MRC Defends, Promotes Candidates After Third GOP Presidential Debate
Topic: Media Research Center

As it did with the first two Republican presidential debates, the Media Research Center went into defense mode on behalf of the candidates for the third debate. Jorge bonilla ran to the defense of Tim Scott in a Nov. 8 post:

As history has shown, moderators have a very hard time suppressing the urge to insert themselves into a debate. During tonight’s GOP presidential primary debate, NBC’s Lester Holt did just that, when asking Sen. Tim Scott a question on the economy.

WATCH as Holt tries to tell Scott that changes in economic policy don’t have an immediate impact on gas prices, only to quickly get schooled by Scott:

[...]

Holt tried, he really tried. Take note of the claim. “The idea”, said Holt, of increasing production isn’t enough to decrease prices. Scott folded that premise upon Holt’s head, Inception-like, by correctly pointing out that markets respond to the perception of confidence created by regulatory certainty.

We know this is true because of what happened to the price of gasoline after Election Night, 2020. The record reflects that it began to INCREASE based on the regulatory uncertainty that came with Biden’s election. And it really began to spike after Inauguration Day, 2021, the day he signed the executive order to tighten domestic energy production.

Facts are facts, no matter how much they may be despised by a legacy media anchor trying to insert himself into a presidential primary debate.

Actually, we don't know that is true, because correlation does not equal causation. Because so many factors in oil and gas prices depend on international factors and other things outside anyone's political control, it's highly unlikely that any increase in gas prices could be attributed solely to Biden getting elected.Also, it's not clear what Bonilla is talking about with his reference to Biden's "executive order to tighten domestic energy production"; it could be the executive order withdrawing the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline did not "tighten domestic energy production" because oil from Canada already arrives in the U.S. via rail. Facts are facts, right, Jorge? 

Tom Olohan cheered that the candidates spouted the approved narrative and attacked fellow MRC enemy TikTok:

Multiple Republican candidates referred to TikTok as a corrupting influence and threat to Americans’ data privacy Wednesday night, while several called for a complete ban.

At the third Republican presidential debate on Nov. 8, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked the five Republican 2024 presidential candidates where they stood on banning TikTok. The co-host cited an op-ed by Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) in which he said called TikTok  “predatory” and “controlled by our country’s preeminent adversary,” noting that the app is being used to divide and propagandize Americans. When Hewitt asked whether candidates agreed with Rep. Gallagher’s statements, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie laid into TikTok.

[...]

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) also spoke out in support of a ban, both to protect young Americans’ data and to insulate users from Chinese propaganda. DeSantis said,  "I'm concerned about the data that they're getting from our young people and what they're doing to pollute the minds of our young people."  

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) told the audience that “what we should do is ban TikTok, period,” but pivoted to explain that former President Trump had been hamstrung by the courts when he had attempted to do so.  In lieu of a ban, Scott suggested, "If you cannot ban TikTok, you should eliminate the Chinese presence on the app, period."

Bonilla spent a Nov. 9 post complikning that MSNBC's "post-debate analysis featured dismay at the thought of candidates discussing (gasp) IDEAS and not flaying Donald Trump to their liking," further grumbling that host Stephanie Ruhle "is mad that the candidate field did not sufficiently entertain her. Substantive policy analysis is a Bad Thing now, inasmuch as it detracts from MSNBC’s raison d'être: to dump on Donald Trump and anyone who supports him or, in the case of GOP primary opponents, is deliberate and intentional about how they engage him. This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in 2023." Bonilla didn't explain how the candidates' refusal to talk about Trump must be considered anything other than avoidance.

Tim Graham spent a Nov. 9 post nit-picking debate fact-checks, such as this desperate gem:

Sen. Tim Scott said gas prices are “40% higher right now than they were just a little over two years ago.” Brian Cheung pounced: " This is false. A gallon of regular gas costs about $3.40 per gallon on average this week, compared with $3.41 per gallon in November 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

He said "just a little over two years ago." Nitpickers. If he'd said "three years ago," they would have said part of that was under Trump.

Graham offered no evidence that a more generous definition of "a little over two years ago" would have in any way made Scott's claim any more accurate.

Curtis Houck whined that a debate that was skipped by the leading Republican candidate wasn't being taken seriously enough:

While NBC’s Today gave predictably sober, serious coverage Thursday to its Republican presidential debate from the night before, ABC’s Good Morning America lampooned the debate as a pointless trip into the “Twilight Zone” and “divorced from reality” and CBS Mornings dismissed its necessity given the “disciplined” and “smart” race being run by the Donald Trump campaign.

After a recap of the debate’s big moments from senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos turned to chief Washington correspondent and soon-to-be three-time-bestselling anti-Trump author Jon Karl and complimented him for “hav[ing] the perfect headline for this debate: the Twilight Zone debate.”

[...]

Sure, Karl can huff and puff about the dangers of Trump, but no one should be bamboozled into thinking Karl isn’t in it for the Resistance cash and clicks and thus would be fine with infinite Trump campaigns.

As if Houck isn't in it for the right-wing cash and the clicks.He also identified nothing wrong with any of Karl's books.

Nicholas Fondacaro was upset that the debate was accurately identified as a contest for also-rans, not the main event:

MSNBC’s response to the previous two Republican presidential debates was to write them off as not worth anything and insist they knew who the nominee would be. And if you thought their tune would change just because their sister network, NBC was the one hosting the debate Wednesday night, you were very wrong. According to Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell, the debate was held in the event former President Trump “chokes on a cheeseburger” and dies.

O’Donnell began his comments by bragging that this was “the first Republican debate I’ve watched” and “did not have to participate in any of this” because he was “luckily” enough to be “working at 10:00 p.m. during the previous Republican debates.”

“This is the debate for, you know, in case Trump chokes on a cheeseburger. That is what this debate is. If somehow, Trump falls out, it's going to be DeSantis or Haley. That’s what it looks like,” he decried the whole idea of GOP candidates speaking to GOP voters.

Unsurprisingly, Fondacaro did not criticize Trump for evading this opportunity to speak to GOP voters.

WND Still Falsely Suggesting That Obama Killed His Chef
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Part of WorldNetDaily's recent bout of Obama Derangement Syndrome has included falsely smearing him as having a role in the drowning death of his chef, which authorities have ruled was accidental. Despite the utter lack of proof behind that narrative, Joe Kovacs tried to revive it anyway in an Oct. 22 article:

Three months after Barack Obama's family chef died in a mysterious drowning off Martha's Vineyard, newly released records reveal the former president's presence at the emergency scene.

The disclosure comes from Judicial Watch, which announced Friday it "received 40 pages of records from the Massachusetts State Police that indicate the presence of Barack Obama for a witness interview in the death investigation of the Obamas' personal chef Tafari Campbell."

