The MRC's Stelter Derangement Syndrome Continues
Topic: Media Research Center

Brian Stelter left CNN months ago, but the Media Research Center continues to suffer from the same level of Stelter Derangement Syndrome it had when he was still in CNN's employ, lashing out at him any time he pops up in the media. Curtis Houck, though, was surprisingly non-hostile to Stelter in a Feb. 24 post after he did a podcast with right-wing media critic Steve Krakauer:

Former CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter made a rare return to a microphone Friday as he interviewed Megyn Kelly Show executive producer and Fourth Watch Podcast host Steve Krakauer about his new book, Uncovered: How the Media Got Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People. In just under an hour, the pair had a engaging and fascinating discussion about the media, CNN, Fox News, January 6, and his post-CNN life.

But for readers here, the newsiest topic came when Krakauer cited the New York Post reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop as an answer to this question from Stelter: “What are the ones that stand out most to you? What — what — what did me and my colleagues at CNN screw up the most, in your view?”

Krakauer first explained the reasoning, starting with the revelations from the Twitter Files that showed “a real suppression of that story, not just by tech platforms in conversation with — with government entities like intel agencies, like the FBI, but also from media organizations.”

[...]

To his credit, Stelter made his case at the end for the necessity of journalists to do more of “show[ing] that we’ve walked all the way around the block before we’ve started to write about the block and, you know, that’s my way of saying let’s be fair to everybody...because if you’re only writing about the story from the back yard, then you’re missing a big part of the story.”

Tim Graham referenced Krakauer's interview with Stelter during his March 24 podcast in which he interviewed Krakauer:

Krakauer kicked off his book tour by bringing Brian Stelter to interview him on his own podcast. Typically, Stelter said to Krakauer that the press wasn't the problem with democracy, it was the "press bashers." But he told Krakauer he liked how he was a "constructive" media critic, where apparently most of us are "destructive" media critics. Destructive to democracy? Or just destructive to the reputations or brands of CNN, or PBS, or The New York Times?

Graham and threst of the MRC repeatedly lashed out at Stelter anytime he was critical of Fox News; was Graham afraid Stelter was destructive to Fox News' brand?

Graham served another attack on Stelter in an April 18 post:

Michael Luciano at Mediaite promoted Brian Stelter's interview with Dan Abrams on NewsNation Tuesday evening. Stelter claimed he didn't know why he was fired (well, when other red-hot Trump haters stayed).

[...]

Abrams wondered: “Do you think you represented the kind of opinion – particularly from the left – that Chris Licht wanted to distance himself from? Because I think that's why he ended up letting you go." 

“Well, I’m just gonna let you say it then,” he replied. “I think we were doing fantastic journalism at CNN for the nine years that I was there. And I also think Fox News really enjoyed making me a target and using horrible names about me and all that sort of stuff that happens in the cable news wars.”

He told Abrams: "I appreciate that shows like yours rise above that. But Fox, they often take the low road. They enjoyed making into a target and I think they enjoyed seeing me leave CNN."

It's a little funny for Stelter to talk about "taking the low road" when he's most infamous for bringing on a guy claiming Trump would kill more people that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined. That's a little lower than Greg Gutfeld mocking Stelter about his weight.

Graham seems to think fat jokes about Stelter are justified solely because he once brought on a guest who criticized Fox News. (There's Graham protecting Fox News' brand again!) He didn't explain how he justified this, though.

Kevin Tober spent a May 9 post complaining that Stelter criticized the MRC-beloved Tucker Carlson after his firing from Fox as well as Elon Musk's management of Twitter:

Shortly after former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced on Twitter that he would be bringing his popular show to the social media platform, Tom Costello while guest hosting NBC News NOW’s Hallie Jackson NOW, brought on ousted former CNN host and media janitor Brian Stelter to assist in smearing Carlson, Twitter, and CEO Elon Musk. 

“Twitter was already under fire for misinformation, disinformation, all-out lies, anti-semitism, racism before Elon Musk took over and now it’s gotten kind of crazy, right? Seemingly unmoored, if you will,” Costello sneered to Stelter. 

“Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says? Or is this the point? It's just a free-for-all?” Costello asked.

Stelter, of course, agreed claiming “It is a free-for-all” because “it’s what Elon Musk wants to provide.” He then proclaimed that “This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Twitter as a right-wing website, and we see some users trying to go off to other sites instead.”

[...]

It’s fitting that NBC would drag Stelter back onto television to throw barbs at Carlson. When Stelter still had his Sunday morning media analysis program on CNN, Carlson was always a frequent target of Stelter. And of course, Carlson found him amusing and frequently mocked him.

Despite alluding to insults, Tober failed to dispute anything Stelter said.

Following the firing of CNN Chris Licht -- who had fired Stelter from the channel -- Stelter made a TV appearance to talk about it, which drew the ire of Alex Christy in a June 7 post:

Former CNN chief media correspondent Brian Stelter journeyed over to CNBC’s The Exchange on Wednesday to react to Chris Licht stepping down as CEO of CNN and to claim that he and others opposed to Licht’s vision were simply “advocating for the truth.” Meanwhile, in other humorous developments, CNBC.com media reporter Alex Sherman condemned Licht for killing off CNN’s “north star”: CNN+.

[...]

One of those who was not onboard with that vision was Stelter, which is why he was sacked by Licht and was now appearing on CNBC. He explained that “A lot of us when we were at CNN in the Trump years felt we were advocating for the truth, advocating for reality. Others felt that was left-leaning.

Others felt that way because it was and Stelter was one of the biggest voices for that activist approach. Unwittingly confirming his critics correct, Stelter argued that it is almost impossible for CNN to follow a “just the facts” sort of journalism, "I think it is right to have this desire to have a much more calm, less controversial political environment that CNN can then cover, but we don't live in that world. In fact, if anything it’s only going to get more chaotic with Donald Trump as the leading contender for the GOP nomination."

Stelter followed up by claiming that CNN cannot be “all things to all people” because that means “you’re not anything to anybody and that’s the CNN challenge, it always has been, for 40 years, to just try to be the plain vanilla news, well, in an environment where people don't just want plain, vanilla news.”

While it was nice of Stelter to admit that when forced to choose between its hysterically anti-Trump audience and “vanilla news,” CNN chose the former, Sherman would later bring in some comedy.

He argued that “there needs to be more of a vision than just ‘you got to take down the breaking news, we got to turn down the knob here.’”

Of course, as we noted in documenting the MRC's disappointment that Licht lost his job, the MRC would never demand that Fox News abandon its "activist approach" and become "vanilla news."

WND Can't Take A Joke From Biden
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Bob Unruh chose to exploit a joke told by President Biden as an excuse for a partisan attack on him in a June 27 article:

Joe Biden's perspective of America's national security took on a whole new dimension this week when he said, "I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things…"

He then paused, and added, "All kidding aside … look," suggesting that he considers America's national security a joke.

[...]

A report at the Gateway Pundit explained the comment from Biden came during a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google chief Sundar Pichai.

It described Biden as "very confused" when he said, "I was just thanking the … anyway … I started off without you … and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things we shared."

Online commenters suggested the comment actually revealed a very bad scenario.

