MRC Labors To Distract From Alito's Ethical Issues Topic: Media Research Center
Clarence Thomas isn't the only right-wing Supreme Court justice the Media Research Center has had to defend from ethical questions about them being exposed. When it was revealed that Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip with a conservative billionaire who later had cases before the court (from which Alito did not recuse), the MRC rushed to distract from it -- which is why there was a lot of whining that themedia covered it and not the congressional testimony of MRCdarling (despite his recrod of failure) John Durham the same day. Kevin Tober was first up in a June 21 post:
Credit where it’s due, but NBC Nightly News was the only one of the “big three” evening news broadcasts to cover the congressional hearing where former Special Counsel John Durham testified that evidence he uncovered during his probe into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion hoax did not warrant the FBI opening up its investigation called “Crossfire Hurricane.” Despite this and many other newsworthy moments from Durham’s five-hour testimony, ABC’s World News Tonight and CBS Evening News looked the other way.
Instead, the two networks hyped a report from the left-wing outlet ProPublica that claimed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn’t disclose a trip he took with a friend who happened to also be a donor to conservative causes.
Tober followed up a few hours later more fully whining about the Alito coverage:
ABC’s World News Tonight and CBS Evening News each ran stories hyping the dishonest story in ProPublica which accuses Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito of being unethical in not reporting a trip he went on in 2008 that was paid for by a Republican donor. Meanwhile, ABC & CBS ignored former Special Counsel John Durham’s five hour long testimony before Congress in which he testified that evidence he uncovered during his probe into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion hoax did not warrant the FBI opening up its investigation.
“This time, it's Justice Samuel Alito under scrutiny for luxury travel paid for by a billionaire Republican mega donor. ProPublica, a nonprofit media organization, reporting that in 2008, Justice Alito flew to Alaska for a fishing trip on a private jet that belonged to a hedge fund manager whose businesses brought several cases before the Supreme Court,” ABC’s justice correspondent Terry Moran lectured at the beginning of World News Tonight’s segment.
Moran added that “in a private photo obtained by ProPublica, did not pay for his flight and he did not report the trip on his annual financial disclosure forms.”
Meanwhile on CBS Evening News, Nikole Killion snarked “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito hoisted a big catch during a 2008 trip to Alaska that came with big perks according to ProPublica.”
“That included free travel on a private jet chartered by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer with $100,000 each way, plus lodging at a thousand-dollar-a-night resort covered free of charge by then owner, conservative donor Robin Arkley,” she added.
Killion did add that Alito “said he was not aware Singer had an interest in any party,” and that he “argued the flight was not consequential because the seat would have otherwise been vacant.”
It should be noted that ProPublica undermined their own reporting in the 73rd paragraph of their story sliming Alito. As our friends at The Daily Caller point out “ProPublica included a crucial detail in the 73rd paragraph of its story alleging Justice Samuel Alito violated ethics rules for failing to disclose a private jet ride he accepted: a federal judge, who went on the trip with Alito, previously asked the judiciary’s financial disclosure office for guidance on a similar trip and was told his transportation was not reportable.”
Maybe instead of reporting on 15 year old manufactured controversies, ABC & CBS should cover real stories that happened that day.
It's quite funny to hear a guy who played the Clinton Equivocation to distract from Donald Trump's (second) indictment complain about old news being reported (and besices, it isn't old news to the rest of the country).
In a June 22 post that offered a hypocritical complaint that the judge overseeing Trump's (second) indicctment was appointed by Trump, Alex Christy added that "when it came to the news surrounding Justice Samuel Alito’s 2008 fishing trip to Alaska, it made sure that partisan affiliations were known, going 6 for 7, even if the word 'Bush' was absent."
The MRC was oddly silent on the fact that, rather than respond to a ProPublica request for comment before its article was published, Alito ran to the Wall Street Journal, where he was allowed to publish a preemptive attack on the article. ProPublica pointed out that Alito effectively lied to it by having a spokesperson say he would comment on the story, which led to an attack on ProPublica by the Journal itself, which then led to a ProPublica article detailing how the prebuttal came to be. Strange that an organization purportedly dedicated to "media research" wouldn't have an opinion on something like that.
