex/hermaphrodite progress pride flag diffuses steadily across the globe, and as more LGBT-friendly people adopt it, one thing is for sure: the aesthetic coherence and symbolic clarity of the original rainbow pride flag is being eroded. This phenomenon, though, is an accurate reflection of the audacious expansion of the gender/sex equality movement itself, as well as its burgeoning complexity and pervasiveness – which to some appear almost totalitarian in scope.
Waddy then returned to more garden-variety anti-LGBT hate:
Just recently, the vast majority of Americans opposed gay marriage. Two of them, in fact, were President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Today, by contrast, gay marriage is a non-issue, and in a recent poll, 89% of Americans 18-29 years of old support it. Likewise, it was not so long ago that Ireland was a deeply Catholic country in which homosexuality was illegal (such laws were only repealed in 1993). Now, the country's most venerable university flies the flag of intersexuality, while there's not an Irish flag to be seen (and certainly not a Christian one). How quickly things change!
Scoff if you wish, therefore, but Trinity College may be a glimpse of our collective future. Someday soon, you may find yourself walking down the street and, if your T-shirt doesn't feature a yellow field and a purple circle somewhere on its design, people will look at you as if you just clubbed a baby seal to a bloody pulp.
My advice? At a minimum, be kind to hermaphrodites, because they might just hold your future in their (ambiguously gendered?) hands.
Waddy didn't explain why he seems to think that intersex people should be ashamed of who they are.
Newsmax Plays Defense For Trump Again After Charges Added To Classified Docs Case Topic: Newsmax
As the indictments pile up against donald Trump, Newsmax is continuing to serve as the Trump Defense Network.
When new charges were added to Trump's (second) indictment over classified documents, Newsmax first responded with a July 28 wire article, followed by an article touting former Trump adviser Stephen Miller declaring that the added charges are "'further proof' of the Department of Justice's efforts to keep him from returning to the White House." There was also a wire article on Trump denying the charges.
Then came the usual promoting of folks defending Trump and attacking the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith:
Newsmax did slip in a bit of bad news for Trump, though -- a July 29 article by Eric Mack noted that "A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump has granted CNN's motion to dismiss a $475 million defamation case brought by the former president."
Craig Bannister Reprises Old, Dishonest Writing From News Operation In Blog Version Of CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
Because the Media Research Center got a pot of money some years ago "in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold" -- a longtime MRC funder whose family members haveserved on the MRC's board of trustees -- to use for reporting on business and economics, the right-wing blog that currently passes for CNSNews.com is apparently stuck writing posts about that, albeit with the usual CNS mandate to downplay good economic news when it happens under a Democratic president. A July 7 post by Craig Bannister picked up the cherry-picking-bad-news strategy used by CNS writer Susan Jones, who lost her job when the MRC blew up CNS:
Led by continued growth in government, the unemployment rate fell 0.1 point to 3.6% in June – though, non-farm employment and wages recorded lackluster gains – according to seasonally-adjusted data released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Compared to May, employment in the non-farm sector was up 209,000 jobs last month – falling far short of the monthly average increases for both the first six months (278,000) of this year and full-year 2022 (399,000).
Employment in government increased by 60,000 in June, as employment continued to trend up in state (+27,000) and local government (+32,000). Overall, government has added an average of 63,000 jobs per month thus far in 2023 – more than twice the average of 23,000 per month in 2022.
Faltering market conditions reduced more American workers to part-time status in June, as the number of persons employed part-time for economic reasons increased by 452,000 to 4.2 million, partially reflecting an increase in the number of persons whose hours were cut due to slack work or business conditions.
It wasn't a group of bullet points after the eighth paragraph of his post that Bannister got around to mentioning that more Americans were working.
A July 12 post by Bannister seemed disappointed that inflation is easing, if the headline is any indication: Despite Cost of Shelter, Inflation Eases Compared to Year-Ago, when 9.1% Increase Was Highest in More than 40 Years."
Bannister reprised another dishonest reporting trick in a July 21 post:
States with Republican governors dominate the lists of both the states with the lowest, and record-lowest, unemployment rates, according to statistics for June 2023 released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Out of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates last month, eight boast Republican governors, as Maryland (#5) and Maine (#8) were the only Democrat-led [sic] states to make the cut:
As we've noted when CNS did this previously, most of those Republican-led states tend to be sparsely populated compared to other states.
MRC's Coverage Count Of Trump vs. Biden Omitted Fox News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center reacted to Donald Trump's (second) indictment on charges related to classified documents with general ranting, false Hillary Clinton whataboutism and hypocritical complaints about criticism of the judge. It has also complained that it was covered in the media at all and that right-wing narratives about President Biden were ignored. Geoffrey Dickens whined in a June 13 post:
On Thursday June 8, two massive political stories broke, but ONLY one of them got covered by the broadcast networks.
On June 8, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the Special Counsel in the classified documents case. That very same day it was reported that President Joe Biden had allegedly received $5 million dollars from an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, the same company in which his son Hunter was involved.
Guess which one was exhaustively covered and which one was completely covered up by the networks?
Over four days (June 8-June 12) the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) broadcast networks predictably crammed their evening, morning and Sunday roundtable shows with a total of 291 minutes of coverage dedicated to the Trump indictment.
But how much did the Biden/Burisma alleged bribery scheme receive?
Zero seconds.
The double-standard is breathtaking.
Actually, it's not a double standard at all. Trump's indictment is a real, substantial thing, while the internal FBI document released by a Republican senator for partisan reasons that purportedly claims that "Joe Biden had allegedly received $5 million dollars from an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma" -- note his usage of "alleged" -- is based on information that is unverified. It's real, live news versus an unsupported claim.Nevertheless, the partisan Dickens asserted, "Make no mistake, the Burisma scandal story and its ties to Joe “ Big Guy” Biden has legs."