"Freudian slip or he just doesn't really cares (sic) to deny it anymore?" said one, with another adding, "That was not a Freudian Slip! That was his conscious talking! He knows it and cannot his (sic) it any longer."

And another, "So THAT's what Hunter was collecting bags of cash for."

Another, on the topic of whether Biden was joking, said, "Hard to tell."

"Is this for real? If he did what he says he did, then isn't this treason?" added another. And, "Dementia patients often reveal secrets they've kept deep in their closets for years. Ask any competent nursing home CNA/LPN."

Unruh didn't explain why he thinks anonymous "online commenters" have anything meaningful to contribute to a news story. Then again, he is a highly biased "reporter," and he's being paid to make Biden look bad whether it's warranted or not, which means he's getting paid to follow the right-wing crowd and refuse to find any humor in Biden's obvious joke.

Newsma's Reagan Rants About Many Things
Topic: Newsmax

In recent months, we've documented some of the wacky and extreme things Newsmax columnist Michael Reagan has ranted about (with help from co-writer Michael Shannon). But he has ranted about many other things as well:

• In his April 8 column, he raged against ranked-choice voting, calling it "Rigged Choice  Voting" because it allegedly increases the chance that Democrats might win.
• On April 18, Reagan cheered that the president of West Texas A&M University canceled a drag show on campus, proclaiming that he "is not intimidated by the 'Rainbow Reich.'"
• Reagan used his May 19 column to whine that special counsel John Duruam "didn’t produce one indictment or criminal referral" though he purportedly documented things that "far exceeds the criminality of the Watergate Scandal of the 1970s," allegedly showing that "The Deep State was essentially attempting a slow-motion coup of an elected president." He went on to huff that "this DOJ is simply the armed wing of the Democratic Party" and that "The entire Department of Justice is an arm of the left and it exists to serve only the left."
• In his May 30 column, Reagan blamed Democrats and "pressitutes" for drama over the federal debt ceiling and possible government shutdowns, asserting that "Stopping the growth of out-of-control spending is the issue now," adding, "Insist on cuts that are quantifiable and enforceable. Anything less is a defeat."
• Reagan's July 11 column ranted about people toying with the idea of finding ways to block the sun's rays to reduce global warming: "Fresh off killing and injuring thousands with a "safe and effective" vaccine, our science overlords now want to take on the weather."

Reagan also likes to spread dubious medical advice; he has done so over COVID vaccines. He spent his Feb. 10 column raging against the idea of using the diabetes drug metformin to treat childhood obesity, attacking allegedly money-grubbing pharmaceutical firms (even though metformin is a generic drug) and the very idea that obesity could be considered a disease:

Obesity isn’t a disease and children don’t catch it like they do a sore throat.

Obesity begins with poor lifestyle choices, either on the part of the parents or the child.

Eliminating sugary drinks, fast food and candy can do the work of drugs and at much lower cost. 

Other examples include: parents exercising with their children. Taking walks, playing basketball, pickleball or even catch can introduce the child to a healthier lifestyle.

Better advice than taking drugs would be for the parents and child to attend the calorie equivalent of AA. That is, assuming one exists.

[...]

Of course, changing a child’s eating habits and lifestyle is a group project with parents and the child participating.

So Big Pharma can just butt out. Please.

Reagan's column was topped with an editor's note stating that "The following article has been authored by non-clinicians."

WND Continues To Gush Over RFK Jr.'s Presidential Campaign
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily is an enthusiastic promoter of Robert Kennedy Jr.'s presidential bid -- as a spoiler for President Biden, not because it actually wants him to won, and it's continuing to do so. In his June 22 podcast, Jack Cashill cheered that Kennedy is a "a bit of a conspiracy theorist" and argued that his conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the assassination of his father was "a more credible argument." Cashill also declared that "I admire his stand on -- his really upfront attack on Anthony Fauci and the whole medical-industrial complex," but he needed to change his views on climate change to mesh with that conspiratorial narrative.

Wayne Allyn Root spent his June 23 column fawning yet again over Donald Trump and insisting that his odds of winning the presidency in 2024 would increase if he teamed up with Kennedy:

RFK Jr. just announced he's running for president a few weeks ago. There's a total blackout and blacklist of RFK in the mainstream media. His interviews are banned on YouTube. The DNC has announced there will be no Democratic presidential debates – denying RFK any platform to reach the voters. Yet RFK Jr is tied for No. 1 most popular politician in America? How can this be?

The answer is, as James Carville would say: "It's the COVID-19 vaccine, stupid."

RFK Jr. knows what I have known for two and a half years, and he boldly says out loud what I have said on my national radio and TV shows for two and a half years: The COVID-19 vaccine is the biggest failure, disaster and cover-up in the history of health care. It never worked. It is dangerous and deadly. It is a killing machine. Except it's a "silent killer" – because the mainstream media refuse to report about COVID-19 vaccine deaths and injuries. The COVID-19 vaccine deaths are covered up by the media as tightly as Hunter Biden's laptop.

And the one and only candidate for president talking about this deadly health care disaster and fraud is RFK Jr.

[...]

Trump's only weakness is the COVID-19 vaccine.

And I have the strategy to turn his weakest link into a huge win. Trump doesn't need to change his views 180 degrees.

Trump simply needs to pledge (as soon as he's back in the White House) to name a special counsel to lead a massive investigation of the COVID-19 vaccine controversy; Dr. Anthony Fauci's role; the false claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine; the dangerous side effects that were never disclosed; the trial results that were covered up; the deaths and injuries that were covered up; the role of Big Pharma and government agencies in misleading the American people and in paying off the mainstream media; the demonization of effective drugs ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine; and the silencing, banning and censorship by social media of any dissent about the COVID-19 vaccine.

All of this needs to be investigated and if proven true, prosecuted – so this can never happen again.

And I happen to know of the perfect attorney who can lead this investigation. To make sure this is carried out honestly; and not whitewashed; and Big Pharma can't bribe their way out of it; and it's seen as bipartisan ...

Trump needs to pledge he will appoint RFK Jr. as special counsel to lead this massive corruption investigation.

The beauty of my strategy is that Trump doesn't need to change his opinion of the COVID-19 vaccine. He only has to acknowledge the controversy, commit to investigate and let the chips fall where they may.

This investigation will be about truth and facts. Either the vaccine killed and injured millions around the world, or it didn't. Either politicians, government bureaucrats, medical experts and the media were bribed to cover up the deaths and injuries, or not. Either Fauci is an evil criminal and fraud who misled Trump and the American people, or not. Let's find out, once and for all.

But there's only one way to ensure this massive investigation is carried out honestly and without being whitewashed ...

Pledge to put RFK Jr. in charge.

This is a simple strategy for Trump to turn his biggest weakness – the COVID-19 vaccine – into a huge win-win.

Pledge this special counsel investigation; pledge to put RFK Jr. in charge; show that you're open to seeing what really happened; and Trump wins back the presidency by a landslide.

An anonymously writtten July 11 article uncritically repeated Kennedy's dubious attacks on Anthony Fauci in a Fox News appearance:

Anthony Fauci, a former federal health official advising Joe Biden on COVID-19, now in a lucrative teaching job, 'caused a lot of injury" during that pandemic, according to Democrat [sic] presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Fauci, in fact, was behind a lot of the masking requirements, the demand for experimental and highly speculative shots for citizens, the bans on ordinary treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which proved effective, and more.