Ana Schau served up a larger defense against criticism of Alito on the first anniversary of the Alito-written Dobbs opinion taht overturned Roe v. Wade in a June 28 post:
Joy Reid, host of MSNBC’s The ReidOut, spent a segment of Tuesday evening’s show angrily denouncing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who she condemned for being “bitter, vindictive, and aggrieved.” She also took this opportunity to complain about Alito’s alleged conservative activism in the Supreme Court, especially with the Dobbs v. Jackson case, which he had written, and to once again point how he “really loves favors.”
Reid introduced the matter by calling Alito the Court’s “most outwardly bitter, vindictive, and aggrieved justice,” and inserting a complaint about the Dobbs decision being “the vengeful majority opinion” that she thought it was.
She then cited an opinion piece on Politico by Aziz Huq entitled, “Samuel Alito: One Angry Man,” in which he railed incessantly over Alito’s open conservatism and perceived anger issues throughout his whole career. Reid quoted the line where Huq said that the only way to understand Alito was by looking at “his anger,” and trying to see where it came from.
Reid inserted a comment here on Alito’s 2008 fishing vacation with billionaire Paul Singer, who had several cases that had gone through the Supreme Court at the time, which Alito had not recused himself from. Reid quipped:
It's sort of ironic that Alito seems so angered that his personal and religious views are falling out of favor, considering, this is a guy who really loves favors.
Schau complained that Reid "disgustedly described Alito’s activities as being nothing more than how 'he seems to revel in, like, trolling the libs'" -- but then undermined her own criticism by adding:"This may be one of the truest things she’s ever said before. Trolling the libs is quite fun." If it's "quite fun," it can't be disgusing, right?
Newsmax Went Into Cleanup Mode After Trump Audio Release Topic: Newsmax
In between indictments, Newsmax continued to serve up its usual Donald Trump sycophancy. It generated a plethora of articles out of a June 26 appearance by Trump on Eric Bolling's Newsmax TV show:
In an instane of reciprocal sycophancy, another article highlighted that Trump "praised Newsmax for its coverage of the scandals surrounding President Joe Biden and his son Hunter":
"Newsmax is doing a great job," Trump said. "I watch Newsmax, a lot of Newsmax lately, and they are doing a great job."
Trump said that while people are turning off other networks because they see what is going on, they are going to Newsmax to get information.
Before Newsmax had to start delving into defending Donald Trump from his third indictment, however, it had to continue to defend him from new issues rising from his second one. CNN obtained the audio from a previously reported incident in which Trump touted having secret classified documents, and Newsmax rushed to claim the apparently incriminating audio proved nothing. First up was an article by Sandy Fitzgerald dedicated to Trump ranting about it:
"The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and 'spun' a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe," Trump said on his Truth Social page Monday night after the audio aired on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."
"This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!" he wrote.
Fitzgerald then tried to change the subject: "The audio release comes as the information continues to grow concerning President Joe Biden and his son Hunter."
Next, though, was Alan Dershowitz, who actually admitted that Trump may have screwed up:
Dershowitz said on "John Bachman Now" that based on the audio that's been released, "I don't think that he can plausibly claim that what he was showing them was newspapers and magazines. It seems clear from the context he was showing them something that he believed was probably still classified."
Dershowitz noted that Trump "may have been wrong about that, there are several ways in which documents become declassified. One is the president can do it, he says he didn't do that. But there is another way and I think that's the way the Trump defense team is going to be pushing this. They can say that the content of this material, the Milley plan relating to Iran had already been made public."
After that, it was the usual Trump defense sycophancy mode:
Devin Nunes played the out-of-context card: ""My guess is this is a 30-minute to an hour interview, and this is what the left and the media and now, sadly, the Department of Justice and the FBI, love to do is to selectively leak. It is to take something possibly out of context. ... What I heard right there, it’s a nothing burger. There's nothing there. It appears like he's maybe referring to some article, some story maybe that had just come out."
Eric Mack devoted an article to noting that the classified document discussed in the audio "is not one of the documents included in his federal indictment."
Another article touted that "Francey Hakes, a former assistant United States attorney, told Newsmax that a CNN report that includes key leaked tapes of former President Donald Trump is 'trial by ambush.'"