The heavily redacted records indicate Barack Obama arrived at the emergency response scene via motorcade. A short time later, a cold, wet woman, who was a witness, arrived. The next morning, the eyewitness was interviewed in the Obama residence, again with Barack Obama present. The records also detail the existence of a Secret Service video of Campbell and his paddleboarding companion entering the water, and the Secret Service emergency response in the immediate aftermath of the drowning. The state police records show they concluded "no foul play" in Campbell's "accidental" death.

The fatal incident took place on Sunday, July 23, and the documents were provided to Judicial Watch in response to a July 25 Massachusetts Public Records Law request for all records relating to the death of Campbell.

Just days after the mystery incident, Obama was photographed with bandaged fingers, as WND reported.

In fact, there is nothing "mysterious" about Campbell's drowning -- it was ruled an accident. He fell off his paddleboard and wasn't wearing a life jacket, and he drowned in eight feet of water. That Obama later arrived at the scene of the drowning proves nothing except to conspriacy theorists and Obama-haters like Kovacs. Further, the "bandaged fingers" of Obama that Kovacs noted and which WND previously hyped was actually golf tape designed to prevent blisters and split calluses while golfing, and Obama has been previously photographed wearing it.

Kovacs put "extremely murky" in the headline of this article in an apparent bid to increase suspicious about Obama; in fact, the phrase appears in the article as a description of the water Campbell drowned in, not anything Obama did or has been accused of doing.

This is shoddy and dishonest writing by Kovacs attempting to manufacture a conspriacy where none exists. No wonder people don't trust WND.

MRC's Graham Pushes Matthew Shepard Revisionism
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Tim Graham complained that "The 25th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming became another opportunity to promote the LGBTQ agenda and denigrate conservative opposition" in an Oct. 22 post:

All this 25th anniversary hoopla overlooks major problems for the "gay hate crime" angle. Billy Binion at Reason posted a piece headlined "Matthew Shepard's Murder Was Almost Certainly Not an Anti-Gay Hate Crime." Something didn't add up.

It wasn't until the prominent gay journalist Stephen Jimenez published his 2013 book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, that those gaps started to narrow significantly. [Aaron] McKinney and Shepard reportedly were connected by the drug trade, with Shepard set to receive a $10,000 shipment of methamphetamine around the time he was killed. Also relevant is that McKinney was allegedly not traumatized by advances from Shepard, as the two had been sexually involved.

Anyone care to challenge those allegations? The Jimenez book has been ignored for 10 years now.

Binion added that the AP reported in 2018 that Shepard assailant Russell Henderson claimed "neither he nor McKinney was motivated by anti-gay hatred when they offered Shepard a ride home from a bar. Instead, he said, they were out to rob him of money and possibly drugs when they drove him to the edge of town on the night of Oct. 6, 1998."

Graham omitted the fact that the AP article also reported that McKinney tried to mount a "gay panic" defense at his murder trial, but the judge blocked it.If he wasn't "traumatized," why did he push such a defense? Graham probably doesn't want to answer that question.

He also probably doesn't want to talk about how problematic Jimenez's book is.  As one reviewer noted, he plays fast and loose with quoted material, admitting that he invented dialogue "I did not personally hear; nor could the characters themselves recall every word exactly from memory," and he did not identify in the book what dialogus is real and what is invented. Jimenez also failed to offer credible evidence to back up his claim that Shepard was a major drug dealer. The lead sheriff's investigator on  Shepard's death stated that Jimenez's book contains "factual errors and lies." Then there's also the question of motive behind the book, given that Jimenez is a longtime friend of one of Henderson's defense attorneys -- it comes off a bid for leniency for the killers, given how they have changed their stories.

Neveretheless, Graham went on to whine that "when the Left has made a legend, they 'print the legend' and ignore inconvenient facts." But what he's portraying as "facts" is nothing but a right-wing legend, designed to ignore facts inconvenient to right-wingers in order to perpetuate the legend that LGBT people don't face violence because of who they are.Desprte working for decades in his job, he still doesn't (or deliberately won't) understand that just because a right-wing narrative may advance the story of the day, that doesn't mean it's true.

NEW ARTICLE -- Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks, Part 5: Pronoun Meltdown
Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist kept up his condescension toward transgender people, and he cheered that his fellow right-wingers and even his own granddaughter hate LGBTQ people as much as he does. Read more >>

MRC Has Found A New Democratic Presidential Candidate To Ironically Support
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center may have all but abandoned Robert Kennedy Jr. when he stopped being a Democratic presidential candidate, but it has found a new Democratic candidate it can ironically support in the hope of hurting President Biden's re-election hopes. Nicholas Fondacaro kicked off the ironic defense in an Oct. 27 post:

On Friday, Minnesota Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips threw his hat into the presidential race to challenge President Biden in the Democratic Party primary. And despite their broadcast competitors finding some time for it on their morning and evening newscasts, ABC’s Good Morning America and World News Tonight refused to give Phillips’ campaign any oxygen. Likely hoping it would suffocate before the caucuses and primaries kicked off next year.

World News Tonight didn’t want to give their viewers an opportunity to think about voting for Phillips over Biden, but they did find time to hype how you could vote to name a baby emperor penguin at Sea World! They spent 1 minute and 31 seconds on that story. They also allocated 15 seconds for rivers on Mars and 17 seconds for Taylor Swift becoming a billionaire.

Over on CBS Mornings, they spent 3 minutes and 39 seconds on Phillips’ challenge to Biden but Democratic donor and co-host Gayle King scoffed at him and even insinuated he had no campaign staff. “[H]e showed us that he's got at least two friends. I'm sure he has more than that. Does he have a campaign staff? Does he have a following?” she jabbed.

By the time CBS Evening News rolled around, they were tired of Phillips and chose to dedicate 24 seconds to local weather reports.

Fondacaro unsurprisingly gave a cookie to Fox News for adhering to the narrative:

Fox News Channel’s Special Report gave Phillip’s campaign launch a solid 2 minutes and noted that he had a habit of pushing for younger blood in Democratic Party leadership positions. “The 54-year-old Phillips called on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step aside last year. This presidential quixotic quest mirrors that,” reported senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram.

Pergram also highlighted the internal struggle Democrats were having over who they wanted to be their nominee. “An early October Fox News poll of registered voters found 53 percent wanting someone other than President Biden as the nominee,” he noted. “Phillips runs because he believes another Biden candidacy could inadvertently elect former President Trump.”

After noting the “shadow campaign” of California Democrat Gavin Newsom, Pergram concluded: “The entry by Phillips into the presidential sweepstakes reflects Democratic fractures. The Democrat's left-wing coalition is splinting over support for Israel.”

Fondacaro didn't explain why Fox News' coverage of Phillips was worth his praise since it, like he,only care about Phillips as a potential spoiler and do not actually want him to be president.

