MRC Mad Mike Johnson's Right-Wing Extremism Is Accurately Reported Topic: Media Research Center
After blaming everyone but Republicans for Kevin McCarthy getting ousted as House speaker and trying to defend failed replacement Jim Jordan from everyone pointing out what a terrible person he is, the Media Research Center returned to defense mode when little-known right-winger Mike Johnson was abruptly chosen and elected as speaker. Alex Christy grumbled in an Oct. 25 post:
Before Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson officially became Speaker of the House on Wednesday, there was the seven-person pre-game panel on CNN’s Inside Politics. One of those panelists, senior political analyst Gloria Borger, was forced to concede that despite being “hugely conservative,” Johnson is “not the devil incarnate.”
Borger’s remarks as she recalled Reps. Jim Jordan and Tom Emmer’s failed bids, “I think he is a person who’s hard to demonize. You know, it's very easy to demonize somebody like a Jim Jordan, who’s a fire brand. He's out there and fighting and then Donald Trump can demonize an [Tom] Emmer because he didn't believe the election was rigged.”
No doubt, CNN is already busy trying to figure out how they can change that so they can include Johnson in that list, but for the moment, Borger continued, “But you had this kind, I don’t use the word milquetoast, that's not quite the right word, he's a serious person, who is not prone to getting in big, huge fights with people. He is known as a listener, I was told. He is hugely conservative, but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve all the time. So he can get along with moderates and listen to them and it will be interesting to see what happens with Ukraine aid, for example, but he’s not the devil incarnate.”
The suggestion that Jordan would have been the devil incarnate notwithstanding, CNN would never even use the words “hugely progressive” or “hugely liberal” let alone even come close to entertaining the idea that they were the Devil.
As Johnson's right-wing record became clear, Curtis Houck complained about it in another Oct. 25 post:
House Republicans were finally able to elect a new House speaker on Wednesday afternoon, selecting Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) to fill a 22-day vacancy. Not surprisingly, Johnson was met with a torrent of disgust and scorn on the Wednesday night network newscasts with ABC, CBS, NBC blasting Johnson as a “hardline,” “hard-right,” “ultra-conservative” who’s “staunchly anti-abortion”and “played a key role in efforts...to overturn” the 2020 election.
ABC’s World News Tonight was apoplectic with senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott already indignant toward Johnson after he ignored her questions in the last two days about the 2020 election and didn’t stop the GOP caucus from booing her.
Anchor David Muir signaled a disgusted tone in an opening tease: “Tonight, who’s the new speaker, Congressman Mike Johnson, and where does Speaker Johnson stand on key issues including abortion, funding for Ukraine and does he accept Donald Trump’s election loss?”
In the lead-in to Scott, Muir dismissed him as “a hard-right conservative” who “played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election” and is “the least experienced of any speaker in more 140 years.” Scott also harped on how he’s been in office for less than a decade, as if to suggest he’ll be unable to address “huge challenges.”
[...]
CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell started the labeling from the opening tease that the show will explain “why Mike Johnson’s election is considered a win for hard-right Republicans.”
“[S]o, who is Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson? The staunch conservative wants a federal ban on abortion rights and opposes same-sex marriage. What it means for the future of the Republican Party,” she added.
Congressional correspondent Nikole Killion described Johnson as “an evangelical Christian, former conservative radio talk show host” who’s “taken a sharp stance against gay rights and supports a nationwide abortion ban without exceptions.”
[...]
NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt also got the labeling going in an tease, impressing upon viewers that Republicans not only picked someone who’s “little-known,” but also “a hard-line conservative” who “tr[ied] to overturn the 2020 election.”
Despite all his complaints about labels, Houck made no effort to dispute the accuracy of them. Indeed, whining about accurate labeling of Johnson was the dominant MRC narrative in the days after Johnson's election:
Tim Graham tried to pass off a weird comment Johnson made about his wife as perfectly normal in an Oct. 26 post:
Question: What kind of article would make the liberal New Republic magazine look absolutely clueless about Christianity?