Newsmax's chief Trump sycophant, Dick Morris, labored to spin the tape in a June 29 column:
Anderson Cooper, one of the last survivors at CNN, played a tape last night on the air that had been introduced into evidence to justify one of the key counts in the indictment of Donald Trump.
The special prosecutor says that Trump revealed classified information about war plans to invade Iran to a writer and two of his own staff members, none of whom had security clearance.
But that is not true.
When you listen to the tape, Trump is criticizing Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for accusing him of wanting to invade Iran while making his own plans to do so.
Trump is saying, in effect, "Milley says I wanted to attack Iran but he was the one who drew up the plans for an attack." Then Trump references a pile of papers on his desk, not showing them to anyone, as evidence of Milley's real views.
[...]
Indicting a former president and the leading opponent to Biden is outrageous in and of itself.
But to indict him based on his referring to a document that he did not show to anyone and that he mentioned to prove an ancillary point is even worse.
So sycophantic was Morris that Newsmax felt the need to attach this editor's note to the top of his column: "The following article has been authored by a non-lawyer, and does not constitute an endorsement for any political party or candidate on the part of Newsmax." Never mind, of course, that Newsmax has made being the Trump Channel a key part of its current identity.
MRC Thought Fox News' 'Wannabe Dictator' Slur Of Biden Was Hilarious Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves it when Fox News lashes out at President Biden -- even though it's exactly the kind of media bias it attacks when a non-right-wing media outlet is accused of doing the same to a Republican. Kevin Tober spent a June 15 post whining that Fox News' egregious bias was called out:
Liberal media janitor and former Brian Stelter stooge Oliver Darcy threw a hissy fit in his reliably liberal Reliable Sources newsletter late Wednesday evening over a chyron that aired Tuesday night on Fox News during a split screen moment when both former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden spoke at the same time. The chyron read "Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested” while Biden was speaking on screen. This of course set Darcy and the rest of the pretentious leftists in the media into a fit of rage.
“The White House is disgusted with Fox News — even more so than usual,” Darcy sneered in the opening line of his newsletter. “Over the last 24 hours, the right-wing talk network has targeted President Joe Biden and his administration with unseemly lines of attack, bashing the Democratic White House with smears that represent even lows for a channel that is home to dangerous and incendiary rhetoric,” Darcy huffed.
Darcy grumbled that “Fox News outrageously labeled Biden a ‘wannabe dictator’ in an on-screen banner Tuesday night and declared that he had ordered his ‘political rival arrested.’”
“The banner matched hours of reckless commentary from the network's top hosts and personalities in the wake of disgraced former President Donald Trump's arraignment,” he added.
Darcy was still angry despite the fact that Fox issued a statement regarding the incident: “The chyron was taken down immediately and was addressed," Fox News said in a statement.
Note that Tober uncritically accepted Fox News' claim that the situation "was addressed," showing no curiosity into exactly how. It's also worth noting that the original headline of Tober's post called the "wannabe dictator" slur "hilarious"; in a later bit of stealth-editing, the word was removed without alerting readers to the change. Since the internet never forgets, we also know that the MRC also stealth-deleted Tober's description of the slur in the first paragraph of his post as "hilarious (and accurate)".
Instead, Tober tried to play whataboutism:
Did Darcy ever take issue with the “incendiary rhetoric” or “reckless commentary” on his own network (CNN) or MSNBC? There is plenty there. Especially during the Trump years when the vitriol was at an all time high at the two leftist networks. Surely accusing Trump of being a Russian agent with zero evidence to back it up would qualify as reckless.
"Zero evidence"? Tober clearly didn't read the Mueller report, which documented that there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives and that onetime Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with a man tied to Russian intelligence.
Tober provided no evidence of "incendiary rhetoric" on either channel that rose to the level of the Biden slur. He further whined that Darcy called out the New York Times for failing to use what Tober called "his preferred insults toward Fox News and their former host Tucker Carlson." But Darcy simply called Fox News a "right-wing talk network," and Tober didn't explain how that is an "insult." Tober then tried to defend Fox News:
Darcy would lose his mind if The New York Times described CNN as a left-wing talk network which would actually be more accurate than his preferred label for Fox.