During his tenure, more than a million Americans died of COVID. Kennedy pointed out that America has 4.2% of the world's population, and suffered 16% of the COVID deaths.

Now RFK Jr., in an interview with Jess Watters, charged that the Biden administration is uninterested in punishing China for allowing what now is widely considered to be a lab leak of the pandemic, because it would reveal the National Institutes of Health "funded bioweapons programs."

A report at Summit.News reported he said, "I think the CIA was involved certainly in this research. They were funding it through USAID. And NIH, I think, in the end gave about $26 million in funding to the Wuhan lab. But USAID, which was functioning as the CIA surrogate, gave over $64 million. The Pentagon also gave a lot of money."

Kennedy said of Fauci, "I think he caused a lot of injury. I think that he particularly by withholding early treatment from Americans we racked up the highest death count in the world. We only have 4.2% of the globe’s population but we had 16% of the COVID deaths in this country and that was from bad policy."

He pointed out that nations that allowed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine "had 1/200th of our death rate."

The anonymous writer made no effort to fact-check anything Kennedy said. For instance, there's no evidence that either works, and the U.S. COVID death rate was higher than other countries largely because fewer people were vaccinated (in part because of anti-vaxxers like Kennedy).

When Kennedy got caught arguing that COVID is "ethnically targeted" to affect "attack Caucasians and black people" and that "the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese," WND did a lazy bit of cleanup by reprinting an article by the notoriously unreliable Gateway Pundit, which insisted that the reporter who broke the story "read into Kennedy’s quote more than what was actually said. That’s unfortunate." It's even more unfortunate that WND thinks Gateway Pundit is a credible source of, well, anything.

MRC Defends Moms For Liberty After Its Extremism Is Exposed
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Reserach Center has long been a fan of the right-wing group Moms for Liberty. The group made it into the MRC's victim narrative in an August 2022 post after its PayPal account was briefly frozen. Catherine Salgado and Gabriela Pariseau euphemistially descried it as a "grassroots, anti-woke education group" and insisted that "This is not the first time Big Tech giants have censored Moms for Liberty." So when the Southern Poverty Law Center identified Moms for Liberty as "extremist," the MRC flew into a rage against the SPLC. Tom Olohan played the Soros card in a June 7 post:

A group funded by radical billionaire George Soros is smearing a group of concerned mothers as being somehow filled with hate and MSNBC was just tickled pink over it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) repeated on Tuesday its pathetic tradition of smearing groups that speak out against the left's preferred narrative by placing the pro-parent education group Moms for Liberty on the same “hate map” as violent and racist groups, such as neo-Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan. MSNBC’s host Nicole Wallace invited SPLC President and CEO Margaret Huang on to the June 6 edition of Deadline: White House where Huang and Wallace both spewed propaganda at Moms for Liberty. Wallace referred to Moms for Liberty as “reactionary,” while Huang called them “right wing-ideologues.” But what was missing from MSNBC’s coverage was any mention that the leftist SPLC was connected to Soros, who has a sordid history of supporting anti-family initiatives.

The Soros-funded SPLC website claims that Moms for Liberty “spread[s] hateful imagery and rhetoric against the LGBTQ community.” The SPLC engages in guilt by association to smear Moms for Liberty, while downplaying the insane leftist political agendas the group opposes, such as critical race theory and radicalized gender ideological indoctrination of children.

Note that Olohan simply spouted right-wing talking points about what Moms for Liberty claims to do "rather than actually respond to the SPLC's claims, choosing instead to rant that the SPLC is"anti-parent and anti-family."

When a Moms for Liberty chapter was caught a couple weeks later quoting Hitler in a newsletter (which wasn't the first time), the MRC was silent. It took a couple weeks for it to even mention the incident, which came in a July 3 post by Clay Waters, who dismissed taht inconvenient fact as "opposition research":

New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman, who has a history of sketching conservatives as racist and/or bigoted extremists, gleefully went after the newly influential Moms for Liberty, founded to oppose school closings and mask-vaccine mandates in schools and which now targets the teaching of Critical Race Theory principles in schools.

In the first paragraph of his story “Moms for Liberty’s School Board Antagonism Draws G.O.P. Heavyweights,” Weisman swerved right toward Hitler references. You have to dwell on the opposition research and find the embarrassing detail:

Waters went on to baselessly claim that the reporter "lost more credibility when he cited the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center." Waters cited an attack on the SPLC by the right-wing site the Federalist, which doesn't exactly boost Waters' credibility.

Another post by Waters the same day criticized others for criticizing Moms for Liberty:

Friday’s edition of the tax-funded PBS News Hour> took a jab at the influential new conservative parents’ rights group Moms for Liberty, which drew some Republican presidential candidates to its convention last week. Moms was founded to oppose school closings and mask-vaccine mandates in schools and which now targets the teaching of Critical Race Theory and gender identity in schools.

Online, the segment was introduced with slanted labeling: “GOP presidential candidates appear at far-right Moms for Liberty event.” This is only one of many NewsHour segments posted online including a “far right” tag. By contrast, there is not a single story in the News Hourarchive with a “far left” tag. (Coincidentally, Twitter owner Elon Musk has recently mentioned the media’s “far-right” tic.)

Host Geoff Bennett opened the show claiming "Republican presidential candidates appear at an education event run by a group with increasing ties to far-right extremists," before introducing Laura Barron-Lopez’s news report in hostile fashion.

Waters did not explain why Moms for Liberty is not "far-right."

The MRC also published a July 26 column by John Stossel attacking the SPLC for, among other things, criticizing Moms for Liberty, "calling them anti-government extremists because they oppose sexually explicit content in schools, and seek school board seats."

None of these writers mention Moms for Liberty's record of extremism in harassing school officials and secrecy about its funding.

WND Still Trying to Dishonestly Rebrand Anti-LGBT Conversion Therapy
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily has labored hard to rebrand anti-LGBT conversion therapy as something different to hide its nature., and it's still doing so. A Feb. 2 article by Bob Unruh used right-wing rhetoric to portray being LGBT as a "lifestyle" that one must "leave":

Pro-LGBT activists have worked with pro-LGBT lawmakers in multiple locations across the United States to create a legal ban on certain talk counseling.

Their scheme allows counselors to encourage the LGBT lifestyle, but bans any therapy that seeks to support people who want to leave the LGBT lifestyles.

Those who leave the lifestyle, of course, undermine the entire movement which is based on the ideology that people are "born that way."

Now, however, a federal appeals court has blown up that argument.

A report from Liberty Counsel reveals that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "has ruled that the Tampa ordinance that prohibited licensed counselors from providing voluntary talk therapy to minors seeking help to reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

[...]

Jung had demolished the pro-LGBT talking point that it is "conversion therapy" involved.

That's a term that activists and the media frequently use.

Unruh was at it again in a June 27 article in which he didn't use the term "conversion therapy" at all:

For at least the fourth straight Congress, Democrats have introduced the "Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act," trying to criminalize and destroy talk therapy that offers help to members of society with unwanted same-sex attractions.

They insist that such help to those who want it is illegal.