Fondacaro brought his ironic support for Phillips to his daily hate-watch of "The View" in an Oct. 30 post:

Since last Friday, ABC News has avoided mentioning President Biden’s new primary challenger Congressman Dean Phillips (D-MN) on their flagship newscasts (Good Morning America and World News Tonight). They relegated all mentions of Phillips’ campaign to side programming like America This Morning (at 5 a.m.), This Week (their Sunday show), and The View, which spent part of their Monday episode railing against Phillips for having “a lot” of “arrogance” for thinking he could challenge Joe Biden, “the GOAT” of presidents.

After playing a sound bit of Phillips’ interview with CBS News, racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin shouted: “Who is that?!” She then proceeded to ridiculously suggest that Phillips shouldn’t have jumped into the race without first turning out the entire Democratic Party base ahead of time and how dare he run against the savior of the country:

[...]

Fake conservative Ana Navarro, who once bragged about introducing her “wealth clients” to allegedly corrupt Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (NJ), discounted Phillips as just a “wealthy guy in his 50s having a midlife crisis and I guess instead of buying a convertible corvette or a building a yacht, he decided to run for president.”

“I think it takes a lot of…arrogance to in November – practically, we're in November tomorrow – think that you can all of a sudden do this,” she squealed. “Look, the primary in New Hampshire is less than three months away. The caucuses in Iowa are less than three months away. You don't just drop, like, manna from heaven and think, here I am right now, your savior warrior.” She failed to mention Biden was not on the New Hampshire ballot.

It’s ironic Navarro would mention that buying a convertible Corvette was a sign of a midlife crisis when that’s exactly what Biden did, but then again she was a Biden sycophant. “Mother Teresa could resuscitate and I would still support Joe Biden...Frankly, I'm going to support Joe Biden until Joe Biden tells me he's not running. Until then, I’m not entertaining this,” she proclaimed last month.

Fondacaro didn't dispute any of the points the hosts made about Phillips. Anbd, again, it's worth noting that he thinks Hostin is a "racist" because he doesn't understdand how metaphors work, and the only example he provided of her being "anti-Semitic" a criticism of Israel, which does not equate to anti-Semitism.

Fondacaro got mad that it was pointed out that Phillips has virtually no chance of winning in a Nov. 13 post:

While trying to downplay Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips’s chances against President Biden in the Democratic primary as “a long shot,” CNN This Morning engaged in attacks fit for a serious challenger. In the first hour of the show, they hinted that Phillips might be a racist because he didn’t go around to kiss the rings of the racial special interest groups that supposedly represented the Democratic Party base. And in the third hour, that narrative gave way to openly worrying about him harming Biden’s brand with attack ads.

CNN anchor and chief national affairs analyst Kasie Hunt did a sit-down interview with Phillips. But before she played any soundbite, she wanted it known that “the White House doesn't view Phillips’ challenge as a serious one that's going to ultimately result in him winning the nomination. Neither do most Democrats in Washington.”

This was followed up with a clip of Hunt sparing [sic] with Phillips because he dared to compare Biden’s low approval rating with that of former President Jimmie Carter [sic].

[...]

Following a clip of Phillips defending himself, Hunt boasted that she asked him if he kissing the rings of Democratic Party power brokers and race hustlers: “I asked him specifically: did you reach out to the Congressional Black Caucus, to the NAACP, to the Urban League ahead of your bid or since you announced your running and the answer was ‘No.’”

CNN political commentator Errol Louis huffed that Phillips wasn’t just ignoring the racial radicals of the Democratic Party, he was ignoring the other radical elements. “What is it he's trying to do? There are other parts of the Democratic base, which is ultimately a cluster of coalitions that could also see they feel disrespected. Did he reach out to the environmentalists? Did he reach out to the women's movement? Did he reach out to the labor movement?” he huffed.

Louis went on to suggest Phillips was only trying “to raise his profile to maybe end up with some kind of consulting gig or something like that when the smoke clears.”

In the third hour of the show, co-host Phil Mattingly scoffed at Phillips associating his campaign with the word “courage.” “Well, Phil, never be surprised by how someone who thinks that they should be president can believe that they can be president,” Hunt jabbed.

Hey Kasie, you should tell that to Hillary Clinton.

In none of these post did Fondacaro explain why he cares so much about a Democratic presidential candidate even though, as a right-wing activist, he will never vote for him and will viciously attack him if by some miracle Phillips actually does get the Democratic nomination because his loyalty is to Donald Trump.

Newsmax Offers Surprisingly Balanced Coverage Of Musk's Battle With ADL
Topic: Newsmax

Like the Media Research Center, Newsmax is turning into a bit of a PR agent for Elon Musk and defending him against criticism -- but, unlike the Media Research Center, its coverage was actually somewhat balanced. Mark Swanson hyped Musk's battle with the Anti-Defamation League over its exposure of rampant anti-Semitism on Twitter in an Sept. 4 article:

Elon Musk's weekend tussle with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) spilled over into Monday when the owner of X — formerly known as Twitter — accused the global anti-hate activist of being the "biggest generators of anti-Semitism " on his platform.

It capped a weekend of posts from Musk that sided with an Irish white nationalist over his #BanTheADL trend. Musk also blamed the ADL for the loss of advertising revenue on X since he took it over, and suggested an anti-defamation lawsuit against the anti-defamation organization.

Ironically, Musk's tweets all came in the aftermath of new X CEO Linda Yaccarino's meeting with ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on Wednesday. That meeting was about the ADL's concern over a spike in racist, antisemitic, and homophobic content on X since Musk bought it last year for $44 billion.

Later Monday, Musk tweeted out, "To be super clear, I'm pro free speech, but against antisemitism of any kind."

The barrage began Saturday, when Musk liked a post by YouTube influencer Keith O'Brien, who goes by Keith Woods online and once called himself a "raging antisemite," over the trending "#BanTheADL," which he started. O'Brien's quest began the day after the Yaccarino-Greenblatt meeting.

"Perhaps we should run a poll on this?" Musk tweeted, adding that the ADL "has tried to very hard to strangle X/Twitter." Musk is an avowed "free-speech absolutist."

Then early Monday morning, Musk tweeted, "The ADL, because they are so aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts for even minor infractions, are ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform!"

Newsmax also published a Sept. 5 wire article on Musk's threat to sue the ADL. A Sept. 6 article by Nicole Wells gave space to the ADL's response:

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt fired back at Elon Musk over the tech billionaire’s accusations that the organization has been “trying to kill” X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

“I can’t really tell you what’s in his head,” Greenblatt said during an interview with CNN Primetime host Abby Phillip. “I’ve read the same tweets that you have.”

[...]

Musk’s latest comments, his “frivolous lawsuit,” and his interaction with controversial figures such as white supremacist Nick Fuentes have only served to bolster “bad actors with very hateful intent,” Greenblatt said.

Wells followed that, though with a Sept. 13 article filled with Musk getting defensive:

Tech billionaire Elon Musk says the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has called for censorship of conservatives on a variety of social media platforms, was "instrumental" in getting former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, now known as X.