Unlike CNN, Fox has some straight news shows with no opinion hosts. You cannot say the same for CNN which is all liberal all the time.
Who is the CNN equivalent of Bret Baier or Shannon Bream? They don't have one.
Again, Tober offered no evidence that CNN is the liberal equivalent to Fox News, and he ignored the copious evidence from Fox News' own staffers that the "news" side of Fox News is worthless, as revealed in the Dominion lawsuit findings, and even the conservative-friendly AllSides agrees that Fox News' "news" operation skews right (as one might expect given all the former MRC employees who work there).
As far as Tober's two examples of purportedly good Fox News journalists: Baier spread fake news in 2016 with a story claiming that Hillary Clinton's indictment was imminent -- a story the MRC heavily promoted but failed to correct when Baier retracted it. Bream has a historyofbias as well.
Tober unintentionally demonstrated the MRC's Fox News-shaped blind spot in detecting media bias. He simply believes that there is no bias whatsoever to be found there.
WND Columnists Continue Freakout Over Trump's (Second) Indictment Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Trump fanboys at WorldNetDaily unsurprisingly had a meltdown over Donald Trump's (second) indictment and it continued for days afterward. Michael Master complained in his June 13 column:
Are you listening to the mainstream media report on the 37-count indictment against President Trump? Are you losing some faith in Trump? Are you growing some animosity toward Trump?
Well, that is exactly what the bad guys want you to do. They used the same strategy with the Russia hoax, the two impeachments, COVID, regarding Jan. 6 false accusations, the Steele dossier, Jim Comey's false claims etc. It is all meant to cause you to lose faith in Trump and the MAGA movement.
Eighty-seven percent of Republicans think that all the indictments and court cases against Trump are politically motivated (Fox News poll). In fact, the Trump lead increased by 3 points in the primary polls last weekend, after the indictment announcement. Why?
Master didn't advance the possibility that the poll itself was politically motivated, conducted as it was by a highly biased "news" channel. Instead, he whined:
Support for President Trump continues because MAGA believers did not fall prey to the deep state/Democrat/establishment strategy to stop Trump and his movement. Yes, the bad guys will eventually find something to convict Trump of … something/anything. They can do that to anyone, at any time, including to you. But that does not make Trump wrong about how to make America great again – and that is really what the bad guys are trying to kill.
Unlikely, since the rest of us weren't stealing, mishandling and lying about classified documents. Jack Cashill played Clinton-related whataboutism in his June 14 column:
"We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone," said special counsel Jack Smith in handing down a multi-count criminal indictment against Donald Trump. "Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice."
The nation may have "one set of laws," but the subsequent clause, "they apply to everyone," makes a very dark joke out of Smith's unseemly boast.
Of course, the treatment of the Bidens and the Clintons show the DOJ's "bedrock principle" to be so much Silly Putty, but no case in recent memory has revealed the depth of the DOJ's corruption like that of Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.
But Cashill offered no evidence that what Berger did was at the same level of what Trump has been accused of doing.
Joseph Farah spent his June 15 column complaining that Trump was charged under the Espionage Act, "an ignored and discarded law since it was created by Woodrow Wilson, widely regarded as a racist and fascist back in his day more than 100 years ago," and that "It's the Presidential Records Act that takes precedence these days. Thank goodness." In fact, the Espionage Act covers issues well beyond espionage, and Wilson's terrible racial record is irrelevant; nevertheless, Farah devoted an additional paragraph to rehashing it.
Still, that became a bit of an obsession. Joe Kovacs hyped another complaint in a June 25 article:
While former President Donald Trump is now charged with numerous crimes, including violation of the Espionage Act, one of the most respected legal minds in America says prosecutors should not be able to voice one word in court that could prejudice the jury.
"Espionage."
In a column posted this week by Democrat Alan Dershowitz, the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School says the 1917 statute is actually "misnamed because it covers a great many offenses that don't involve spying or giving secrets to the enemy. In fact, over the years it has been used extensively against patriotic Americans who have opposed wars and dissented from other government actions."
"In Trump's case, he is being accused primarily of unlawful possession of allegedly classified material.