While Dickens touted how Fox News hyped the Burisma claim, he refused to do a coverage count of how Fox News covered those stories -- probably because it would have demonstrated the right-wing anti-Biden bias Fox News has.Instead, he ranted that "Clearly the broadcast networks will continue to obsessively cover Trump’s indictment but to be fair and balanced they would also cover Biden’s scandals — something they (as exposed by NewsBusters) have been reluctant to do." Needless to say, Dickens will never hold Fox News to the same standards he holds non-right-wing media.
Alex Christy served up his own contribution to the coverage-count narrative in a June 14 post:
Former President Donald Trump was arraigned on Tuesday on charges related to the retention of classified documents and CNN and MSNBC wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
A study of the two networks from 5 AM to midnight Eastern found that 5.21 percent of their non-commercial air time was devoted to this one issue. The two networks combined for 28 hours, 44 minutes, and 2 seconds of which 27 hours, 21 minutes, and 25 seconds was devoted to Trump or some aspect of the case.
As bad as those numbers are, they are much worse when looked at in an hourly breakdown. Starting in the 11 AM Eastern hour, 100 percent of CNN’s non-commercial time was spent on the case while MSNBC went exclusive at 10 AM.
The networks may defend themselves by saying the case is historic, but so is the ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive, but the war in Ukraine received a measly 4 minutes and 9 seconds on Tuesday. Other news like the I-95 collapse in Philadelphia received 9 minutes and 39 seconds while White House Pride guests getting banned from the White House for going topless got nothing.
Like Dickens, Christy refused to conduct a coverage count of Fox News. Dickens served up a rehash of of his earlier post, but with updated numbers, on June 21.
Meanwhile, the MRC continued to run to Trump's defense in other ways as well:
A June 13 post by Ana Schau tried to suggest that having pro-Trump jurors for any Trump trial would be a good thing:
On Tuesday morning’s CNN News Central, anchor Rahel Solomon brought University of Miami professor of criminal law Scott Sundby on the show to discuss the selection process for “potential jurors” at the trial for former President Trump’s classified documents indictment. Despite Solomon’s disclaimer that the process was “not at the jury selection phase of any potential trial” yet, they engaged in a discussion of the importance of selecting jurors for the trial based on their “worldviews” and “where [they] get their news.”
[...]
Of course, it’s true that a person’s worldview will affect how they judge a case, but this should not be a limiter for specific people to be able to participate in any particular jury. In fact, our legal system was built specifically in an attempt to ensure a wide range of different kinds of people in the judgment process, in hopes of reaching a middle ground (and thus a more just judgment) among all of these opinions.
However, Solomon and Sundby continued their discussion of the selection of jurors by their worldview, this time branching off into a discussion on how specifically a person’s political leaning could affect their eligibility to be “a good potential juror.” He brought up an example of a juror in the Jean Carroll civil law suit against Trump who many felt should have been disqualified after it was learned turning the trial [sic] he reads “a right-wing blog.”
When one commentator insisted that jurors should "base your decision on the evidence," Schau retorted: "This would remove the possibility of a juror being able to judge a case on the whole of the truth of the matter that he knows, rather than just the information cited in the trial, which was bound to be biased when coming from both sides." In fact, juries are routinely instructed to base their decisions on the evidence.
WND's Lively Thinks 'Incels' Are Becoming Transgender Topic: WorldNetDaily
As with many things that do not fit his narrow and rigid right-wing ideology, Scott Lively has not enjoyed the idea that women should be treated as equals to men. So his June 15 WorldNetDaily column began with a rant against early feminist Betty Friedan, insisting that she "is responsible for weaponizing feminist grievances to poison women against home-based, family-centered lifestyles and transform them into aggressive workplace competitors with men, leveraging leftist power in the civil rights movement to achieve the cultural Marxist goal of "disintegration of … the monogamic and patriarchal family." He continued:
As a man who came of age in the 1970s I am a part of the first generation of males upon whom was imposed Friedan's feminist theory of social order by the American public-education cabal. We were the first to be indoctrinated in the false narrative that men and women are equal and interchangeable in all things, and that men's collective unfair past "oppression" of all women warranted new public policies and practices favoring the advancement of women in roles traditionally relegated to men. Men who declined to voluntarily defer or submit to women's leadership in this campaign were deemed "male chauvinist pigs," justifying anti-discrimination laws to punish those who stood in the way of "equality." I only broke free of that mindset when I became a Christian in my late 20s and started understanding God's plan for family.
[...]
Cut loose from its moorings in Judeo-Christian tradition, women's innate maternalism was manipulated by the elite Marxist puppet-masters away from a child-rearing orientation toward "protectiveness of the oppressed," most especially "gay" men, whose own agenda since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 has been absolute cultural supremacy. Thus, because of feminism, the civilization-killing LGBT agenda advanced steadily through legislation despite opposition by a consistent majority of men.
So now the Friedanian feminists have no one but themselves to blame. They let themselves become the ultimate useful idiots of the left, the "gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts" of 2 Timothy 3:6 – enslaved to the anti-family agenda of Marxist men.
Which somehow led to this claim:
Meanwhile, hardcore "Incel" misogynists, brimming with smoldering hate – the Frankenstein creations of feminism-perverted male-female social dysfunction – are "identifying" as women to vengefully invade and defile their most intimate spaces and institutions – backed by legislators and judges whose Marxist delusions and zealotry are even more deeply entrenched than that of the Friedanians. Female identity itself is being systematically erased to serve the new transgender cum transhumanist cause.
Given that the only thing incels might hate more then women is men who have transitioned to being a woman, we find it extremely hard to believe that incels are becoming transgender.
MRC Screeches At Disney+ Documentary For Not Hating LGBTQ People Topic: Media Research Center
Elise Ehrhard spent a June 5 post raging at Disney for airing a documentary that committed the offense of not viciously hating LGBTQ people the way she does:
Just when you think Disney can't sink any lower, "Pride Month" comes along and the House of Mouse finds ways to fall even furthe.
On Friday, June 2, Disney+ premiered the National Geographic special Pride from Above. The 45-minute documentary took kids to LGBTQ Pride Parades across the globe.
In the opening minutes of the documentary, an elderly gay man told the audience that pride is "gay Christmas."