The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla purchased the social media platform in October 2022 for $44 billion after months of waffling, verbal mudslinging, and lawsuits. Trump was permanently banned from the platform in January 2021.

"The ADL was instrumental in getting Donald Trump deplatformed," Musk told the "All-In Podcast." "And then when we restored the account, they made it super clear that they regarded simply restoring his account ... that constituted hate speech.

"He hasn't even said anything," he continued. "He has to at least say something, or post something, for there to be incremental hateful content. This is absurd. And what's this got to do with antisemitism? Donald Trump's son-in-law is Jewish; he has Jewish grandkids. I'm pretty sure he's not antisemitic, OK? I mean, he was at their wedding."

Wells uncritically repeated unsupported claims by Musk that, contrary to reporting by the ADL and others that anti-Semitism has increased on Twitter since he took over, there are supposedly "third parties that have all the data analyzed and said, actually, there's less hate speech.

A Sept, 14 article by Jim Thomas noted that Musk was slated to meet with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Neanyahu, which "marks the latest endeavor by Musk's associates and allies to defuse a conflict with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)." He added that "Influential Jewish figures have stepped forward in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, as conveyed to the Washington Post." That was followed by a Sept. 18 wire article on the meeting.

Newsmax also publisehd an Oct. 4 wire article noting Musk blamingb advertising declines at Twitter om the ADL that also tgave space for a response that "the ADL said any allegation that it caused losses to X were false. The organization added it was prepared to begin advertising itself on the platform 'to bring our important message on fighting hate to X and its users.'"

WND Cheers Leak Of Shooter's Manifesto To Portray Transgender People As Violent
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've shown how WorldNetDaily obsessed over ther alleged manifesto of Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale, demanding its release because Hale was allegedly transgender and it could be used to disparage all transgender people as violent psychopaths. That concern-trolling continued in an Oct. 17 article by Bob Unruh:

Students now have been scheduled to return to classes at The Covenant School in Nashville early in 2024, less than a year after a shooter killed three children and three adults in an attack on the educational facility at Covenant Presbyterian Church last March.

Audrey Hale, 28, shot her way through glass doors into the school, and fired more than 100 more rounds and destroyed the lives of Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs and William Kinney, each 9, and Cynthia Peak, 61; Katherine Koonce, 60, and Mike Hill, 61.

Covenant students have been attending classes at Brentwood Hills Church of Christ since the attack.

But the fight over the violence, even though Hale was killed by police officers, is far from over, as there are groups that have insisted on her rantings in writing be released so the public may have the fullest information about a motive, and lawyers for parents and school have claimed releasing them would cause "harm" to students.

David Rausch, of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said the writings are "journal-type rantings" but they remain secret, even though open-government advocates have explained state public records laws require their release.

The Tennessee Star bluntly reported that those lawyers contend the information would be so damaging to students that it would '"lead to suicides."

Unruh somehow forgot to mention that the movement to demand the manifesto's release is centered around Hale's transgender identity and largely comes from anti-LGBTQ groups.

When right-wing garbage human Steven Crowder somehow got a hold of a few pages of Hale's notebook -- not really a manifesto -- and leaked, them, Unruh was happy to  hype it as "political terrorism" (and make a bit deal of and Hale's transgender identity) in a Nov. 6 article:

The long-concealed "manifesto" of Audrey Hale, 28, the transgender woman who shot up a Christian school in Nashville earlier this year, killing three children and three adults, reveals that she hoped for a high "death count," according to a report from social-media personality Steven Crowder.

He posted images online of what he said were copies of the document that has been withheld by authorities who say they are investigating.

[...]

The fact that the document has not been available already was pointed out by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who said, "Every shooter’s manifesto should be public. There is absolutely no reason to hide this. Unless of course our government wants to hide the fact that these shooters are on SSRIs and usually brainwashed by leftist’s propaganda."

Crowder explained in an online video the manifesto was leaked. Authorities said Hale once attended the school, and died at the scene of the shooting.

[...]

Commentator Andy Ngo wrote on X, formerly Twitter,, "BREAKING: I have reviewed the manifesto of the Nashville trans school shooter (scoop first obtained by @scrowder). Audrey 'Aiden' Hale expressed a violent hatred of those 'little crackers" [children] with "white privilege.'"

X user DC_Draino said on the platform, "This is why the DOJ suppressed the Nashville Manifesto. It shows how Leftist ideology radicalized a Trans shooter to murder Christian children. This was political terrorism & the Biden regime tried to cover it up We will not be silent after these children were slaughtered."

Police earlier said Hale's document would be released, but that has not happened but has been delayed several times, the latest over "pending litigation."

Unruh made sure to quote another right-winger making the transgender link to violence more explicit:

At RVM News a commentary said, "Authorities have had this information for quite some time. While you’re looking at the disgusting thoughts of a mentally ill transgender murderer, ask yourself why they would keep this hidden from the public…"

Jack Cashill -- who loves nothing better than a good conspiracy theory, no matter how bogus or implausible -- spent his Nov. 8 column obsessing over the manifesto pages and blaming critical race theory for it:

Presuming that the manifesto fragment leaked this past week to podcaster Steven Crowder is legitimate, the answer may be that young white people like Hale have been taught to hate their own race.

At the core of critical race theory, CRT, is the notion that white people are, directly or indirectly, responsible for all the evils of the world. Complicating matters is that CRT-influenced educators are quick to assign an "identity" to students based not on their character but on their race.

Kids get the message. Either in school or through social media, they hear repeatedly that white people enslaved blacks, killed Indians and despoiled the earth.

For people of color, this message is reassuring. It absolves them of responsibility for their own personal failures and encourages them to project blame on to the white people in their midst, their fellow students included.

For white students, the message is onerous. Says Chris Rufo, the nation's most effective CRT foe, "This ideology, critical race theory, is a cynical, pessimistic, fatalistic, entrapping ideology."

Cashill is doing Rufo's bidding here; he once wrote in an now apparently deleted tweet that his goal was to "put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category" and, thus, "to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.” It's also worth noting that Cashill has been leaning more toward race-bnaiting content of late, having written a VDARE-endorsed book seeking to absolve white people of racism for fleeing cities in the 1960s.

Cashill did work right-wing transgender hate into his column, declaring that by refusing tyo release the manifesto, "The FBI was not protecting an investigation. It was protecting a narrative":

According to an FBI study, only 3.8% of mass shooters have been female. To prevent future such shootings, it would have been helpful to know whether Hale was taking any hormonal drugs that might have caused her to flip out.

We will likely never know. Other than Twitter, the major social media sites are blocking posts about the manifesto. To the degree that the major media talk about it at all, it is to cheer on the hunt for the "leaker."

Hale's entry ends: "I hope I have a high death count. Ready to die ha ha Aiden." She/her Audrey got the death count she hoped for, but the major media and the FBI refuse to give he/him Aiden the time of day.