"But because he has been charged under the Espionage Act, many people have been misled into believing the accusations against him have something to do with espionage, spying or even treason."
Dershowitz says use of the e-word is "extremely prejudicial" to Trump, at least in the the court of public opinion.
"It would be even more prejudicial in a court of law if the jury were to hear that word in connection with his case."
Dershowitz has been a vocal Trump supporter for years, so it's more than a bit dishonest for Kovacs to describe him as a "Democrat." Indeed, Kovacs hyped more Trump simping from Dershowitz in a June 28 article following the release of audio in which Trump showed a classified document to guests:
With Donald Trump under fire after CNN played an audio recording of the former president allegedly discussing classified documents and "secret" information, top legal analyst Alan Dershowitz is proffering an intriguing question.
"Does the former president know something that he's not yet sharing?"
In a column posted Tuesday by the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz, a Democrat, said CNN's broadcast of the Trump audio recording raises important questions.
Kovacs touted how Dershowitz insisted that the incriminating audio allegedly showed that "the possibility exists that even though Trump personally believed the material to be classified, the contents had previously been made public and thus had lost its status as top secret and classified."
MRC Tries To Undermine Justice By Baselessly Claiming DOJ Is Not Independent Topic: Media Research Center
As part of itsvociferousdefense of Donald Trump over his (second) indictment, the Media Research Center wants you to think he's being targeted by a politically motivated Justice Department. Tim Graham pushed this take in a June 12 post:
The PBS Friday night journalist roundtable show Washington Week sounded like State-Run TV as guest host Laura Barron-Lopez touted the “revealing and damning” Trump indictment by Biden’s Justice Department. It was the only topic for the half-hour. She methodically repeated the White House spin as her own take:
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, GUEST HOST: And the Justice Department has been extremely careful to show how independent they are. This is a special counsel investigation, which even adds other level of independence from the Justice Department. The Justice Department is saying, we`re not talking to the White House about this. What has President Biden said so far?
Keep in mind that one way Biden can prevent public comment on the Justice Department is by avoiding the press, and the press can avoid the entire question of the Department’s independence by treating the idea as blatantly obvious, beyond question as LBL does here.
When a commentator pointed out that, like Biden, Donald Trump repeated agitated for his DOJ to go after his political enemies, Graham huffed:
President Obama also had a habit of claiming "we learned it from you guys" on scandal matters. Everyone should factor in a very different media under Trump, constantly suggesting every Trump attorney general was extremely partisan and in Trump's back pocket. They protect and repeat Biden. They savaged Trump. So media behavior affects White House behavior.
Note that Graham doesn't even bother to argue Trump's DOJ was independent -- he knows it wasn't -- so he played Obama (yes, Obama) whataboutism to distract from that.
Jeffrey Lord's June 17 column took a similar tack in whining about a New York Times piece highlighting Trump's promise to sic the DOJ on Biden should he be re-elected president, complaining that the "central thesis" of the article "s that the Department of Justice has 'independence'":
On the one hand, there is the Times this last week with its fairy tale claiming the Department of Justice is “independent.” This the same week that, for the first time in American history, the DOJ has just indicted an American president who not so coincidentally happens to be running against the president they work for.
Yet there is no acknowledgement by the Times of what any sentient observer is aware, as amazingly was the Washington Post a handful of days after Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017. Which is to say the Justice Department that is prosecuting Trump is filled to overflowing with left-wing career bureaucrats who are on record as hating Trump. Who, per the Post in 2017, were going out of their way to resist him when he became president. Contrary to the Times fairy tale, the DOJ is decidedly not “independent.” It is a cesspool of a bureaucracy corrupted by left-wing employees.
But now there’s a problem for the media and their Democrat allies. Having weaponized and defended the Justice Department to try and intimidate and silence Trump, they have launched a growing movement from Republicans to massively reform the federal government, including cutting the DOJ down to size.
Lor did not explain why he assumes any legal critic of Trump is a"left-winger," or why that legal criticism of Trump has no merit if it comes from someone like that.
Neither Graham nor Lord offered evidence that Biden's DOJ is not independent beyond it indicting Trump. But isn't the DOJ supposed to indict criminals? Why do they think Trump should be held to a different standard of justice because he's a Republican?