As the above video illustrated, this special highlighted more than just rainbows and glitter. It showcased parade route images of transgender double mastectomy scars, twerking, drag "nuns," and other inappropriate content for kids. It even zoomed in on a guy in a wheelchair with a sign that says, "I Get Horny Too."
Throughout the 45 minutes, a narrator waxed eloquent on the "joy" of queerness.
Pride from Above also made clear that the LGBTQUIA+ acronym is potentially endless. Kids are taught that there are myriad ways for them to join the gender madness.
Ehrhard then huffed that activists devised a term for transgender people that wasn't offensive:
National Geographic deliberately misled viewers about complex historical matters. For example, the phrase "two-spirit" was made up by LGBT activists in the 1990s. The activists wanted a word to replace the term used by European colonists for a type of Native American boy they called "berdache." Berdache is from an Arabic word for "kept boy." The word's pedophilic inference bothered the movement so "two-spirit" was born.
Ehrhard didn't explain why transgender people must be presumed to be pedophiles. Instead, she concluded with a tirade that raged at the "gender cult" (whatever that is; she doesn't explain) and demanding that everyone abandon Disney because it refuses to spew mindless hate at LGBTQ people (like she does):
Who cares about history, though, when you have an agenda to push? If "the pride of today has moved beyond LGBT," then vulnerable children and adolescents now have a host of ways to be inducted into the gender cult. This cult is led by adults far too eager to publicly get their kink on in front of minors.
For its part, Disney is also too happy to promote this confusion to children in their amusement parks and on their streaming service. The idyllic Disney of past decades is dead.
Cancel your Disney+ subscription. Avoid the Disney theme parks. Do not purchase tickets to new Disney movies. This company is now so far from its founder's vision that Walt must be rolling in his grave.
Ehrhard certainly doesn't care about reason or sanity -- she has an agenda she gets paid to push, and she will continue to do so until she can bully everyone else into hating LGBTQ people the way she gets paid to do.
NEW ARTICLE -- Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks: The Early Years Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist loves to pretend he has compassion for LGBTQ people -- even as he continuously displays his hate and contempt for them. Read more >>
MRC Still Fluffing Musk, Insists That Anti-Semitism Isn't Hate Speech Topic: Media Research Center
The bad news continued to come for Elon Musk's Twitter:
Musk threatened to censor users who use the word "cisgender," inexplicably insisting that it's a "slur."
He tried to make Twitter less accessible by introducing new limits on tweet views for anyone who won't pay the billionaire $8 a month, and many ussers had problems accessing Twitter at all.
Twitter's attempt to mimic TikTok's "swipe up" feature is showing viewers graphic and conspiracy-theory-laden videos featuring gun violence, police brutality, physical altercations and vaccine misinformation.
The Media Research Center will tell its viewers about none of this, of course -- Musk's de facto PR operation would never do that. Instead, it was all about Musk-fluffing. A June 19 post by Gabriela Pariseau hyped an interview he did with an obscure podcaster in which he did his usual pontifications about "free speech." We suspect the podcaster lobbed only easy softballs as Musk. A June 28 tweet on the NewsBusters Twitter account obsequiously wished Musk a happy birthday.
Peter Kotara insisted that anti-Semitism and other hate on Twitter is not hate speech but "so-called hate speech" in a June 28 post raging that people want Musk to do something about it, starting with issuing a personal attack on the head of the Anti-Defamation League:
On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, ADL Vice President Yael Eisenstat joined MSNBC hosts Willie Geist and Jonathan Lemire to demand social media companies tighten the noose of political censorship online, cry about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and even call for the government to become involved in online censorship.
Eisenstat, a far left censorship proponent, appeared on the segment to push forward the thesis that so-called “hate speech” has been increasing online, and that social media companies needed to censor it, as well as that the government needed to pass legislation forcing them crack down on it if they won’t do so on their own.
[...]
So, who is Yael Eisenstat? Apart from being the Vice President of the ADL, a partisan organization dedicated to demonizing right-wingers and labeling them “anti-semites” based solely on their opposition to woke ideology, she was a former Facebook employee, CIA analyst, and National Security Adviser to then Vice President Joe Biden.
According to Influence Watch, Eisenstat “argued that speech she considers to be misinformation or hateful that does not violate any laws should still be subjected to censorship.” Here Eisenstat showed her true malevolent nature, that she wished to destroy any political speech she disagreed with by classifying it as “hate speech”.
Kotara didn't explain why anti-Semitism shouldn't be considered hate speech, nor did he cite any actual examples of Eisenstat "destroy any political speech she disagreed with by classifying it as 'hate speech'." He concluded by huffing:
This MSNBC propaganda segment highlighted the ever-expanding attempts by the left to use “hate speech” to silence dissent and centralize power under themselves both through governmental legislation and private corporations. Their real enemy was never hate; it was the First Amendment.
Again Kotara didn't explain why online hate should and must be allowed to spread unchecked.
Tim Graham used a July 8 post to complain that the Washington Post got an apparently fake account banned of an apparently nonexistent person who spouted views presented as,liberal, insisting the account was really brilliant satire:
Among the Twitter bot accounts that the liberal media hate most are the fake liberal bots who make liberals look like obnoxious idiots -- or who are a little too clumsy and inartful, and make liberals think it must be a conservative plot. It's like a version of banning The Babylon Bee because its satire hits too close to home.
Consider the case of "Erica Marsh," who tripped the liberal alarms with a June 29 tweet after the Supreme Court upended race-based admissions at Harvard. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed."
As Legal Insurrection noted, this caused a wave of outrage, particularly among black conservatives like Candace Owens, Bo Snerdley, Leo Terrell and others.
On July 4, Drew Harwell of The Washington Post reported their inquiries to Twitter caused the "Erica Marsh" account to be suspended after her Supreme Court tweet was viewed more than 27 million times.
[...]