Cashill didn't explain why he thinks "hormonal drugs" turn transgender people into violent killers.

NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's Dirty War Against George Soros: The Next Generation
Topic: Media Research Center
In addition to spewing its usual hate of George Soros for the sin of not being conservative, the Media Research Center also targeted Soros' son for the sin of taking over his father's philanthropic efforts. Read more >>

MRC Weirdly Quiet About Musk's Lawsuit Against Media Matters
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center loves it when Elon Musk gets all ligitious -- it cheered when Musk sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate for exposing how hate and lies on Twitter (well, X) have spread since Musk took it over, and it so eagerly hyped Musk's threat to sue the Anti-Defamation League for pointing out anti-Semitism on Twitter that it called in racist cartoonist Scott Adams as backup. So you'd think it would be all over Musk's threat to file a "thermonuclear" lawsuit against Media Matters, which he ultimately made good on (though past his original declared timeline), for its research showing ads from major advertisers being placed next to tweets filled with hate speech and neo-Nazi views, which caused several of those advertisers to drop their ads. The presumed goal of Musk in suing his critics, of course, is to intimidate them into silence and to play victim so right-wingers will come to the defense of the world's richest man (mission accomplished).

But the MRC has remained silent about the lawsuit. Media Matters is the liberal counterpart to the MRC (though it produces trustworthy and better quality content), so you'd think it would want to take the opportunity to knock its competition down a peg. The MRC, though, has an odd habit of trying to pretend Media Matters doesn't exist, so references to it are relatively sparse, and it doesn't refer to Media Matters unless it feels it has to. A Nov. 5 post by Tim Graham, for example, is all about the defensive response of right-wing radio host Mark Levin to a report from "the leftist site Media Matters" quoting him claiming that the parents of CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer "weren't victims in one way or another, of the Holocaust" though his parents were, in fact, Holocaust survivors; when CNN hyped that bogus claim, Graham sneered that "CNN and Media Matters are closely aligned." (By contrast, the MRC and Fox News are so closely aligned that several former MRC employees now work for Fox News -- something that cannot be said about Media Matters and CNN.) A Nov. 8 column by Graham, meanwhile, complained that Media Matters, "a passionate LGBT advocacy group," pointed out that violent threats against people and organizations often follow the highlighting of them on the virulently homophobic Twitter account Libs of TikTok.

That, as of this writing, is the most recent mention of Media Matters at the MRC's NewsBusters; Musk's lawsuit was filed Nov. 20. Its further-right counterpart, MRCTV, didn't do a story on the lawsuit itself, but there was a Nov. 21 post by Nick Kangadis on how Texas attorney general Ken Paxton opened a partisan investigation into the group. Kangadis labeled Media Matters as a "far-left outlet" without explanation, and he uncritically quoted Paxton calling it "a radical anti-free speech organization." If the MRC thinks Media Matters is "far-left," can we call the MRC "far-right"?

So why the silence? Perhaps because it knows that, by the same logic Musk used to sue Media Matters, the MRC could be sued by its targets -- particularly Google.

Over the past year or so, it has deliberately misinterpreted the results of a study about how Gmail works, claiming that it shows how Gmail's spam filter marks more conservative-related fundraising emails as spam than liberal lines -- even though the study authors say that's not what the study found, and even though the alleged bias goes away as Gmail learns from user behavior. It also whined when the lawsuit got tossed out of court. The MRC has also issued another partisan attack on Google, alleging that using a specific search term that no normal human would actually use, the results didn't rank Republican candidates high enough or that certain presidential candidates weren't ranked highly enough. One key claim in Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters was that its finding of prominient ads next to hate speech was not the experience of the typical user and Media Matters gamed things to achieve its results. The MRC can similarly be sued by Google for gaming its so-called research to crafting a search term to achieve the biased results it wanted, which it then exploited for partisan gain, which then may have had the effect of driving customers away from Google.

The MRC presumably doesn't want to be sued by Google over its shoddy, partisan work designed for political gain over actual fairness, and so it would not like to remind people of said shoddy, partisan work that -- one might call it fraudulent manipulation, as Paxton accused Media Matters of doing -- may have opened it to legal exposure. That, along with its general reluctance to acknowledge that there's competition in the media-monitoring space, is the likely reason it doesn't want to get much prominence to Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters.

(Disclosure: I used to work for Media Matters.)

WND's Brown Wants Transgender People To Be Denied An Identity
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown's hatred of LGBT peple continued in his Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily column, in which he cheered the hate of his fellow right-wingers:

A June 2023 article states that, "Although the LGBT community can count on a lot of public and political sympathy, support for this minority group seems to be declining."

Based on polling data from 30 mostly Western countries, the article noted, "People are generally more positive about gay couples raising children, but similar patterns can be discerned there too. … Over the past two years, support for this practice received significantly less support in countries such as the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden."

On Dec. 29, 2022, NBC News ran this ominous headline: "2021 was supposed to be the 'worst year' for LGBTQ rights – then came 2022. Even with the enactment of a historic same-sex marriage bill, advocates describe a harrowing year for LGBTQ Americans."

[...]

I am simply pointing out that there is a serious pushback against LGBTQ+ activism (or, "rights," depending on one's perspective), with much of it a reaction to radical trans activism.

Just think of the Budweiser and Target boycotts. Even non-Christian voices like Joe Rogan were saying, "This is a bridge too far."

It's the same with the celebration of drag and drag queens. Many Americans who said yes to "love is love" and who affirmed same-sex couples said, "We didn't sign up for this."

Brown did not explain why LGBT people do not deserve rights.

Brown advocated for banning the word "transgender" to describe transgender people in his Oct. 4 column:

There are people born with biological or chromosomal abnormalities who do not fit perfectly into the male-female categories. They are called intersex (more precisely, those affected by disorders of sexual development, representing .018% of the population). They deserve our sensitivity and compassion, but they are the exceptions who prove the rule of the gender binary. There are also people who, to the core of their being, feel that they are trapped in the wrong body, often experiencing internal conflict and pain for many years. They too deserve our sensitivity and compassion. But to call them "transgender" is to do them a disservice.

Simply stated, since transgender identity, in sharp distinction from the condition of intersex, is a psychological condition, that identity is a perception rather than a reality. Consequently, to refer to transgender identity as if it were a biological reality is to do a disservice to the sufferer, not to mention damage society as a whole and deny biological realities and gender distinctions. (Obviously, in saying this, I do not believe that, from birth, trans-identifying people have different brains than others. If that were true, then their condition would be biologically grounded after all.)

To those of you who agree with what I have stated, this is nothing new. I am simply preaching to the choir. Yet there is a reason for this preaching. (I'll return to that shortly.)

Brown went on to insist that conservatives deny that transgender people are transgender:

To be clear, on a personal level, I have no point of reference for the experiences of people like Benaron or Shuping, or, for that matter, people like "Caitlyn" Jenner. I cannot begin to imagine what conflicts or pain or confusion they have lived with, nor do I pretend to understand.