A leftist diatribe about the issue, published online, claimed, within once sentence, the treatments are a "discredited practice" and a "discredited practice."

But what is discredited are the long-discontinued practices of forced electric shocks and the like that had been used by America's medical industry in years gone by.

The therapy now involves only talk, and that has been affirmed in some federal courts across the U.S.

Unruh is being dishonest here. Electroshock therapy has been discredited for decades; conversion therapy in recent years -- typically conducted by anti-LGBT activists who are not licensed practitioners -- has included techniques such as shaming, hypnosis and induced vomiting, and those who are subjected to it (typically minors forced to undergo it by their parents) see higher rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide.Nevertheless, Unruh kept up the charade by injecting editorial comment into his "news" story:

The report claimed it is supported by the "false belief that LGBTQ identities are pathologies that need to be cured."

However, the bigger issue is that when there are those who voluntarily leave the LGBTQ lifestyle, it decimates that community's arguments that they are "born that way," that they need privileges in society because of their status.

Unruh didn't explain how being LGBTQ is a "lifestyle," nor did he detail the alleged "privileges" they "need... in society."b He also failed to explain why he avoided the term "conversion therapy" even though it was valled exactly that in a Hill article to which he linked in support of his story.

MRC's Hypocritical Rage Over TV Show's 'Grooming' Excludes Right-Wing Groomers
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Dawn Slusher complained in a July 6 post:

As conservatives across the nation fight to protect children from predators who want sexually explicit books in schools and children exposed to perverted and sexually explicit behavior, Hollywood is busy trying to help the predator cause with attempts to normalize grooming.

HBO’s Sex and the City reboot, And Just Like That, joined in the cause with their latest episode, “Chapter Three,” which MAX aired on June 29. In the episode, a “MILF list” created by a teenage boy is discovered at a prestigious private school that main character Charlotte’s (Kristin Davis) children attend.

Of course, such a thing is normal for hormonal teenage boys as most will have a crush on an older mom, teacher, nurse, etc. at least once in their teen years. What’s not normal is an adult hoping to be the object of that sexual desire, as moms Charlotte and Lisa (Nicole Ari Parker) did when they found out about the list.

Rather than being mature, normal moms with feelings of maternal protectiveness, they instead became gleefully excited to place second and third on the list, seeing it as a form of flattery despite what “MILF” stands for.

[...]

Think about what kind of message this show is sending to pedophiles and groomers. Especially teachers who have been arrested for sexualizing and raping their students. Parents need to be more watchful than ever in this pedophile-friendly culture because they’re coming for your children, and they’re not even trying to hide it anymore.

If you ever needed a reason to homeschool, this is it.

Aside from the bizarre logical leap of claiming that a TV show is sufficient reason to pull a child out of school, there's another reason Slusher's rant falls flat: She says nothing about right-wing enthusiasm for pedophilia and sexualizing children.

When it was revealed that right-wing transphobe Matt Walsh -- who received a "Bulldog Award" from the MRC earlier this year for his anti-LGBT hate -- declared it was normal for teenage girls to be pregnancy because that's when they're "most fertile" and that "biologically and metaphysically and with everything in their body, they want to settle down, they want to start a family," the MRC said nothing. And it stayed silent when Walsh's employer, the Daily Wire, spent money to promote those comments to claim that he was a victim of "cancel culture."

We've documented how the MRC touted how Andrew Tate was "a popular and controversial social media influencer" who was a victim of "censorship" because Instagram blocked some of his misogynistic post, meaning that it "kept information from all 4,700,000 of Tate’s Instagram followers. But Tate has long bragged about haviing sex with teenage girls -- presumably there's some grooming involved in that -- and he and his brother were recently arrested on charges of rape and human trafficking, and the MRC has had little to say about that. A July 17 post by Kevin Tober touted how Tucker Carlson's current Twitter videos "have mostly included his trademark monologues as well as interviews with newsmakers," adding as an aside: "Most recently social media influencer Andrew Tate, who has been accused of human trafficking by the Romanian government."

Media Matters has many more examples of right-wing grooming.

If Slusher had shown as much concern about the "grooming" done by her fellow right-wingers, she might be seen as more credible.

NEW ARTICLE -- Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks, Part 2: 2020-21
Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist unironically complained that he would be seen as a "homophobic bigot" for his history of acting like, well, a homophobic bigot -- such as his repeated attacks on Pete Buttigieg. Read more >>

MRC Frets Over Musk's Moves On Twitter, Still Fluffs Him Anyway
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a history of ignoring bad news about Elon Musk and Twitter, but if it must be addressed, their goal is to find a way to dismiss it. And so it was with the swift emergence of Threads as a Twitter competitor. Autumn Johnson was dismissive of Threads in a July 6 post, largely because it is trying to do something about hate and misinformation:

Meta’s new “text-based conversation app” seeks to challenge Elon Musk’s Twitter in the next battle in the war between the Big Tech social media platforms.

The new app, Threads, debuted Wednesday appearing on Apple’s App Store. The app will link to Instagram, Meta’s photo-sharing app.  “Whether you’re a creator or a casual poster, Threads offers a new, separate space for real-time updates and public conversations. We are working toward making  Threads compatible with the open, interoperable social networks that we believe can shape the future of the internet,” reads the Meta announcement blog.

“First tech titan owners challenged each other to a real-life, MMA-style brawl,” said MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris, “but now it appears that battle has returned to the digital octagon. In one corner, we have the Twitter owner who purchased the platform and appears to be pushing Silicon Valley toward free speech in what he called the ‘digital town square.’ And in the other corner, we have the Meta owner who once promoted the notion of free speech at Georgetown University but continues to wield a massive censorship hammer to crush user speech online. Musk should continue leaning into free speech to provide an alternative to censorship, and since Zuckerberg seems so keen on copying Musk’s moves, he should make a move to his previous pro-free speech ways.”

Johnson acknowledged that Musk made missteps that opened up the opportunity for Threads, but she also made sure to attack the competition (and dishonestly framing Musk's refusal to stop hate and misinformation on Twitter as being "pro-free speech")

The new Meta app is looking to capitalize on rival Twitter’s conversation-based design and potentially win over new users, especially since some of Musk’s recent pro-free speech changes at Twitter have appeared to enrage some on the left. Recent quota limitations for nonsubscribers, a temporary block on unregistered users and an upcoming TweetDeck paywall have also seemingly opened the way for Thread’s launch.

But Threads’ reputation is already under fire as a data security hazard, as TechCrunch has labeled the new app a “privacy nightmare.”

When Musk decided to change the name of Twitter to X for no apparent reason other than he always wanted to run a company named X, Johnson expressed concern on a July 25 post:

Elon Musk purchased Twitter under the auspice of maintaining free speech in a global town square, but amid news of a company rebrand, could the platform’s other anti-free speech policies and questionable leadership appointments taint Musk’s initial vision?

“It’s an exceptionally rare thing – in life or in business – that you get a second chance to make another big impression,” Yaccarino tweeted. “Twitter made one massive impression and changed the way we communicate. Now, X will go further, transforming the global town square.”

Although Musk himself has called for a pause in artificial intelligence development, according to Yaccarino, the new Twitter brand will be powered by it.