Answer: Writer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling suggesting new House Speaker Mike Johnson was making some sort of oral-sex joke when he mentioned his wife,,,,praying to Jesus. The headline:
New House Speaker Kicks Things Off With Crass Remark About His Wife
Representative Mike Johnson made a gross gaffe about his wife in his acceptance speech.
This doesn't seem crass at all in context. But Ellie Houghtaling had to imagine the worst:
Usually when a new speaker of the House is elected, they have major plans to unveil, recontextualizing the House’s work. Speaker Mike Johnson, however, had some other priorities. First thing on his agenda? Make a weird joke about his wife.
Shortly after the little-known congressman won the title that he claimed he never sought, Johnson took the podium to thank the hard work of the congressional staff, Speaker Emeritus Kevin McCarthy, and his wife.
Johnson thanked his wife, and noted they couldn't get a flight from Louisiana so she could be present. Then he said:
“She’s spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord. And, um, she’s a little worn out,” Johnson smirked.
“We all are,” he added.
Ellie Houghtaling and TNR made no attempt to explain how this was "gross" and "crass." Let's guess it's a Clinton-intern kind of joke. What's crass and gross is sexualizing a mention of a woman praying to Jesus. This pink-haired "breaking news" specialist just started at the magazine, and so far, she's just breaking wind.
Of course Graham made a personal attack on the writer -- that's what he does. He also didn't try to reconcile Johnson's claim of his wife praying for two weeks for him to get the job despite his supposedly not wanting it.
Christy, the MRC's resident comedy cop, spent an Oct. 31 post predictably finding no humor in late-night shows pointing out that Johnson's religion may not be pious enough:
CBS's The Late Show Stephen Colbert and Comedy Central's The Daily Show temp host Charlamagne Tha God and correspondent Michael Kosta accused Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of being a bad a hypocritical Christian because he doesn’t want to ban seafood or ostracize women during their menstrual cycles.
Colbert, whose definition of being a good Christian seems to revolve around left-wing economics dressed up as personal charity. After playing a clip of Johnson on Hannity saying his worldview can be found in the Bible, Colbert declared, “Well, okay. No, if, that’s great, if the Bible is his worldview on any issue, I don't know why progressives are nervous. He's clearly gonna ask the rich to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor.”
As someone who professes to be a faithful Catholic, Colbert should be familiar with Romans 14:14, but he still insisted Johnson is a hypocrite for not wanting to implement Old Testament dietary laws, “And, like, being Biblically faithful is not easy for a guy from Louisiana because now he has to give up shrimp, crab, oysters, and barbecued pork.”
Over at The Daily Show, a sarcastic Kosta looked forward to a ban on seafood, “The Bible's rules are timeless and always relevant. Like, right here, shellfish must be banned as detestable abomination. Great idea. The only good part of lobster was the butter anyway. We should just be drinking the hot butter. Or what about this: God tells Ezekiel to bake bread over a fire made of dry human dung.”
Back on CBS, Colbert added, “And I'm sure he'll miss his wife when she has to be cast out of town during her time of blood, only allowed to return when she brings two turtledoves to the tabernacle for the priest to sacrifice.”
Kosta also ironically looked forward to implementing such a policy, “The menstruating woman is unclean and the righteous man shall not approach her. Let's try it, America!”
Christy went on to baselessly insist that Johnson was "correct" to claim that separation between church and state isn't to protect the state from religion but to protect religion from the state.
CNS' Bannister Didn't Mention That Russell Brand Is Not A 'Goodie' Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister wrote in an Oct. 27 post at the right-wing blog CNSNews.com has devolved into:
What could former President Donald Trump possibly say that would justify the gag order a judge placed on him, and is Trump really so persuasive that people would change their minds about him if he said it, comedian Russell Brand asks in his latest commentary video.