Harwell noted what he and the other liberals -- sorry, the "misinformation experts" were thinking: "For months, Marsh’s account had raised suspicions among online misinformation experts due to her lack of a real-world footprint and her devotion to attention-grabbing viewpoints one called “cartoonishly liberal.” For example, Harwell noted, last month she said she still wears “2 masks whenever I go out and support Ukraine.”
Most Twitter users -- at least the ones outside the censorious left -- find parody accounts amusing, but you want to know what is a parody account and what's not. You might wonder if @AOC is a parody, and not the AOC parody accounts. When Harwell turned back to his expert on "rage" and Twitter, did he consider that the left-wing side is also vulnerable to rage bait?
Funny, we don't recall Graham ever liking a tweet from The Onion. And Graham offered no examples of right-wing rage-bait to which liberals have been "vulnerable."
How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately? Topic: WorldNetDaily
We're continuing to catch up on Michael Brown's animus toward LGBT people (which he wants you to believe is only against "activism") with his June 2 WorldNetDaily column, in which he again cheered right-wing anti-LGBT hate and again complained that the Los Angeles Dodgers honoreed the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for their community service:
For many years I have been saying that LGBTQ+ activists will overplay their hand, resulting in a moral and cultural revolution in the opposite direction. The May 31 headline story on DrudgeReport, "War on Pride," with a "No" graphic to two men, says it all. The accompanying headlines read, "Anti-Target Rap Tops iTunes"; "Revolt on Chick-Fil-A"; "Bud Light Sales Down 30%"; "Gays Leaving Florida."
Drudge also could have added some of the backlash to the Los Angeles Dodgers celebrating the Catholic-mocking Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to the list. This was yet another step too far.
The pushback is accelerating, and for good reason.
Of course, to those (or to you) who identify as LGBTQ+ (and to LGBTQ+ allies), all this is the latest manifestation of hatred and bigotry, and people like me are leading the homophobic, biphobic, transphobic charge. We are haters and bigots in your eyes, narrow-minded, uncaring, religious fundamentalists, moral hypocrites who are obsessed with people who do not conform to our norm.
Brown once again claimed against all evidence that his anti-LGBT hate isn't hate and is somehow noble becaiuse he is right and LGBT people are evil:
Yes, I get it. And yes, it grieves me that millions of Americans who get up in the morning and go to work and school and take care of their families – everyday people living normal lives – will feel hurt and personally attacked by the very pushback I celebrate. That gives me no joy or sense of triumph.
But that's the whole point.
It is not bigotry or hatred that drives me (and others of like mind). It is the incessant, unavoidable, ever-increasing attack on our most basic human values that drives us.
It is bombarding toddlers and young children with the idea that they could be a boy one day and a girl the next.
It is female students fearing to use their own school bathrooms because of the presence of boys who identify as girls.
It is males competing against females in athletic competitions and men wearing women's swimsuits in ads.
It is drag queens not only reading books to little children but shaking their hips (and worse) in their presence, even to the point of physical touching.
It is the chemical castration and genital mutilation of minors.
It is educators and school counselors undermining family values and going behind parents' backs.
It is forcing a radical agenda on those who disagree and penalizing them for their failure to comply.
It is celebrating extremist, deeply offensive groups like the anti-Catholic Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
Brown then bizarrely insisted that homophobes like him are the real victims - then, even more bizarrely, likened the group to white supremacists:
But this is what you have to remember: They endured years of LGBTQ+ Pride nights without speaking out. They didn't rock the boat, even though they might have been personally offended. It was only when the activists went a step too far. That's when they spoke out.
[...]
Can you imagine the uproar if the Dodgers honored a group of white supremacists wearing blackface and called "The Brothers in the Hood"?
Or a group of Gentile anti-Semites wearing Hasidic Jewish garb and called "The Rabbis of the Foreskin"?
Or a group of gay-hating women dressed as effeminate men and called "The Swishers"?
Or a group of Islamophobes dressed as imams carrying AK-47s and called "Allah's Holy Messengers"?
These scenarios are so absurd as to be completely unimaginable. Yet, as the inevitable result of decades of LGBTQ+ activism, the Dodgers are celebrating and honoring nun-mocking, Catholic-despising drag queens.
For his June 5 column, Brownonce again tried (and failed) to explain that he attacks only "activism" and not people:
For almost 20 years now, I have been guided by this principle when it comes to LGBTQ people and issues: Reach out to the people with compassion; resist the agenda with courage. But how, exactly, is this done? And how does it play out in terms of the people we are called to reach and the agenda we are called to resist?
There are Christians who avoid the culture wars because they are too toxic, fearing that any involvement will only turn LGBTQ-identified people away from the faith. "Let's just love them like we love everyone else," they reason, "building relationships with them, not being offensive in our speech or conduct, and leading them to Jesus."
[...]
How can we love people in such a way that they recognize our love for them while we reject their personal perceptions and most fundamental values? And how can we love people in a genuine, Christlike way while openly opposing the things they fight for?
Many Christians still use the old adage of, "Love the sinner but hate the sin," thinking this is a good way of describing our attitude towards LGBTQ-identified people.
But, as many an ex-gay, ex-trans person has told me, they heard those words as, "You hate me." That's because, for them, being gay (or trans) was not something they did but who they were. (In the same way, I do not do heterosexual; I am heterosexual.)
On the other hand, in many cases, no matter how much we love people as people, unconditionally and with a genuine heart, if we do not affirm their expressed sexual orientation or gender identity, we will be considered hateful.
Brown went on to complain that a Twitter poll he conducted showed that "85% of those who identified as pro-LGBTQ believe that there is no way I can lovingly say, 'I believe homosexual practice is sinful' or 'I don't affirm transgender identity.'" He then claimed without evidence that "We fully understand the human issues involved, most all of us having friends or family members or colleagues who identify as LGBTQ.," though he went on to note that "A trans-identified relative of mine cut me off years ago because of my public stands on the relevant issues, despite my appeal to him to meet with me privately and tell me his story, just so I could better understand the pain he had lived with." Then, after declaring "compassion," he framed that in his certainty that he is right and LGBT people are wrong (if not evil):
As I have often said, we need hearts of compassion and backbones of steel.