Johnson then huffed about "recent anti-free speech policy developments under Musk" that purportedly "paint a bleaker picture of his commitment to his original pro-free speech vision":

For example, Musk pushed forward with the troubling Twitter Community Notes, which are a crowdsourced alternative to professional fact-checking. And while some on the right appear to like the results better, the warning labels are still a form of censorship, albeit by a different name.

In November of last year, Musk described the social media platform’s speech policy as “freedom of speech, not reach,” implying some would be censored for certain views vaguely described as “hate speech.”

“New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach,” he tweeted at the time. “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet.”

It should be noted that Musk’s comments seem to mirror views expressed by [Twitter founder Jack] Dorsey.

We've noted how the MRC loved Community Notes when liberals were fact-checked under it, but decided it was "censorship" when conservatives were targeted.

Despite all the fretting, the MRC continued to default to Musk-fluffing. A July 20 post complained that one of the MRC's most hated reporters pointed out how Musk's Twitter is paying far-right influencers:

The Washington Post cry-bully Taylor Lorenz did not hold back her extreme leftist complaining about Twitter’s new influencer payment program paying conservatives as well as liberals, and Twitter users did not hold back their criticism of her.

In a hysterically biased article published July 13, Lorenz lamented that “the first beneficiaries” of Twitter’s payment program “appear to be high-profile far-right influencers.” Lorenz further claimed, without evidence, that Twitter was “bribing” users to stay on the platform. Lorenz’s hissy fit came as many prominent Twitter users began to publicize their earnings. Lorenz’s article attempted to mislead its readers by completely ignoring the leftist Twitter users who also received payments from the social media giant. It wasn’t long, however, before she got caught.

Prominent Twitter users, including leftist journalists Ed and Brian Krassenstein, took to Twitter to call out Lorenz’s complaints as detailed in The Post article. “This article was very bad reporting on behalf of the Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz, and that's coming from someone who normally likes the WaPo,” said Ed Krassenstein, known for his tirades against Republicans, on July 14. Brian Krassenstein echoed his brother’s remarks, saying, “You might be reading the Washington Post article by Taylor Lorenz and be thinking, ‘But Brian Krassenstein made $24k from Elon and he's not far right’. All I can say is... I work out”.

Twitter owner and CTO Elon Musk had a short but sweet reaction to Lorenz’s piece on Twitter. “Liar Lorenz,” he tweeted in reply to the article’s headline. Twitter user End Wokeness also responded to Lorenz’s tantrum, tweeting: “Looks like we triggered Taylor Lorenz.”

Schau failed to mention that one of the far-right influencers cited by Lorenz as a beneficiary of Musk's largesse is Andrew Tate, recently arrested on rape and human trafficking charges.

P.J. Gladnick parroted the MRC's dishonest framing of content moderation of falsehoods and misinformation as "censorship" in a July 21 post:

It's not hard to figure out what is keeping USA Today "domestic security correspondent: Josh Meyer awake at night. The gnawing fear that a lack of censorship could lead to disinformation being spread during the 2024 election. This is reflected in his sprawling 2,618-word USA Today article on Wednesday, "Amid Elon Musk's Twitter changes, why 2024 presidential election threats now pose bigger risk."

Their shortened version of the headline: "The 2024 election on Twitter: Are Elon Musk's changes posing a danger?" 

What is the danger? "Misinformation," according to nebulous unnamed "lawmakers and regulators, former Twitter executives, national security officials and other analysts."

[...]

Of course, "misinformation" and "disinformation" often means just information that liberals and their media stenographers want to keep from the public. A two-sided exchange of information is "divisive."

The biggest throbbing example of this is the Hunter Biden laptop that was labeled as "disinformation" by 51 former intelligence officials which was used as justification to censor the New York Post story on this topic in the middle of the 2020 election. And yet despite this example of how censorship was used as a form of election interference, Meyer makes it clear that he wants to continue this odious process.

As we've pointed out, there was no reason to take the Hunter laptop story at face value given the partisan forces promoting it -- including the Rupert Murdoch-owned pro-Trump New York Post, which failed to offer any independent verification of the laptop that might have alleviated such concerns.

How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately?
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown continued to cheer right-wing anti-LGBT hate and backlash against Pride Month activities in hia June 21 WorldNetDaily column:

In case you haven't noticed, this year's "Pride Month" is different than Pride Months in the past. As I recently noted, more and more Americans – from all walks of life – are saying, "Enough is enough." This is what many of us have predicted for years, recognizing that the very success of the gay revolution would lead to its undoing.

As I wrote in 2015 (which I called the year of "pushback"), "the gay revolution will continue to overplay its hand. As those who were once bullied now bully others, this will produce an increasing backlash. … And as gay activists win more and more battles in the courts and the society, that will actually work against them, as their goals will continue to become more and more extreme."

This has been self-evident for years. Or do you really think that a caring and sane society can tolerate more and more stories like this? "California woman, 18, sues doctors for removing her breasts when she was just THIRTEEN because she thought she was trans after seeing influencers online."

That's why today, in 2023, even editorials on totally secular websites can speak with sympathy of the growing "pushback against the perceived extreme expressions of gender fluidity."

And, of course, he denied that his anti-LGBT hate is hate:

Note that word "pushback," repeated time after time. The righteous opposition is rising.

And while there are surely some mean-spirited, even hateful people involved in this pushback (they should be called out and rebuked), those that I know and work with are motivated by love – love for God and love for neighbor. They are convinced that there must be an about face for the good of the society.

Brown went on to cite "relevant, recent news" of anti-LGBT hate, many of which came from right-wing webites (not that he bothered to identify them as such).And once again, he played his compassion schtick even as he insulted LGBT people:

I'm aware, of course, that the vast majority of LGBTQ+ identified readers will be either grieved or irate or shocked at the contents of this article. Even more will they be either grieved or irate or shocked by my attitude, as I'm quite pleased to see the shifts that I have highlighted here.

In their eyes (your eyes?), this is as hateful as it gets, an open and unashamed display of homophobia and transphobia, an unapologetic demonstration of the bigotry produced by fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Yes, I get it, and I understand your fear that I am celebrating the potential unraveling of what you have worked so hard to achieve over the last 50 years.

The problem, of course, is that LGBTQ+ activists declared war on religion 50 years ago.

The problem is that their coming out of the closet necessitated putting us in the closet.

The problem is that they targeted our children with ceaseless indoctrination, from pre-school to the university and from social media to TV and movies.

The problem is that the goalposts continued to move, and no recognition of "rights" was sufficient until the rights of those they opposed were removed.

The problem is that the trajectory of LGBTQ+ activism inevitably leads to queer critical theory which denies the existence of human nature.

The problem is that the fringe elements of the community became celebrities.

The problem is that we will not stand by idly when our own kids or grandkids have been chemically castrated or genitally mutilated.

No way, no how.

That's why I will continue to push back against what I truly believe is a destructive agenda for our society. At the same time, I will work against hatred and bigotry, seeking equal protection under the law for all and cultivating a climate of grace and mercy rather than anger and hatred.

Of course, Brown does not "get it" -- he's still pretending to "work against hatred and bigotry" even as he portrays LGBT people as deserving of hatred and bigotry because they are "destructive" and enthusiastically cheering every time that happens.