But that doesn't mean for a moment that we should affirm their perceived identities.

To the contrary, the moment we affirm the outward symptoms rather than continue to look for inward cures, we do what is convenient rather than what is best.

[...]

Again, I understand that perception may feel like reality. But that does not make it reality, and it is high time that we take a stand for reality.

This means that, at the least, conservative news sites should stop using preferred gender pronouns, regardless of what professional guidelines call for. It's time to buck the system. (It would be great if all news sites stopped using such terminology, but obviously, those who affirm transgender identity would have no reason to do so.)

It also means that those of us who share my convictions should no longer refer to someone as, say, "a transgender male" but rather as a woman who identifies as a man. If we do use the "trans" word at all, it should be in the phrase "trans-identifying." That's because transgender, as a distinct biological reality, simply does not exist. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.

As he is wont to do, Brown dishonestly framed his hate as love:

I personally believe that, in the not too distant future, society as a whole will recognize this to be true. Why not, then, do the right thing today rather than simply swim with the tide when things shift in the years ahead? That's what compromisers do. People of courage and conviction do the right thing today, regardless of cost or consequences.

And we can do this while working to help those struggling with these deep internal conflicts and while showing them love on an individual level, even if they are put off by our style of communication.

Love does what's right, even when it's unpopular.

That's because love is driven by reality rather than perception. Love is driven by truth.

Brown didn't explain how such hateful denial of someone else's identity can possibly be portrayed as "love."

MRC's Graham Whines That Right-Wing Reality Doesn't Mesh With Actual Reality
Topic: Media Research Center

Tim Graham began his Oct. 4 Media Research Center column with a lecture:

On an average day, the Left tries to dominate our culture and our politics by pretending it doesn’t actually exist. By that, I mean our media outlets and Hollywood propagandists rarely speak in public about being “liberals” or “progressives” or ideologues of any kind. They organize for nebulous-sounding causes, like “women’s rights” (abortion) and “civil rights” (racial quotas/equity) and “the planet” (fossil fuel abolition).

The exception came on CBS Mornings on September 29, during a segment promoting a new book by Republican-loathing leftist historian Heather Cox Richardson titled Democracy Awakening. The Left routinely insists they are “Democracy,” and “Democracy” is them.

CBS lauded Richardson upon arrival as a “one-woman Time magazine,” which certainly implies liberal propaganda. But they pretend it doesn’t.

Graham thinks he and his fellow right-wingers aren't ideologues, even as he dismisses any idea that's even slightly less conservative than he is as coming from "the Left." He continued by noting that Richardson was asked about the purported liberal tilt of higher eduction, and he hated the answer she gave because she invoked a prominent right-wing figure to rebut:

Richardson took that opportunity to unpack a box of lies. She suggested “one of the foundational documents” for conservative politicians is William F. Buckley’s 1951 classic God and Man at Yale: The Superstition of Academic Freedom. Let’s hope that’s still true.

Then she described Buckley’s argument in the most ridiculously inaccurate terms: “And what his position was that we should not focus on fact-based arguments when we tried to move the country forward. Because if you use fact-based arguments, people voted for the terms of the New Deal, the idea that the government should regulate business, protect a social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights.”

The Left thinks they are Democracy, and they are also Facts. Richardson underlined the Stephen Colbert position with a straight face: “That what we're really talking about is the idea of basing our reality in reality, you know. And that -- you know, what do they say? Reality has a liberal bias. But I think all of us want to get back to a world that has our feet under us with actual facts.”

Graham thinks right-wing ideology is Facts and that anything that counters it is, by definition, not "fact-based." He continued:

She claimed Buckley's thesis was anti-factual: “Instead of actually using fact-based arguments, what we really should do was indoctrinate them, and that’s my word not his, but push the idea of Christianity and free-market capitalism.”

Richardson typically suggests it’s not “indoctrination” for professors to use the classroom to advocate for the superiority of atheism, socialism, and critical race theory. That’s just building “democracy” with “fact-based arguments.”

In 1951, the leftist tilt of America’s elite colleges was just beginning. By now, the Left’s “long march through” academia is complete. Today, professors have to worry that woke youngsters will get them fired, and “academic freedom” would save no professor from the mob.

But Graham offered no evidence that Buckley's book is anything but an anti-liberal screed. He also ignores the fact that the conservatives' plan for countering purported liberal "indoctrination" in higher ed -- which he doesn't prove is actually happening -- is to replace it with right-wing indoctrinaton, which is what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently doing to Florida's New College.

Graham concluded by huffing: "In the end, the Left doesn’t tolerate dissent. Everyone who speaks against them should be punished." He's projecting, of course; the very modus operandi of his employer is intolerance of anything that dissents from right-wing dogma and to punish anyone who speaks against those preferred narratives.

WND's Alexander Forgets That The Law Cares Nothing About Irony
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Rachel Alexander began her Oct. 23 WorldNetdaily column this way:

Democrats commit election fraud and few brave prosecutors and judges dare to ever punish them, so they get away with it. Whereas when a Republican merely pretends to commit an election crime in order to be a funny troll, the Democratic-controlled justice system puts him in prison.

Alexander forgets that the law cares nothing about irony -- if you are pretending to commit an election crime, you are still committing an election crime. Her whine continued:

Douglass Mackey tweeted fake images in 2016 encouraging Democrats to vote for Hillary Clinton by sending the text message "Hillary" to a number. The Biden DOJ sentenced him to seven months in prison this month for "conspiracy to interfere with potential voters' right to vote."

Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said Mackey engaged in "weaponized disinformation in a dangerous scheme to stop targeted groups, including black and brown people and women, from participating in our democracy." Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, said his tweets and memes were "nothing short of an assault on our democracy."

The law Mackey ostensibly violated prohibits conspiracies "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution." It was passed in 1870 to stop the Ku Klux Klan from intimidating blacks from voting.

The Department of Justice said several thousand people texted the number, but there is no indication prosecutors ever produced a single person who had said it stopped them from voting. Obviously, most of them were texting the number merely to see what would happen, and when they didn't receive a response, they weren't likely to think they had actually voted.

With all the heavy scrutiny on ballot security, and people extremely concerned about merely voting by mail, no one would realistically think you could vote for president by text. When people started hearing about his memes, they joked about them; no one took them seriously.

The fact that several thousand people retweeted Mackey's number showed that they did, in fact, take him seriously. Alexander continued:

The DOJ hyped everything up, including claiming that an "analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as one of the most significant influencers of the then-upcoming presidential election." Mackey had only 58,000 followers, no way near enough followers to be considered very influential. The DOJ accused him of targeting minorities since one of the memes was in Spanish and another featured a photo of a black woman.