So, on the one hand, if you cut us, we should bleed love. On the other hand, we will not be moved.
This is the holy tension with which we live. May God give us the grace to reflect His heart and mind.
We've noted how Brown's June 7 column weighed in on the tiny meltdown over a crew member for the Chrtistian TV show "The Chosen" displaying a small pride flag, in which he insisted that anti-LGBT hate be treated as some kind of virtue. For his Jne 12 column, he was back to cheering that very anti-LGBT hate:
As I've stated elsewhere, these Americans didn't sign up for the increasingly radical cultural madness, for the assault on children, and for the stripping away of the rights of others. That's why so many are now pushing back against "Pride."
And it's not just the conservative, Bible believers. It's the average drinker of Budweiser beer. It's the average shopper at Target. It's the average parent with a kid in school.
They're not going for the blur-gender, omnigender, pregnant man, menstruating males, castrate-the-kids nonsense.
And they're not going for the constant, in your face exaltation of everything gay and trans and queer related. As Matt Walsh tweeted on May 30, "As you prepare for Pride Month, we must also remember to celebrate:
"Bisexual Health Awareness Month International Transgender Day of Visibility National LGBT Health Awareness Week National Transgender HIV Testing Day Non-Binary Parents Day Lesbian Visibility Day International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, & Biphobia Harvey Milk Day Pansexual & Pan Romantic Awareness & Visibility Day Non-Binary Awareness Week International Drag Day LGBTQ History Month (not to be confused w/ Pride Month) International Lesbian Day National Coming Out Day National LGBT Center Awareness Day Asexual Awareness Week International Pronouns Day Transgender Parent Day Pansexual Pride Day Gay Uncles Day"
Did he miss any?
[...]
The camel has gotten its nose in the door of the tent, and everything else has followed in its wake. As a result, millions of Americans are saying, "This is too much."
They wanted to embrace common kindness. They ended up with cultural craziness.
The fact that Brown is approvingly quoting a vicious homobphobe like Walsh shows where his sympathies lie and where his claimed "compassion" does not. Indeed,he went on to embrace another hater:
As Joe Rogan said to his massive podcast audience, "So we're seeing that now where we never saw that before, where people are going 'Enough! Enough! Stop shoving this down everybody's throat.'"
Precisely so. (For those who do not know Rogan, he is not a born-again, Bible-waving Christian.)
He continued, "When I go to Target I don't want to see like [expletive] tuck pants, like they're designed to help you tuck your [expletive]. Hey, that's not normal, I don't want that right in front of everybody. It's weird."
He's right. It's weird. It's unnatural. It's harmful to suggest this for kids. And, from a business point of view, it's only relevant to a tiny percentage of the society. Why on earth make it front and center in your store unless you are driven by a radical social agenda?
And that's why this Pride Month is different than past Pride Months. Americans are coming to their senses. As I recently tweeted, what began for many as the embrace of common decency ("I treat my gay friends and coworkers with fairness and respect") has become a celebration of deviancy ("Long live the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence!").
The bottom line is that LGBTQ+ activists have basically said, "No matter how much ground you give us and no matter how much you embrace us, it is never enough. We will continue to push the envelope."
Millions of Americans have responded by saying, "Enough is enough."
Brown does not explain why his enthusiatic support for anti-LGBT hate shouildn't be assumed to apply to people and not "activism."
MRC's Graham Mad That Media Won't Inject Anti-LGBTQ Hate Into News Stories Topic: Media Research Center
In a June 17 post, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham insisted it was an "objectivity scandal" that there was a controversy over a Michigan TV station issuing a memo stating that its reporters "get both sides" of LGBTQ issues because "conservative viewers" didn't like that being covered at all:
Can you believe that? "We apologize for the misguided people who believe reporting on two sides of an issue, which shows disrespect for the marginalized LGBT community. Those aren't our values!"
[...]
Oh no! Someone expressed concern about the conservative viewers! This better be fixed! Someone dared to question the newsworthiness of drag brunches and burlesque troupes!
[...]
The people who preach "expansive and inclusive" journalism mean the exact opposite. WOOD-TV is now posting happy one-sided propaganda about "The evolution of gay pride in Michigan."
Graham doesn't explain what, exactly, the other side of "LGBTQ issues" he wants in every story on the subject. That's because it involves portraying non-heterosexual people as evil and unclean and are going to hell if they don't repent of their wicked ways. He also doesn't explain why saying nice things about LGBTQ people is "propaganda" and spewing hate at them is not -- or why "conservative viewers" are such snowflakes that they can't handle the fact they non-heterosexual people are human beings who deserve basic respect and that news about them be censored. It's also unlikely that Graham will demand that "both sides" be told on any news story on "Christian issues."
Graham also referenced the incident in his June 20 column, in which he whined that news coverage "shows 'respect for....some members of the [LGBTQ] community." Again, he didn't explain what level of anti-LGBTQ hate he demands be put in any news story about them.
Ultimately the two top news directors at the station were fired, along with two producers accused of leaking the memo to the public.
What's Mychal Massie Melting Down Over Now? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Once again Joe Biden failed miserably to support and advance the cause of women and income equality. Biden made quite the show of presenting a letter he received from a little girl who expressed grave concerns about income disparity per the gender wage gap.
[...]
The secret to success if you are a no-talent, hate-filled Negress who has been taught so-called white people haven't paid their debt for having slavery in America, is to lie, just as Biden made a successful career of doing – a talent Nikole Hannah-Jones copied with great success. Biden should have told the little girl that the trick to big-money success comes from speaking appearances that promote divisiveness and acrimony. It's receiving praise from the rough-edged bathroom tissue called The New York Times. It's found in patterning after Jones by writing the worst lies found in the binding of one book in quite possibly publishing history, which is exactly what Jones did and precisely what her "1619 Project" is.
The other missed opportunity was to tell the little girl, who must herself be a Negress, how bad "coloreds" have it. A Negress because everyone knows one of the most consistent extortive laments is how the under-performing schools are failing the inner-city children juxtaposed to the far superior academic bastions the privileged so-called white children attend.