Brown spent his June 26 column being outraged that a German pastor argued that "God is queer":

Talk about a picture of an apostate church. Talk about a vivid illustration of blasphemy and spiritual blindness. Talk about shouting to the nation, "We are the blind leading the blind! Come follow us into the ditch!"

[...]

Talk about calling evil good and good evil. Talk about trying to take the speck out of your brother's eye while you have a plank in your own (see Matthew 7:1-5). Talk about deep self-deception.

And do these leaders really think that the main problem most people had with Caesar's message was his denouncing of racism? Hardly. It was the blasphemous pronouncement that provoked most of the ire.

[...]

No wonder hundreds of thousands of people are leaving these churches every year. No wonder hundreds of church doors are closing and countless church buildings are being sold.

He concluded by being mad that Christian churches aren't sufficiently hating LGBT people:

True Christians want to hear the Word of God. They want to worship Jesus. They want to encounter God.

Consequently, where the Word is being preached (as God's Word, not as some ancient religious document that is similar to other ancient religious texts), when Jesus is being exalted, when people are meeting with God, true Christians, along with non-believing seekers, will come.

In contrast, if they wanted more of this world's philosophy, they would simply stay home.

The truth be told, if this annual state church conference wanted to be accurate with its theme, with one voice they should have shouted out, "Now is the time to proclaim what has been obvious for decades. We are an apostate church!"

May God give courage to the believing remnant. May He pour out a massive spirit of repentance on this very influential (and very lost) country. May the true church of Germany, in all its varied forms and expressions, arise.

In his June 28 column, Brown obsessed over pride parades being overly sexual for his tastes (which is to day, having any sexual content at all):

In my 2011 book "A Queer Thing Happened to America," I devoted a whole chapter to the subject of "Diversity or Perversity," noting the degree to which an overt, often perverse sexual agenda was attached to gay pride events and gay activism. And it was defended under the rubric of "diversity."

Today, with more and more June "Pride" events being marked by open displays of nudity and sexual perversion, we must ask the question again: Why are these events marked by such displays? Could you imagine seeing such displays at any other ethnic or national pride event? Surely not.

To be sure, many who identify as LGBTQ object to these displays, claiming it is bringing out the worst, kinkiest elements of their communities.

But this, again, begs the question of why they are so prevalent at LGBTQ+ events. And why do so many parents bring their children to these events, not trying to hide these innocent eyes from beholding such trash? And why do plenty of LGBTQ+ voices actually defend such public displays, even in the sight of little children? 

He followed that with a anti-LGBT column "originally written in 2013 but rejected for publication by the local press. I think you will find it quite relevant today, if not even chilling in its warnings."

Brown took another one of his occasional stabs at self-awareness of his anti-LGBT hate in his June 30 column:

When it comes to the contentious cultural issues of the day such as abortion and LGBTQ issues, I have no question at all that these are sinful in God's sight. At the same time, I recognize that I could be missing some of the reasons that professing Christians could defend such practices and lifestyles. Not all of them are raging sinners, full of blasphemy and guilt.

Some of them sincerely believe that they are standing for what is right and just, believing that they are acting in compassion and kindness out of love for God and people.

And so, rather than pass them like ships in the night, we should understand what makes them tick, searching our own hearts for blindness and ignorance as well.

Brown concluded: "We might have more blind spots than we care to admit." But he seems to make too much money and get too much attention by keeping the LGBT blind spot that fuels his hate to actually want to do anything about it.

MRC Mad That N. Korean Defector's Fabrications Are Being Called Out
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Clay Waters comoplained in a June 25 post:

It takes gall to go after a North Korean defector, and on the front page of the New York Times, no less. The paper’s staff writer Charles Homans’ odd choice of target appeared in the Friday edition under the rather tasteless headline, “Yeonmi Park, a North Korean Dissident, Defects to the American Right.”

Although the Times has in the past been notably soft on North Korea’s Communist dictatorship, one could hardly imagine the paper straining so hard to cast doubt on a defector who suffered greatly under the regime, just for the crime of supporting conservative policy and comparing the American left to the dictatorship she escaped.

Waters went on to whine that "The Times can’t forgive her for turning on the intolerant American left" and that "Homans ran into overtime nit-picking Park’s story.\," adding: "It seems only escapees from left-wing regimes have to endure this doubt about how bad things really were."

As we noted the last time the MRC hyped Park, questions about her story have been made for years -- something Park made easy to check by having a record of telling markedly different stories about her life on South Korean TV. But even as he listed some of those inconsistencies, Waters made no effort to rebut them -- he simply complains that they werepointed out, which gave him a chance to baselessly frame it as a political attack.

A few weeks later, the Washingon Post published an article pointing out even more inconsistencies in Park's stories, offering further evidence that she seems to be telling stories that cater to the preconceived notions of right-wing audiences. Interestingly, both Waters and the rest of the MRC were completely silent about it -- perhaps a concession that they know they can't defend her.

WND's Farah Spreads Fake News While Criticizing 'Fake News'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah started his July 5 WorldNetDaily column lamenting the current state of the news business:

What's become of the news business is a catastrophe. That includes newspapers and online sources of news.

At WND, back in the heyday of online news, we expected to be a giant piece of the coming media revolution. Well, we lasted a long time. We're in our 26th year of publication. Most of my life has been consumed by this occupation. I won't say that we've made a lot of money. But we're surviving – barely.

What happened? Why is there so little actual news left? Why has the news business become a news desert for most Americans?

The answer is simple: "Fake news" replaced real news. It's a real tragedy.

Farah then served up his own counterfactual defintion of "real news" -- right-wing websites -- and bashed non-right-wing media as being where "fake news" is found:

We often think of "fake news" as that presented on television. Ever since Fox News canceled Tucker Carlson, it effectively joined the "dark side." It joined "fake news." Now, only a few start-ups, such as OAN and Real America's Voice survive outside the establishment bubble. Thank God for them. But the real story of "fake news" is that it's everywhere, in every form of media. Real news, you have to "divine." It's harder to find than hen's teeth.

What's left of real news? When WND arrived on the scene 26 years ago, it stood alone. Since then a few others have materialized – Daily Caller, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Wire, Just the News, Revolver and a few others. How many people get their news from these or a handful of others?

America is starved for real news – on television or anywhere. America has become a "news desert."

What about newspapers? They have been going out of business since before the internet came along.

So, who has joined the "fake news" cabal in the last quarter century? Everybody! The Associated Press? It's "fake news." Virtually every news source that's served by the Associated Press is in the tank for that "fake news." If Donald Trump coined the term, ask him who isn't "fake news."

Of course, Farah is the one who's spreading fake news. WND has been a veritable fount of fake news for years. Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit is currently being sued by two Georgia election workers for falsely claiming they were committing election fraud. Then Farah himself spread fake news:

It's practically incomparable what happened to my industry. It's a disgrace. A few years ago, we were winning. And then what happened?

There was Drudge. I don't think he was in any way overrated. Matt Drudge was a real person. He doesn't work for the Drudge Report any more. I'm not even sure if he's still alive. But we needed the Drudge Report back in the day. That was the glue that held us together.

But something truly evil happened when Joe Biden was SELECTED. I don't mean elected. I know the difference. He was CHOSEN, not by the majority of Americans in 2020, but by a distinct minority. That's the day that America stopped being America, stopped being a shining city on a hill. Think of how the "fake news" insisted that everyone accepted Biden the pretender – or suffer the consequences.