Noting that a New York judge recently fined Trump for comments the former president made regarding his civil trial, Brand mocked the whole concept of issuing a gag order:
“They should change the name, because ‘gag order’ doesn’t sound like something that the Goodies would do.”
Gag orders are issued against people because they’re loathed, not to protect the public, Brand argues. And, what could Trump possibly say that would change the minds of those who hate him, anyway, Brand asks.
You know what else sounds like something the goodles wouldn't do? Rape, sexual assault, grooming and emotional abuse. Funny that Bannister completely censored that inconvenient fact about Brand, preferring to blandly refer to him only as a "comedian."
Bannister's employer, the Media Research Center, has sought to distract from those serious allegations because Brand has served as a reliable spouter of right-wing talking points, much like it did when Kanye West went anti-Semitic.
MRC Tried To Defend Jim Jordan From His Many Haters During Failed Run For House Speaker Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been a fan of Republican Rep. Jim Jordan -- even championing his bid to become House Republican leader in 2018 -- because he's a reliable peddler of right-wing red meat, and it's certainly not going to let credible allegations that he ignored claims of sexual abuse perpetrated by a team doctor on Ohio State wrestling athletes while he was a coach there get in the way of that. The MRC tried to defend Jordan by attacking the credibility of his accusers, a familiar MRC tactic. As Jordan continued to supply the red meat, the MRC eagerly chowed down with defense and stenography, as these items from earlier this year demonstrate:
In the turmoil that erupted after Republicans ousted Kevin McCarthy as House speaker -- which the MRC tried to blame on anyone other than Republicans -- Jordan tried one more time to obtain the seat, and the MRC returned to Jordan defense mode. Nicholas Fondcaaro complained in an Oct. 5 post that Jordan's unsavory past was brought up:
With Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) out as House speaker, two Republican names had swiftly risen to the top for consideration: Representatives Steve Scalise (LA) and Jim Jordan (OH). It was the latter who drew a harsh rebuke from racist Sunny Hostin on Thursday’s edition of ABC’s The View. Hostin insisted that Jordan was a “terrorist” who “terrorized” her at a congressional hearing. She also tried to suggest he was involved in the Ohio State University wrestling sexual abuse scandal despite no evidence.
The day after she backed up moderator Whoopi Goldberg’s argument that criticism of the people prosecuting former President Trump was somehow a threat to their lives, Hostin laid her disdain for Jordan on heavy. “I would just say about Jim Jordan, he has been called by his own party, by John Boehner, a ‘political terrorist.’ He’s also been linked to the Ohio State sexual abuse scandal,” she chided.
Toward the end of the segment, Hostin was forced to read a legal note (which the show claims are not “corrections”) by ABC’s Standards and Practices, stating: “Representative Jim Jordan has denied that he knew about sexual abuse of wrestlers during his years working at Ohio State University.”
What went unmentioned was the fact that Jordan’s two accusers had shady histories. One of his accusers was convicted of harassing the gold star widow of a Marine over a memorial fund for her husband. And the other went to prison for a $1.8 million fraud scheme.
In fact, several otherwrestlers have made similar claims against Jordan, not just the two Fondacaro is trying to discredit.
The MRC then went after Hostin herself in an Oct. 9 post by Tim Graham claiming that Jordan's behavior in a congressional hearing in which Hostin took part "does NOT match Hostin's wild tale of a disheveled terrorizing monster."
Graham then whined in his Oct. 18 podcast that people were reminded that one of Jordan's fellow Republicans called him a "terrorist" (while, of course, playing whataboutism):
While some media outlets -- especially "public broadcasters" -- eschew using the word "terrorist" to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad, PBS and NBC and MSNBC were enjoying describing Jim Jordan as a "terrorist," because bitter former Speaker John Boehner smeared him in 2021.
Tuesday's NBC Nightly News included a clip of Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) on the House floor: "Even members of his own party have called him a legislative terrorist."