That said, the only difference between Biden and Jones is that unlike him, she can find her behind with two hands due to the over gargantuan proportions of same; whereas Biden can't find his butt with two hands and an instructional manual on how to find it. The other difference being that he's so decrepit and unbalanced that he cannot even fall down steps, he must fall up steps. With the jello-belly she's carrying around, Jones, on the other hand, could belly flop down steps and stick a perfect marshmallow landing.
Of course, I'm being facetiously sarcastic, but my point is correct. Wanna be successful and make big money without putting forth any real effort? Write a book that portrays marginally evolved coloreds as victims of evil so-called white folks, especially Christian white folks, and make sure it's revisionist lies from cover to cover. And voila, you're a superstar.
But, then we have Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, better known as AOC, which I would argue is short for a trampish heathen who personifies dumb as a roll of bathroom tissue and is worthy of the same purpose. Cortez has "announced that parental rights are fascism in America."
[...]
It takes only a brief glance to see what government participation in the life of young people has done to Cortez and her troupe of whorish child-killers, who are promoting mental insanity through inculcation of debaucherous sexual fantasies they promote as real.
How is it fascist for parents to teach their children the Word of God? How is it fascist for parents to teach their children that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How is it fascist for parents to teach their children moral standards that renounce sexual sin, teaching them that God created male and female, i.e., he and she, not he-he and she-she? How is it fascism for parents to teach their children to love America and what America stood for until the demonic Cortez types usurped office?
The domestic terrorists of today seek positions and are specifically installed into said positions for the express purpose of destroying those who are deemed a threat to their wraith-like benefactors who operate out of the shadows and sulfuric mists of the demonic world the Apostle Paul spoke of in his epistle to the Ephesians (6:10-17 KJV).
The most conspicuous of these domestic terrorists at present are Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney; Leticia James, New York attorney general; and Kim Gardner, district attorney, St. Louis, Missouri – to mention but three. Bragg and James are committed to destroying anyone and everyone their demonic grand wizard instructs them to persecute – in this case President Trump. Gardner has been directed to destroy people of means who legally own firearms and use same to protect their private property and families.
They have all been financially backed by their puppet-financier George Soros whose objective is to destroy the foundations of America, i.e., the church, the family, the schools and the armed forces. But, most important to realize about these minions of Erebusic blackness is that they are necrophagous organisms consumed with a blood lust to destroy those they condemn as "rich and white."
But, today the sexual abomination called transgenderism is replacing skin-color as the viscous lubricant.
People identifying as such are emotionally maldeveloped and suffering from hebephrenic schizophrenia. The longtime pets of the Democrat Party are now being pushed to a new 'back-of-the-bus" in favor of the now debaucherous deviants being popularized today.
It was Obama, however, who the week before being elected to his first term in the White House said: "In five days we will begin to fundamentally change America." And thus he did. I said "The devastating effect of Obama will not be felt until he leaves office, and that effect is being addressed by only a very small number of statesmen who see and understand the true threat of Obama."
I was right. What we see today with Dylan Mulvaney and Biden's secretary of health Richard Levine and all of the other sexual deviant insanity place was fast-tracked by Obama.
It began with his men in women's bathrooms and vice-versa. Obama publicly fantasized about having sex with men according to his own admission. It was Obama who pushed for children in kindergarten to be taught about anal sexual devices, homosexuality and lesbianism. Whether or not Obama's commitment to forcing homosexualism upon children was born out of his own depraved thirst for sexual intimacy with "older white-men" or something far more demonic is unclear. What we see today is being forced upon children because of Obama.
One of the greatest deceptions embraced by the gullible was the insanity of social distancing, masks, forced isolation and mandated injections of unidentified toxic compounds. We were called conspiracy theorists, deniers, anti-vaxers, etc. We were told being injected with the deadly toxin was the loving thing to do. Funny, they claimed the same thing about murdering babies. Just as I fail to understand how the murder of children is a display of love, I fail to reconcile how harming myself, including the prospect of death, is showing love for my family or others.
The public bought the lies and boasted of embracing the deadly deceptions of the political and social grifters pushing fear and toxins. Now, the larvae of these lies are hatching, and people are suddenly dropping dead. Young athletes in impeccable health are dying on the playing fields. Pilots, on-air hosts, performers ad nauseam are suddenly dropping dead. And the grifters want us to believe there's no connection between the toxin, death, heart disease, nerve pain, cancer and more?
MRC Cheers Montana's Unenforceable TikTok Ban Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center assumes that anyone who defends TikTok, as well as all of its millions of users, are stooges for "communist China" -- even though the MRC is acting like a stooge for Facebook, which paid a Republican PR firm to spread anti-TikTok talking points in right-wing media (much like the ones the MRC has been using). For instance, a March 23 post by Curtis Houck complained:
Ahead of Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing featuring TikTok CEO Shou Chew, the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC had their flagship morning news shows spouting off tales of possible despair and financial ruin from TikTok influencers the Chinese-owned social media app paid to fly to Washington to appear as props.
Always game for the superficial, ABC’s Good Morning America was at the forefront of the pressure to keep the app that’s dumbing down the country alive. Co-host Robin Roberts teased that “creators lobb[ied] lawmakers, saying a ban would threaten their livelihoods.”
Houck showed no concern for those who make their living off TikTok -- they're just collateral damage. He also doesn't explain that companies flying in people to testify on their behalf in Congress is hardly a novel thing; activists on both sides do it.
So when Montana actually issued a ban on the use of TikTok in the entire state , the MRC was incredibly giddy. Gabriela Pariseau gushed in a May 18 post:
In a first-of-its kind ordeal, the state of Montana has sent the communist Chinese government-tied TikTok platform packing.
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed SB 419 into law Wednesday, May 17, prohibiting TikTok from operating “within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana. “To protect Montananas’ personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party, I have banned TikTok in Montana,” wrote the governor in a tweet Wednesday.