To be valid, you had to drink the Kool-Aid. You had to accept that elections are never corrupt. Remember?

No legitimate evidence that Donald Trump won the 2020 election has been provided by Farah or anyone else. He followed that with more whining that Google stopped doing business with WND:

That's how Google took over. They became the arbiter of online news. Instantly, they became the enforcer on elections. We at WND got the following notice – unlike anyone had seen before:

"We do not allow content that: makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process."

Read each word in context.

Google dropped a huge nuclear bomb on WND by permanently demonetizing us. What possessed them to do it after so many years?

When Google demonetized WND, the world's second-wealthiest company finally told us what they believed in. They believed in (s)elections – like Joe Biden did. For that they throttled our traffic, advertising revenue and search accessibility. In other words, Google tried to drive us completely out of business.

In addition, Google scolded: "We do not allow content that: incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." They put it in WRITING!

And last but not least, there was one more thing Google was not allowing: "We do not allow content that: promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus."

Farah offered no eviddence to contradict Google's assessment of WND. As we've pointed out, Google has every right not to do business with a company whose content makes Google look bad. (Farah also failed to mention that Google called WND's content "unreliable" -- you know, fake news.)

Farah conclulded by whining: "When did the tough and crazy times in America begin? They followed Joe Biden's immaculate election – lest anyone dare not 'trust in an electoral or democratic process.'" Farah did not explain why he is so determined to spread fake news about the integrity of the electoral process.

MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade Watch, Poem Ban Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's DeSantis Defense Brigade got to help out promote the MRC's enthusiasm for library book bans and restrictions. Curtis Houck complained in a May 24 post:

Tuesday’s CBS Mornings did its part to join into the liberal media’s latest piece of fake news about Florida meant to impale conservative policies and Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) by insisting a poem from far-left poet laureate Amanda Gorman was “bann[ed]” from a Florida school.

With a chyron reading “Florida Book Banning Controversy” (and one in a tease having read “Amanda Gorman’s Poem Banned”), featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers began:

Let’s begin with the ongoing controversy over book banning in schools, this time involving Amanda Gorman, the first national youth poet laureate. A grade school in South Florida restricted access to Gorman’s acclaimed poem, The Hill We Climb after one parent filed a complaint. 

Adding the poem was written for “President Biden’s inauguration in 2021,” he then queued up an excerpt from Gorman talking about the need to “repair” America from its “past” and “victory” will be based in a “promise.”

[...]

Only after he added that Gorman said “she was ‘gutted’” by the supposed ban did CBS have Duthier reveal how a ban couldn’t be any further from the truth: “The school district says, no literature has been banned or removed, but it determined that The Hill We Climb is better suited for middle school students and was shelved in the middle school section of the media center.”

Houck also complained that Duthiers repeated "spin from the far-left, pro-LGBTQ group the Florida Freedom to Read Project that framed the parent who raised concerns as a kook," but he failed to refute the group's claims that the parent ludicrously attacked the poem as being filed with "hate message" and falsely claimed it was written by Oprah Winfrey. It has since been revealed that the parent never bothered to read the full poem, she's so far-right that she has attended Proud Boys rallies and promoted the virulently anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" online.

Despite all that, the MRC continued to defend restrictions on the poem, now claiming it was done for "vocabulary" reasons, even though that was not in the parent's complaint. It was Alex Christy's turn to grouse in a May 27 post:

The latest bit of fake news to come out of Florida was that teenager Amanda Gorman’s 2020 Inauguration poem was banned from a school library when the reality was it was moved to the middle school section for “vocabulary” reasons. Not that MSNBC Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace cared. She teamed up with twice failed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee and election denier Stacey Abrams and PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton on Friday to decry the fact that Republicans have not denounced a story that doesn’t exist.

During their conversation, Wallace mourned to Abrams, “But to take a poet and a poem that should be held up across partisan lines and demonize the piece itself and the creator of it, I mean understand from reporting this week it was one parent that complained, but I have not seen one Republican defend Amanda Gorman or her poem.”

[...]

It is true there was a single parent that wanted the poem removed completely, but clearly that request went nowhere so talk of “tyrants” is hyperbolic. Nevertheless, Sharpton responded, “what happens is that we lose a sense of what we are really living through and evolving from and going through. You cannot deal with fruits without dealing with the roots that it came from.”

If Wallace wants to have a conversation on the vocabulary levels of elementary versus middle school students, she can, but that would be rather boring and wouldn’t allow her to demand Republicans denounce Republican-passed legislation.

Christy failed to mention the parent's record of hate and extremism or that vocabulary was not part of her complaint.

Christy returned for a June 1 post whining that DeSantis was busted for making a dubious claim about book bans in his state, laboring hard to reframe what he said to justify attacking the fact-checker:

After launching his presidential campaign on Twitter Spaces, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was condemned by PolitiFact for his assertion that Florida has not banned any books. That summary did not give DeSantis a rating for his claims, but on Wednesday PolitiFact returned to the claim and rated it “false.” Yet, the article itself suggests that a “false” rating is overzealous and is ultimately based on a straw man.

The exact quotation authors Matthew Crowley and Amy Sherman single out is "There's not been a single book banned in the state of Florida. You can go buy or you can use whatever book you want."

DeSantis was clearly talking about literal book bans, not whether this book or that book is available in a school library.

Crowley and Sherman then go onto provide more DeSantis quotes about age appropriate books in schools, “Parents have flagged books in schools that, for example, teach middle school kids how to use sex apps that provide graphic depictions of sex acts and sex toys for people as young as fifth grade.”

For the authors this means “DeSantis’ claim that no book has been banned in Florida goes too far. Florida districts have removed some books entirely while restricting others to certain grades or requiring students to get parental permission to see them.”

This isn’t a fact-check of the claim PolitiFact purports to be checking. DeSantis claimed that you can go out and buy any book your heart desires, which is true. Crowley and Sherman are checking a straw man.

[...]

Again, DeSantis was speaking very narrowly about a literal book ban, not just in the context of schools. Nevertheless, the authors then go on to cite the American Library Association’s definition that a ban is “the removal of a book based on a person of group’s objection” as authoritative and that “experts we spoke to” agree.

Houck returned to complain that Gorman was continued to allow to discuss how her poem was treated in Florida in a June 8 post:

Based on how the second hour of Wednesday’s CBS Mornings went, they showed they’re not interested in earning the trust of conservatives as they dedicate segments to far-left authors Amanda Gorman and Ibram X. Kendi to cry homophobia, transphobia, and racism over parents in Florida and other conservative locales wanting a role in the books and curriculum in the education system.

Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King was ebullient with this hour of wokeness, gushing first over Gorman in a tease that she’d be speaking out after “her inaugural poem was restricted by a Florida school following a parent’s complaint,” another chapter in the “growing trend...of limiting access to books that deal with racism and other issues.”

In a second tease, King lamented Gorman’s work being “restricted,” adding the show would ask her “about the rise of book banning”. Gorman led off the second hour with King engaging in more disinformation, again referring to the rise in “banning books.”