Donohue went on to gush further over Spero's political activism:
As an Orthodox rabbi, Aryeh took great umbrage when a gay rabbi who claimed to be Orthodox held a same-sex ceremony in 2011.
Aryeh was one of 100 distinguished Orthodox rabbis to register his objections.
Ever the activist, in 2019 Aryeh led a sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office.
He did so in response to Pelosi’s warm embrace of anti-Jewish Democrats, Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.
Donohue concluded: "A man like Aryeh doesn’t come around too often. It was my pleasure to have known him." Donohue certainly likes people to exploit their faith as a politcial cudgel.
WND's LaBarbera Spent Pride Month Spewing Anti-LGBT Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
As a WorldNetDaily reporter, Peter LaBarbera has been doing WND-like things, from portraying a murderer as a victim to shilling for Tucker Carlson to being an apologist for the violent Proud Boys to promoting the presidential campaign of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy Jr. But at his core, LaBarbera is a homophobe -- he founded the virulently anti-LGBTQ Americans for Truth About Homosexuality -- and anti-LGBTQ is a big part of his WND work. (As we've noted, LaBarbera is likely working for WND because hating people through AFTAH is no longer as lucrative as it was, though it's unclear how much money he might be making from WND given its own financial issues.) Here are some recent examples of that content:
An April 19 article demanded the release of the alleged manifesto of Audrey Hale, " the 'trans'-identified mass-murderer of three children and three adults at a Nashville Christian elementary school."
A May 8 article whined that "transsexual 'chest reconstruction' surgeries – radical procedures performed on healthy bodies and designed to make gender-confused people feel and look more like their opposite-sex 'gender identity' –" were paid for by insurance.
A May 17 article hyped claims by Christopher Rufo issuing a transphobic attack on a children's hospital. LaBarbera called Rufo a "respected researcher," even though his actual history is one of making false and misleading accusations.
A May 26 article repeated false claims that Target was marketing tuck-friendly swimwear to children and that a designer of LGBT-related items for Target is allied with Satan. That was followed by a June 1 article touting a decline in Target's stock price due to the manufactured controversy.
As Pride Month arrived in June, LaBarbera ramped up the anti-LGBT hate. He devoted twoarticles to attacking "anti-Christian gay activist" Harvey Milk after the Navy veteran was highlighted by the military, calling him "a promiscuous homosexual who had a sexual taste for young men" -- and, thus, seeming to try and justify his 1978 murder. That was followed by a June 10 article raging that the military no longer hates LGBT people as much as he does:
The United States Air Force is celebrating LGBT "pride month" with a serviceman 'saluting' the activist homosexual-bisexual-transgender-"queer" "rainbow" flag.
The Air Force published a tweet Wednesday reading: "June is #PrideMonth! The Department of the Air Force proudly recognizes and celebrates generations of LGBTQI+ service members and their contributions to our #AirForce & #SpaceForce."
Tweeted Mike Garcia: "As an AF veteran, this is pathetic & embarrassing. You should focus on winning wars & not social or political issues. Disgusting."
[...]
Several people tweeted in response to the message that they will discourage their children from signing up to serve in this military, seemingly confirming widespread criticism that Biden's "woke" Pentagon policies are tied to sagging recruitment efforts.
LaBarbera did not explain why the military must spew hate at LGBT people the way he does.
A June 13 article regurgitated right-wing outrage over "the latest LGBT spectacle" in which "transsexual activists flashed their fake, opposite-sex chests at President Biden's official 'Pride celebration' on the White House south lawn Saturday." In fact, LaBarbera cited only one person "shaking his fake breasts in front of the White House," not the several he claimed there were. An editor's note at the top of the article proudly declared that it would misgender people: "Unlike most other media, WND does not use trans-activist pronouns that falsely describe people as the opposite of their true, biological sex."
LaBarbera used a June 14 article to complain that Fox News didn't hate LGBT as much in real life as it did on air:
Fox News, already reeling from its ejection of popular anchor Tucker Carlson, has come completely out of the closet, as it were, using its programming and on-air talent to celebrate LGBT "Pride Month" like never before.