Montana banned the app from government devices in December, but it is the first state to ban the app outright on all devices.
Aside from the usual "national security" talking points, Pariseau went on to quote a right-wing activist claiming that one argument for banning TikTok is that "it pushes critical race theory." We thought the MRC opposed censorship of ideas.
And, really, censorship is what the Montana law is about -- and the MRC is effectively arguing that it's not censorship when right-wingers do it. It's also unconstitutional, as one observer noted:
First off, it’s a clear bill of attainder, which is explicitly barred by the Constitution.
Second, it violates the 1st Amendment rights of TikTok, in that it’s no different than the government banning a magazine from printing in the state, or seizing their printing press.
Third, it violates the 1st Amendment rights of app store operators, who have the right to determine what they do and don’t distribute.
Fourth, it violates the 1st Amendment rights of users of TikTok who want to use the app to communicate with others.
Fifth, it violates the the Dormant Commerce Clause in regulating interstate commerce.
And as another observer noted, the law is unenforceable because the internet can't be stopped at state borders: "The only way to enforce Montana’s ban is to build this system and begin massive surveillance of all U.S. internet-connected devices, reporting precise location and the contents of all phones to any law enforcement at will. Sound familiar? That’s because that is the surveillance state in China."
But because the MRC cares only about hating TikTok and not complications like constitutionality, it will ignore such messly little complications. Indeed, a May 19 post by Catherine Salgado complained that "Some users of the communist Chinese government-tied TikTok are suing the state of Montana for banning the app that poses a serious data security hazard" labored hard to play down that stuff:
The lawsuit claims the ban is beyond Montana’s legal authority, while the state attorney general’s office said it is “fully prepared to defend the law,” according to the [New York] Times.
The lawsuit attempts to make the TikTok ban a violation of the First Amendment, The Times noted. It claims Montana “can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban The Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes.” But it’s not a matter of “disliking” TikTok’s content or owners. Based on evidence the CCP can access detailed TikTok user data, many lawmakers and experts have labeled TikTok a national security risk.
Salgado did not explain how Montana can possibly enforce the law.
When TikTok filed its own lawsuit against the ban, Luis Cornelio ranted in a May 23 post:
The communist Chinese government-tied TikTok is hypocritically lashing out at Montana for protecting its citizens’ data security.
Days after Montana became the first state to ban the Chinese Communist Party-tied app, TikTok launched legal warfare against the state government in court in an effort to continue sweeping up Americans’ data for its communist overlords in Beijing.
TikTok dubbed the ban “unconstitutional” in a Monday tweet, claiming the lawsuit will “protect” their business and “the hundreds of thousands” of TikTok users in Montana. What a joke.
[...]
Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell praised Montana in a May 18 tweet: “TikTok is a spy tool of the Chinese Communists. Kudos to Montana for banning it. More states need to follow suit,” said Bozell, who was echoed by MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris.
Cornelio did not bother to explain how the Montana is constutitional and can be enforced; instead, he did a lot of screaming about the CCP.
Salgado returned for a supposed gotcha in a June 28 post:
TikTok influencers just let the cat out of the bag with a lawsuit against Montana for banning the social media platform.
Multiple states have banned or restricted the popular app TikTok, which is tied to the Communist Chinese government, as concerns rise that the app is spyware. As Montana’s ban on TikTok from operating in the state is set to take effect Jan. 1, TikTok is seemingly growing desperate.
The Chinese-tied app not only filed its own lawsuit but also finally acknowledged that it was financing a lawsuit against Montana from five creators, according to The New York Times.
Five Montana TikTok influencers sued Montana last month, claiming the ban not only exceeded the state government’s authority, but even undermined their First Amendment rights. TikTok reportedly dodged questions about its potential involvement, opting instead to file its own lawsuit. But then two of the suing TikTok creators admitted to The Times that TikTok was financing their case.
TikTok spokeswoman Jodi Seth reportedly tried to justify TikTok’s backing as a free speech effort. “Many creators have expressed major concerns both privately and publicly about the potential impact of the Montana law on their livelihoods,” Seth claimed. “We support our creators in fighting for their constitutional rights.”
Seth did not, of course, address the issue of TikTok as potential spyware, as the social media platform has connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Salgado did not explain how TikTok is behaving any different from any other organization in defending its rights, nor did she bother to explain why the law is not constitutional or how it could possibly be enforced (jailing teenagers, perhaps?). And, like Houck, she offered no concern for the livelihoods of TikTok creators in Montana -- perhaps she too assumes they're nothing more than dumb CCP stooges (just like Facebook told her to think).
Newsmax's Reagan Rages At Garth Brooks For Not Hating Transgender People Who Drink Beer Topic: Newsmax
Michael Reagan ranted in his June 17 Newsmax column:
We don’t know if Garth Brooks personally drinks Bud Light, but we can assure you he’s an avid, two-fisted drinker of leftist Kool-Aid.
Brooks recently made the news when he announced his new bar, "Friends In Low Places Bar & Honky Tonk" — located in Nashville, Tennessee — will be proudly (no pun intended) serving Bud Light.
This after a Bud Light marketing campaign embraced female impersonator Dylan Mulvaney who is famous for his manic woman-face portrayals of real women.
The resulting boycott of Bud Light by normal beer drinkers has the marketing team wondering if sinking to the same market share as non-alcoholic beer would be a bad thing after all.
What’s surprising is a man who made his living in the music field can be so tone deaf in his own city. Brooks is cozying up to the same insane gender ideology that produced the Covenant Christian School shooter in the same city where the murders happened!
Reagan didn't explain why he and his fellow right-wingers are such snowflakes that they can't emotionally handle a transgender person drinking bear. Instead, he raged at Brooks for refusing to hate transgender people as much as he does:
Brooks gives all the sanctimonious leftist-approved excuses for embracing the culture’s slide into perversion. Yahoo News has the quote, "I get it, everybody's got their opinions. But inclusiveness is always going to be me. I think diversity is the answer to the problems that are here and the answer to the problems that are coming. So I love diversity."