Gorman’s case wasn’t any sort of ban, so all uses of “ban” in the segment were comical in nature given the book was assessed to be better tagged for middle schoolers and could be requested by students in the library’s media center.

Note Houck's wildly euphemistic framing of the treatment of Gorman's poem as having merely been "assessed to be better tagged." Houck also failed to mention the extremism of the parent who wanted the poem banned or that she never even read the poem, and he also failed to explain how, exactly, Gorman is "far-left."

Newsmax's Reagan Demands that Republican AGs Play Political Culture-War Games
Topic: Newsmax

Attention red state voters!

If your attorney general ever says that he doesn’t think social issues or culture war fights are part of his job, find a new attorney general.

Your current officeholder needs to be fired.

Republican officeholders who are pacifists in the culture war are responsible for the dumpster fire that constitutes our current cultural scene.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., we’re looking at you.

The culture or political environment of the state and nation is what determines the parameters for corporate and personal behavior that is considered acceptable.

Our current parameters being: We live in Sodom with electricity.

The Washington Times brings us a story that demonstrates why the left is winning and we are losing:

"A coalition of 15 Democrat attorneys general told Target CEO Brian Cornell that pulling Pride products over safety concerns represents a setback for the 'march for social progress' and encouraged him to reach out to their offices for help with any anti-LGBTQ threats or harassment."

The letter came with signatures from attorneys general in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

[...]

The letter isn’t a heartfelt gesture of support for a beleaguered corporation.

It’s an implied threat from the Rainbow Reich, which will be keeping an eye on Target in the future.

The next time a controversy erupts, is Target going to pay attention to its backward customers or to the legal authorities?

And this heavy-handed response is on behalf of a consonant group that we are constantly told is "marginalized."

Our question is: Why aren’t red state attorneys general doing the same?

[...]

Our nation is in a cultural fight to the finish.

Opting out is opting for total defeat.

Two can play at this game and the side defending decency and children has the advantage in the court of public opinion.

Defending the innocent deserves a full court press.

If your red state’s attorney general isn’t leading or part of this effort, you need apply pressure to him or her today or start working to find a new state attorney general.

-- Michael Reagan, June 27 Newsmax column

WND's Lively Defends Being A Homophobe (While Claiming To Hate The Word)
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Scott Lively's final entry in his series of anti-LGBTQ hate during Pride Month was a June 29 column headlined "How I bcame a 'homophobe.'" He started the column by rejecting the word "homophobe," denying at length that he's secretly gay, insisting that being gay is a psychological disorder and defending conversion therapy:

At the outset, let me apologize for the use of the slur "homophobe," which I contend is the rhetorical equivalent of "fag," and "bull dyke," and should as a matter of basic civility be excluded from public discourse. I use all three slurs today for illustration only.

As a second preliminary, let me admit that it is probably true in some few cases that people who strongly oppose the LGBT agenda do secretly struggle with same-sex attraction. I don't see anything wrong with that motive, and if it helps them resist those destructive urges, more power to them. That is not the case with me, although I'm often accused of it, my favorite example being one lady who insisted she could tell I was a homosexual because I have "kind-hearted eyes," bless her heart. I've always replied that I really don't care if my enemies think I am secretly "gay" – while also challenging them to be intellectually honest and admit that if I were "gay," that presumption should strengthen my case, not weaken it, in the same way that being a former drug addict and alcoholic (which I am) strengthens my arguments against substance abuse. But logic was never the strong suit of these types.

To be clear, by the mercy of God I have never experienced same-sex attraction, romantic or sexual. But as a former alcoholic and drug addict, I have always sympathized greatly with those who struggle with that sin/behavioral disorder, which is not "gay," but "SSAD." Indeed, in my observation, Same-Sex Attraction Disorder" is the toughest of all behavioral dysfunctions to cope with, for two reasons.

First, unlike most other addictions, the conduct one gets addicted to is not triggered by some external stimuli like pouring alcohol down your throat or pulling the arm of a slot machine, but the unavoidable prompting of one's internal sexual wiring. While it is technically true that all addiction is really about brain chemicals (what you actually get addicted to is stuff like endorphins), the external triggers also play an essential role. With sex addictions, you can't, like with whiskey, escape the temptations by simple abstinence and avoidance – you have to actively re-wire your sexual circuitry to re-orient your sexuality to match your physiology (which is hard, but not impossible) and to extinguish the harmful habits. That "re-wiring" can happen spontaneously through genuine lifestyle changes (most effective in the Christian spiritual context) or through "reparative therapy" such as one-on-one counseling and ex-gay groups equivalent to Alcoholics Anonymous. I know many ex-"gays" for whom these methods have been life-changing, and it is outrageous that the Marxists are trying to criminalize "gay" recovery all over the world. (To help counter that malign effort, support the life-affirming work of the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity).

Second, unique in all behavioral science is the vehement, often violent resistance of SSAD sufferers to the assertion that recovery is possible and real hatred for those who pursue it. While there are some pale similarities to the phenomenon of active drunks mocking people who "go on the water wagon," and others who try to entice their recovering drinking buddies to come back to the bar, nothing in the world of recovery truly compares to the militarized anti-recovery industry of the LGBT movement, complete with relentless propaganda comparable to that of a nation at war and the persecution of dissenters at levels not seen since the Soviet Union. That is, of course, because they ARE, metaphorically, a "nation" at war – in reality just a vast army of useful idiots waging "sexual revolution" against Judeo-Christian civilization in service to Cultural Marxist elites (many of whom are afflicted with the same disorders). To encourage recovery is, literally, to undermine their military power.

Lively finally got back to the reason he hates LGBT people: he had relatives who were gay, and he claimed a friend took in an allegedly gay teen who molested their child. He particularly focused on his sister, who "had developed bipolar disorder, which I had come to recognize as extremely common among homosexuals," then made her story all about him:

Of all the evil they did to hurt me, the worst was the "murder" of my sister. She had fallen back into a platonic (emotionally) lesbian-lite lifestyle with a former partner dying of cancer who needed a companion. When the global news media falsely and maliciously accused me of masterminding the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda, Shelly had a mental health breakdown I assumed was related to that. When in a manic state she got violent at the VA hospital and was put in four-point restraints without water so long that she got blood clots in her lungs. There was a brief mad scramble supposedly to save her, in the midst of which she died of a heart attack. My Mom won a wrongful death lawsuit against the VA over that.

I believe but can't prove that Shelly was mistreated – even murdered – because leftist LGBTs or their allies hate me – many of whom reading this testimony even now will rejoice that I suffered this terrible loss.

As we documented at the time, Lively traveled to Uganda to help promote the passage of anti-gay laws there though he has claimed he didn't support death-penalty provisions.

Lively concluded by laughably framing his hate as love and likening himself to Jesus:

Yet, despite that belief, I don't hate the LGBTs like they hate me. I became a "homophobe" (long before Shelly's demise) to try to save them from the consequences of their sin and to save my country (and the world) from their mission to supplant Christianity with Marxism. (As Jesus said on the cross, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.")

Despite everything they've done to me, I truly love them with the love of Christ as much as they hate me for being like Him. If that's "homophobia" then, yes, I AM a "homophobe."

Lively offered no evidence that Jesus would support LGBT people in prison simply for being LGBT, like he helped Uganda to do.