PBS NewsHour reporter Lisa Desjardins offered quotes from Democrats that Jim Jordan is both a "terrorist" and an "insurrectionist." On the same show, anchor Amna Nawaz called Islamic Jihad a "militant group." Their reporter said Israel killed the "most high-profile militant" in Hamas.
MSNBC kept coming back to it on Tuesday night. As part of a softball question to Nancy Pelosi, Joy Reid pulled out the 2021 CBS clip of John Boehner singling out Jim Jordan as a "political terrorist," and then repeats the T-word,
Chris Hayes said Jordan has "no resume" to be Speaker and told Brendan Buck "your former boss, John Boehner, called him a legislative terrorist." Lawrence O'Donnell ran a longer clip of Aguilar than NBC saying Jordan is a terrorist. At least O'Donnell referred to Hamas terrorists, too.
Nowhere in this writeup did Graham explain why Boehner was wrong in his assessment of Jordan or why this makes him "bitter."
Mark Finkelstein similarly complained in an Oct. 20 post:
On the Thursday edition of her MSNBC show, Nicolle Wallace shed any pretense of compassionate or even dispassionate political analysis, and embraced her inner hatred.
Speaking about the 22 Republicans who wouldn't vote for Jordan with ex-GOP congressman and Never Trumper David Jolly, Wallace said:
"I know why I have a visceral rejection of Jim Jordan and it precedes his role in overturning the result of the 2020 election, but tell me why they hate him, the 22?"
"Visceral rejection:" euphemism for hating someone deep in your guts. As proved by her question to Jolly, asking why those 22 Republicans, in line with her feelings, "hate him."
Finkelstein didn't dispute the accurace of Wallace's assessment, instead trying to portray Jordan as a hater of government in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.
When Jordan inevitably lost a vote for speaker on account of being hated by his fellow Republicans, Alex Christy complained in an Oct. 20 post that this was pointed out:
Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and New York Times columnist David Brooks gathered for their regularly scheduled weekly news recap on PBS NewsHour on Friday by welcoming the failure of Rep. Jim Jordan to become Speaker of the House.
Host Geoff Bennett led Capehart with a statement rather than a question, “And, Jonathan, it speaks volumes that Jim Jordan was dismissed by secret ballot. He lost 25 Republican votes on the floor in public, but, behind closed doors, in the secret ballot, he lost 112 Republicans.”
Capehart naturally agreed, arguing that proves “the public intimidation worked, when they had to go to the floor and before their colleagues and before the nation declared their fealty to Jordan or their fealty to someone else. But behind closed doors, they were actually able to say what they really felt.”
As for Jordan himself, Capehart added, “And I'm going to jump on — jump on in support of what David was just talking about. You know, yes, Steve Scalise was an institutionalist. Jim Jordan, Congressman Jordan, is not an institutionalist. He has never been about governing. He's been about burning the place down.”
Christy did not dispute the accuarcy of Capehart's assessment.
Finkelstein tried to do one last bit of cleanup for Jordan in an Oct. 21 post:
[MSNBC's Katie] Phang then raised the issue of "the normalization of violence and violent rhetoric by the GOP." Whereas Phang suggested an investigation to determine who had been threatening violence, Jacobs explicitly accused Jim Jordan of using threats of violence against other House members in an attempt to intimidate them into voting for him as Speaker.
"It should be no surprise that Jim Jordan is willing to use violence to overturn the will of the people and change an election outcome. We have seen him do that before."
This, despite Jordan having posted at X:
"No American should accost another for their belief. We condemn all threats against our colleagues and it is imperative that we come together. Stop. It's abhorrent."
Finkelstein left out the part where Republican members of Congress were, in fact, threatened with violence if they didn't vote for Jordan as speaker, an extreme-hardball tactic that backfired. Jordan distancing himself from the pressure campaign after the fact does not change the fact that people were threatened on his behalf.