But the number of followers is not the only measure of influence. As Huffington Post reporter Luke O'Brien told a Vermont radio station in 2018:

O'Brien used two methods to assess just how how far Mackey's reach extended during the presidential election: the MIT Media Lab's quantitative analysis of social media and news influencers, which found the Ricky Vaughan Twitter account "was more impactful ... than several major media outlets and figures such as NBC News and The Drudge Report."

He also assessed Mackey's influence as Ricky Vaughn based on his reporting on the alt-right and the white nationalist movement.

"I saw [the] Ricky Vaughn account appearing everywhere," O'Brien said. "People were re-tweeting this, white nationalists were re-tweeting this, mainstream Republicans were re-tweeting this account. It was impossible not to notice the impact of Ricky Vaughn if you were paying attention to far-right politics during the election."

That's right -- Mackey is a alt-right figure who promoted racist and anti-Semitic content along with his other stuff. Funny how Alexander failed to mention that fact.

Alexander then tried to play whataboutism:

Josh Hammer at The American Mind didn't think Mackey would actually be convicted since the case was so weak, and pointed out that a leftist who engaged in the exact same conduct, Kristina Wong, wasn't prosecuted. Her tweet is still up.

[...]

If Mackey deserves to be prosecuted, then Wong does too, and the Justice Department should also be investigating voter suppression by Democrats who disenfranchised Republicans. Otherwise it's selective prosecution and evidence the U.S. has become a banana republic.

Alexander omits inconvenient facts here too. First, Wong is a known comedian. Second, she offered no text number with which to vote. Third, Alexander offers no evidence that a single person acted on Wong's obviously joking advice, whereas thousands were documented acting on Mackey's advice.

MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

Curtis Houck began his summary of the Nov. 2 White House press briefing by smearing non-right-wqing reporters who ask about the plight of civilians in Gaza as pro-terrorist -- and, of course, fluffing his mancrush:

Thursday’s White House press briefing devolved into the liberal press corps consistently showing concern for Hamas terrorists and their citizens in Gaza and increasing scorn for Israel’s right to take out Hamas for their October 7 terror attacks. In contrast, Fox’s Peter Doocy grilled the National Security Council’s John Kirby over the Biden administration’s praise for Qatar despite its housing of Hamas leadership.

In Realville, Doocy Time began with a bang:“[T]alking about getting Americans out of Gaza, President Biden said, ‘I want to thank our partners in the region and particularly Qatar.’ The leader of Hamas lives in Qatar. So, why is President Biden thanking them for anything?”

Kirby was unamused: “Oh, geez, Peter. Take a step back here and look at this.”

Doocy dished it back:“‘Geez, Peter’?  They — they are a terrorist group that killed Americans and kidnapped Americans within the last month.”

Kirby refused to engage on the topic and instead hailed Qatar as “helpful in getting those Americans out” given their “lines of communication with Hamas that almost nobody else has” and argued “you would agree with me and everybody at your network would agree that getting the hostages out is a good thing.”

In Houck's world, Doocy is never wrong and the targets of his biased questioning are never right.

In his writeup of the Nov., 7 briefing, Houck again attacked reporters for not being conservatively correct and raising questions over Israel's actions in its war against Hamas and uncharacteristically praised Kirby for repeating conservative narratives:

On Tuesday, the National Security Council’s John Kirby went before fellow liberals who normally work as stenographers for power (i.e. Kirby and his friends), but during the Israel-Hamas war, Kirby has fended off questions ranging from the insane to the wrong to downright anti-Israel. This time, he was accused by a reporter for a Saudi-funded outlet of being a puppet for Israel and pressed by ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal to cut off aid to Israel.

Reporter Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of Saudi-funded Alarabiya had the questions about Kirby and the U.S. being under Israel’s control. She began her turn by wondering why the Biden administration hasn’t “embrac[ed] the dissent voices”.

But don't worry, Houck found time to attack his usual irrationally hated nemesis, Karine Jean-Pierre for not explicitly criticizing during the briefing the tearing down of posters featuring Israeli hostages of Hamas when NBC reporter Peter Alexander:

After the briefing, Jean-Pierre put out a tweet stating the obvious that doing such a thing is wrong and distressing to those who know and care about the hostages.

But Alexander and his NBC colleagues chose to be cowards and not blast this mealy-mouthed behavior from Jean-Pierre on NBC Nightly News or Wednesday’s Today.

Of course Houck found a way to attack non-right-wing reporters, even when they do something conservative-friendly. A reporter can never be right-wing enough for the likes of Houck and the MRC.

Fact-Checking [For Dummies Like WND's Tomczak]
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Larry Tomczak has written a series of WorldNetDaily columns prefaced as being "for non-dummies." But he seems to think we're the dummies as he passes on falsehoods and misinformation in this columns. His Sept. 26 column, for example, is headlined "Understanding deception [for non-dummies],"in which he complained that some people whose cojnservatively correct Christianity he has previously hyped have become less aggressive and obnoxious about it, which he declared was "sad and scary." He didn't mention the irony of publishing a column about deception at WND, which is all about lying to its readers.

For his Oct. 3 column, headlined "Exposing progressivism (for non-dummies)," Tomczak uniroinically engaged in deception in the form of an anti-Biden screed:

Joe Biden regularly travels to cities campaigning, and raising millions touting how the nation is prospering as “Bidenomics” has revitalized the economy. Yet Americans are suffering with the worst inflation in 40 years; gas, grocery and clothing prices skyrocketing; and, interest rates keep rising, making home ownership a distant dream.

Civil disorder, property destruction and looting can be labeled “peaceful protests” and “victimless crimes that are the product of a racist society.” Progressives accept all the above with corrupt media behind them crafting deceptive narratives to advance their goals. They lack a moral code.

Tomczak offered no evidence that Biden is solely or even partially responsible for any of this. He went on to uncritically repeat right-wing talking points about people they disagree with:

Progressivism fits in the radioactive triumvirate of Progressive/ Marxist/ Socialist. The term is not original – it was dusted off from early America. The “Progressive Era” upgraded conditions in the late 1800s and early 1900s addressing problems as America transitioned to a more industrial and urban society. Endorsing women voting, exposing corrupt politicians, promoting morality and efficiency, improving working conditions, setting child labor laws and establishing health clinics enhanced everyone’s quality of life.

[...]

With civics not taught in schools, progressives controlling teachers’ unions (embedding propaganda in curriculums to “reimagine” history like “The 1619 Project”), the ignorance of the upcoming generations shouldn’t surprise us. Pew Research revealed 45% of 18-35-year-olds never even heard of Auschwitz the most infamous of Hitler’s death camps!

He went on to endorse Mark Levin's book "The Democrat Party Hates America," even though there's a massive typographical error in its title.

Tomczak began his Oct. 10 column, headlined "Preparation time is now! [for non-dummies]," this way:

History records, invasions of countries that caught citizens unprepared and resulted in devastating consequences lingering for lifetimes. My father came from Poland and knew how his country was one such victim.