The self-styled "fair and balanced" network, based in heavily gay-populated New York City, has long supported homosexual advocacy behind the scenes through its annual contributions to an LGBT "journalists association."
But in the last two years, Fox began celebrating "pride" in June in earnest by running pro-LGBT "puff-pieces" that are every bit as one-sided as those produced by left-leaning networks like CNN and ABC. Fox even ran an uncritical "Pride Month" feature story on "AIDS activist" Rev. Dr. Stephen Pieters, who espouses gay-positive "Christianity."
LaBarbera went on to complain that "One of the stunning aspects of Fox News' executives' now very public embrace of homosexual/transgender 'pride' is that it directly undermines some of the talking points of their own conservative talk-show hosts." He didn't explain why homophobia is a "brand" Fox News (and LaBarbera) should be proud of -- nor did he consider the possibility that its anti-LGBT schtick is all an act. He followed this with a June 17 article claiming to show how Fox News "is pushing a radical LGBT agenda on its employees."
A June 26 article by LaBarbera raged against pride parades in "heavily homosexual big cities" where, allegedly, there were "men exposing their genitalia, women baring their breasts, proud sadomasochists, and vulgar chants and outfits – all with children observing along the parade route." A July 29 article came to the defense of a pharmacist who refused to do his job:
Roscoe Rike, a woman identifying as a trans man, cussed out a pharmacy employee at an Oakland Walgreens store last week for refusing to dispense her cross-sex hormones. The pharmacist said it would violate his religious beliefs.
Rike then went on to condemn religious people as always having "the most [f---king] hate in their hearts."
The Daily Mail reported Monday: "Currently transitioning from female to male, Rike says he has been a customer at the store for years – picking up his HRT [hormone replacement therapy] medication to move along his conversion. ... That changed Monday when he was denied that medication by the pharmacist on staff, on the basis that giving him the pills would violate his religious beliefs."
LaBarbera didn't explain why it was OK for the pharmacist to use his religion as an excuse for denying someone medication they have been taking for years.
LaBarbera spent a June 30 article promoting a political attack on research he didn't like:
A new study finds that the mean age when people are diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" has plummeted from a median age of 28 in 2017 to 24 in 2021, and that girls experiencing severe gender confusion seek professional help at earlier ages compared to boys.
Conservatives aren't buying the lead academic's explanation for the proliferation of gender aberrance in children and the sex disparity: an average age of 11 for girls compared to 13 for boys, according to the study, authored by Ching-Fang Sun, a psychiatry resident physician at Virginia-Tech's Carilion Clinic, School of Medicine.
LaBarbera featured righrtwing activist Bethany Mandel asserting that being transgender is "a fad, driven by social media, that tells young people – particularly girls – that transgenderism is cool, far more common that it really is, and changing your gender is a snap." In fact, research has shown that the increased number of transgender people isn't being driven by social contagion -- something LaBarbera failed to mention.
Then again, biased and incomplete reporting is what WND hired LaBarbera to do.
NEW ARTICLE: The Tucker-Lovers At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been a fierce defender of anything and everything Tucker Carlson says -- and that defense only grew after Fox News fired him. Read more >>
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.
Clarence Thomas isn't the only right-wing Supreme Court justice the Media Research Center has had to defend from ethical questions about them being exposed. When it was revealed that Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip with a conservative billionaire who later had cases before the court (from which Alito did not recuse), the MRC rushed to distract from it -- which is why there was a lot of whining that themedia covered it and not the congressional testimony of MRC darling (despite his recrod of failure) John Durham the same day. Kevin Tober was first up in a June 21 post:
In between indictments, Newsmax continued to serve up its usual Donald Trump sycophancy. It generated a plethora of articles out of a June 26 appearance by Trump on Eric Bolling's Newsmax TV show:
The Media Research Center loves it when Fox News lashes out at President Biden -- even though it's exactly the kind of media bias it attacks when a non-right-wing media outlet is accused of doing the same to a Republican. Kevin Tober spent a June 15 
The Trump fanboys at WorldNetDaily unsurprisingly 
As part of 
Dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue reported the death of Rabbi Aryeh Spero in his June 26 
As a WorldNetDaily reporter, Peter LaBarbera has been doing WND-like things, from 
The Media Research Center's 
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 