And if "diversity" means inclusivity for sexual miscreants, well, the more the merrier!
What Brooks has evidently missed is that "diversity" is an ideological Procrustean bed that forces all to conform to one ideology. And that ideology is not one that Country Music fans support. In other words, Brooks, unlike colleague Alan Jackson (of "Gone Country" fame) chose to go beyond crazy left.
Brooks urges customers — assuming there are any after this — "So, here's the deal, man …come in. But come in with love, come in with tolerance, patience. Come in with an open mind, and it's cool."
Which sounds like the governing motto of every PRIDE festival held this month.
Why must having an "open mind" include sane people associating with disturbed people and giving a big old hug to decadence?
Why does culturally imposed "diversity" force us to live in Sodom with electricity?
Why does Reagan think that failure to hate people who aren't like him is an "ideology"? And why doesn't he admit that, by the same argument, that kind vicious hatred is an "ideology" as well? We may never know.
WND's Haynes Spreads More Education Consipracy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily columnist Carole Hornsby Haynes, she was blaming the Nashville school massacre on sex education in Hungary (no, really). In her June 6 column, she had another conspiracy to peddle, blaming the United Nations for the current state of education:
Since the mid-1800s idealists have dreamed of a socialist world government while some envisioned a totalitarian world government. The movement by elitists culminated in the founding of the United Nations, with communist leaders holding the U.N.'s highest military post for decades. Knowing there would be resistance to abolishing national sovereignty and replacing it with a world government, the U.N. adopted a program of gradual change with monitoring of progress toward the ultimate goal.
Change would begin with young children who, elitists believed, were being infected with extreme nationalism by their parents. UNESCO was created as the education arm of the U.N. to guide schools in creating division between children and parents. Next came the World Health Organization (WHO), which would implement international mental health policies and guide nations in changing and monitoring citizens' worldviews.
And, yes, Hungary came up again:
The roots of radical sex education for children go back to a Marxist program implemented in Hungarian public schools nearly a century ago in a scheme to destroy Christianity in Western Europe and pave the way for a communist takedown. The curriculum included sex lectures and graphic instructional materials about free love and sexual intercourse. Students were encouraged to ridicule and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. Hate was turned toward parents, clergy and all dissenters.
With continued exposure to atheism, radical sex education and rebellion against authority, the Hungarian students turned into bullies, thieves, murderers, sex predators and sociopaths who disrespected authority.
Gradually, the Hungarian tactics have been introduced into American government schools with the same results.
But as we documented, the "Hungarian tactics" introduced by Georg Lukacs weren't that radical, and they weren't that long-lived.
By then, however, Haynes was ready to move on to other conspiracy theories:
This brings us to the recent public furor over Target, with calls for boycotting the store over its rainbow flag T-shirts, chest binders, "tuck-friendly" undergarments and products by U.K.-based Abprallen clothing line, which promotes satanism, drugs and violence.
Public rage exploded with news that Target has partnered for a decade with Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and donated more than $2.1 million. Target's vice president of brand marketing, Carlos Saavedra, serves as treasurer at GLSEN.
As we've also documented, "tuck-friendly" swimsuits were not marketed to children, Target sold nothing related to "satanism" (and the designer's "satanism" was satire). Haynes then ranted:
During a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama said he believed sex education should be provided to kindergarteners. Once in office, Obama brought in a gay founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, to serve as his assistant deputy secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. Jennings used his federal perch to implement pornography in public schools.
In fact, the "sex education" Obama advocated would be age-appropriate, which for kindergartners would involve discussing things like inappropriate touching. And Haynes offeres no proof that Jennings, who was Obama's safe-schools czar and a target of right-wingers, "used his federal perch to implement pornography in public schools."
Haynes then descended into further conspiracy-mongering:
Schools have become mental health clinics with psychologists, mental health clinicians, case managers, behavioral interventionists, social workers and others to analyze student behavior and provide treatment.
Social and Emotional Learning programs, federally mandated, indoctrinate children by embedding radical sex education and Critical Race Theory into lessons throughout the school day.
The result is mentally destabilized students, in need of counseling, who are encouraged to become political activists against supposed systemic racism. Some join Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Others rage through school halls or other low-security locations, heavily armed and looking for victims.
Using the purposely created mental health crisis and the need to provide "safe schools," leftists goad federal and state legislators to pass gun control with red flag laws and universal background checks for the unstated purpose of disarming the American people for a New World Order.
[...]
By destroying Western Christian and moral foundations, elitists are creating a Great Reset for a U.N.-driven New World Order. Americans have a window of opportunity to stop woke corporations and the Great Reset. Will we?
All of this makes Haynes an unreliable writer -- but an ideal WND columnist.
The Media Research Center's hatred of transgender people and all things transgender continued in an April 22 post by Clay Waters mocked a New York Times article that used respectful terms for transgender people. When the article referenced "In place of the 12-word phrase in bold above, insert 'males.'" He went on to rant about an NPR article that discussed gender-affirming care:
Nicholas Waddy began his June 15 WorldNetDaily 
As the indictments pile up against donald Trump, Newsmax is 
Because the Media Research Center got a pot of money some years ago "in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold" -- a longtime MRC funder whose family members 
The Media Research Center reacted to Donald Trump's (second) indictment on charges related to classified documents with 
As with many things that do not fit his narrow and rigid right-wing ideology, Scott Lively has not enjoyed the idea that women should be treated as equals to men. So his June 15 WorldNetDaily 
Elise Ehrhard spent a June 5 
The bad news continued to come for Elon Musk's Twitter:
We're c
In a June 17 
Once again Joe Biden failed miserably to support and advance the cause of women and income equality. Biden made quite the show of presenting a letter he received from a little girl who expressed grave concerns about income disparity per the gender wage gap.
The Media Research Center assumes that anyone who defends TikTok, as well as all of its millions of users, are stooges for "communist China" -- even though the MRC is acting like a stooge for Facebook, which 
Michael Reagan ranted in his June 17 Newsmax 
The 