On September 1, 1939, at 4:45 AM, Hitler’s once-Democrat Socialist Workers Party that morphed into Nazism, launched their blitzkrieg (“lightning war”) on an unprepared Poland. A total of 1.5 million troops stormed the nation by land, air and sea.

That's a take we haven't seen before. The Nazis were always Nazis and always right-wing nationalists; they were never socialists or Democrats.

Tomczak also asserted: "After Donald Trump neutralized ISIS and Taliban jihadists, Biden extended an olive branch to Iran, the gorilla in the room, pledging $6 billion to them for a flimsy agreement not to develop their nuclear capability." In fact, Trump "neutralized" neither.

Tomczak went on to hype one book: "'Letter to the American Church,' by Eric Metaxas, author of “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy,” is, in my humble opinion, the book of the decade!" Tomczak failed to disclose that Metaxas is notorious for perpetuating a quote falsely attributed to Bonhoeffer, which makes his other works dubiously trustworthy. He also touted a book by "journalist and historian, Bill O’Reilly." despite the fact that O'Reilly is neither.

MRC Keeps Up Attacks On Soros On Purported Hamas Links, Other Things
Topic: Media Research Center

While the Media Research Center was taking George Soros out of context to falsely portray him as a supporter of Hamas terrorism, it was attacking him on other fronts. Tom Olohan used an Oct. 13 post to invoke right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro -- whom we last saw here trying to defend Elon Musk's endorsement of an anti-Semitic tweet -- to portray Soros as the Jew you're allowed to hate:

Daily Wire founding editor-in-chief and editor emeritus Ben Shapiro has had enough of leftists holding their friends to one standard and their opponents to another.

During an Oct. 11 appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Shapiro contrasted the vehemence with which the left condemned Soros’ critics as antisemites with the consideration and excuse making the left shows to Hamas and its supporters. Shapiro said, “There’s an amazing double standard when it comes to anti-Semitism and its treatment in the media and the way it seems to work in the media these days is if somebody politically says something about George Soros, then they will be labeled a Nazi and if somebody actually says, ‘I am a Nazi,’ then they will say, ‘Well there’s probably some sort of justification over territorial disputes.’"

This is not the first time Shapiro has called out this double standard, “Soros spends lots of money backing progressive prosecutors. Saying so does not make you anti-Semitic,” Shapiro wrote in a 2022 post. “It makes you correct. And unsurprisingly, many of those who find dog-whistles in mentioning Soros are totally silent about Hamas firing rockets at Jews, and support Ilhan Omar.”

Olohan asserted that "If the media covered Soros fairly, they might note his vast donations to anti-Israel groups," but he didn't explain how, exactly, those groups are "anti-Israel" nor why nobody is allowed to criticize Israel.

The MRC also continued its usual guilt-by-association attacks:

• BUYING AN ELECTION? NYT Hypes Soros-Tied Eco-Extremist Group Spending $80M to Help Biden in 2024 (we don't recall the MRC ever portraying donations to Republican candidates as "buying an election")
• America First Legal Sues Soros-Funded Org for Censorship Collusion
• AUDIO: Mark Levin Tells Congress to Investigate George Soros

Meanwhile, the MRC was trying to perpetuate its dishonest Hamas-related attacks on Soros. Joseph Vazquez huffed in a Nov. 7 post:

Leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations finally released a statement condemning Hamas’ hellish attacks on Israel nearly three-and-a-half weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre. However, it did so while trying to make believe that the fortune it funneled into groups championing Hamas' barbarism didn’t exist.

The OSF Fact Sheet, “The Open Society Foundations in Israel and Palestine,” which supplemented the organization's Nov. 1 press release on Hamas, attempted to equivocate the conflict involving the Jewish state and the terrorist organization as a territorial dispute between Israel and “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” OSF flexed its decades-long bona fides of “proudly support[ing] efforts” to “contain escalating violence between state and non-state actors on both sides.” OSF had the audacity to claim that “[a]ll the groups we support are committed to nonviolence and adhere to the principle that human rights and safety should be enjoyed by Israelis and Palestinians alike, both currently and in whatever political solution eventually emerges in the region.” But this statement is demonstrably false. [Emphasis added.]

The MRC has shown that OSF has given to numerous pro-Hamas groups. The sordid list includes, but is not limited to: Al-Shabaka, the Middle East Children’s Alliance, the Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy and Dream Defenders, among others. Not only that, but Soros himself even called for the United States and Israel to embrace Hamas.

Two questions arise: Why would OSF feel the need to release a statement three and a half weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre? And why would it attempt to undercut its own record of funding pro-Hamas organizations?

Of course, Vazquez will never admit that his employer's dishonest smears of Soros prompted OSF to set the record straight. He laughably added: 'MRC Business reached out to Open Society Foundations for comment but received no response as of the publication of this article." As if OSF would want to legitimize Vazquez's bad-faith attacks on it.

Vazquez was at it again in a Nov. 10 post, ranting that the head of OSF made the argument that war is not the only solution to dealing with Hamas:

One of leftist billionaire George Soros’ chief henchmen clamored for Israel to employ diplomatic solutions in its conflict with Hamas after the latter’s genocidal Oct. 7 attacks on the Jewish state.Open Society Foundations president Lord Mark Malloch-Brown joined BBC Newsnight on Nov. 7 to give his organization’s position on the conflict, patronizing Israel on how it should deal with its attackers. His take was nothing short of ridiculous. Malloch-Brown claimed that there were “several other ways” of neutralizing the Hamas terrorists “rather than just — you know — beating the last one to the ground.” He lectured Israel, advocating that the country instead take a carrots-and-sticks approach to dealing with the terrorists: “You’ve got to use both the tools of diplomacy and military action but not compromise on the basic point that Israel must be guaranteed its security.” He even had the audacity to lecture that the reason why Palestinian military leadership repeatedly returns after being “taken out of the region” was because of the “absence of a two-state solution.” Utter nonsense.

However, Malloch-Brown’s position makes slightly more sense when recalling George Soros’ own writing in a 2007 Financial Times op-ed, where Soros ridiculously stated that the United States and Israel “must open the door to Hamas.” Malloch-Brown was apparently just channeling his boss’s anti-Israel sentiments and regurgitating them on live TV. In fact, Malloch-Brown himself previously expressed similar views when he was in the U.K. parliament. In 2007, Malloch-Brown outrageously called for Hamas to have a seat at the negotiating table before the House of Lords:

Vazquez screeched that this view was "absolutely horrific" -- but, again, he censored the fact that Hamas portrayed itself as a more moderate organization in 2007. Still, he conlcuded by huffing: 'Rule of thumb: Israel can’t negotiate with terrorists who don’t believe it even has the right to exist. But for the Soros lackeys at OSF, doing anything to push an agenda that’s advantageous to Hamas and detrimental to Israel appears to be the goal."