NEW ARTICLE -- Trump Indictment Theater At WND: Act 4 Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily greeted Donald Trump's fourth indictment with lots of whining that the former president is being persecuted -- as well as the falsehood that he was being indicted for making phone calls. Read more >>
MRC Continues to Play Lame, Dishonest Gotcha Games Against NewsGuard Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's loud andlame waragainstNewsGuard got an assist from its favorite social media-ruining multibillionaire, as Joseph Vazquez gushed in an Oct. 19 post:
X owner Elon Musk came out swinging against the leftist media hall monitor NewsGuard and called for the whole company to be “disbanded immediately.”
Musk responded to criticism from WikiPedia co-founder Jimmy Wales who whined in a post Oct. 17 about the X platform allegedly removing “all the core features that made it even remotely possible to tell real journalists from fakes.” Through discussion on the X thread, Foundation For Freedom Online Executive Director Mike Benz pointed out to Musk that Wales was an advisor to the leftist NewsGuard, “which is knee deep in a plot to get gov’ts to bankrupt alternative news.” Musk did not hold back in his response to Benz’s revelatory Oct. 19 post: “This is crazy!”
Podcaster Tim Pool joined the conversation, stating that his website’s rating by NewsGuard was dinged because “we ran 5 stories out of nearly 5,000 that quoted Trump.” Meanwhile, as Pool noted, legacy and liberal media outlets that “ran fake stories out of Gaza” like The New York Times get perfect 100/100 scores.
Musk was having none of it. “What a scam! ‘Newsguard’ should be disbanded immediately,” he rebuked.
Vazquez didn't mention that Benz had been exposed a couple weeks earlier as a creator of videos promoting racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while posting under the name Frame Game, which undermines his credibility as any sort of cheerleader for "freedom." Instead, he took stenography from his MRC superiors reciting their NewsGuard-bashing narratives:
“There are a number of these politicized, so-called ratings outfits that exist to direct consumers away from conservative media and drive advertisers into the arms of the left,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “Every one of these groups, whether it’s NewsGuard, Ad Fontes or others, needs to be exposed, and the public needs to understand that they are anything but reliable.”
[...]
MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris piled on, adding to Musk’s retort. “Musk is absolutely right,” said Morris. “And the American people also deserve an explanation. Speech and thought police have no place in the United States of America. Such business models are antithetical to the vision our Founding Fathers had when they made clear the importance of free speech and a free press when they underscored these fundamental liberties as part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The MRC has repeatedly shown through its analyses how skewed to favor the left NewsGuard’s ratings system has been.
Yeah, not so much. Those "analyses" are mostly whining that right-wing media was rated as high as non-right-wing media without bothering to demonstrate why right-wing media actually deserved better ratings, and it was much more about lame gotchas than presenting any sort of credible evidence.
Vazquez rehashed another related attack: "But NewsGuard isn’t the only leftist entity trying to act as a Ministry of Truth on the internet. MRC Free Speech America also recently exposed an leftist, so-called media ratings firm Ad Fontes. MRC laid bare Ad Fontes’s penchant for elevating leftist media while throttling right-leaning media with its own skewed scoring system." As we'vedocumented, the MRC's hit job on Ad Fontes was just as shoddy as its attacks on NewsGuard, demanding false balance while refusing to demonstrate why it should exist and falsely framing legitimate and credible criticism of right-wing media as "censorship."
Vazquez concluded by ranting: "One thing is clear: leftist website ratings firms like NewsGuard and Ad Fontes have no business policing the internet given their demonstrable biases. Both should be disbanded." Which, of course, is the entire point of the MRC's jihad: to silence critics they don't agree with.
Radical internet traffic cop NewsGuard has shown once again why its bona fides as a supposedly unbiased journalism referee are hot garbage in light of how it treats leftist outlets that peddled Hamas agitprop to attack Israel.
The New York Times, TIME magazine, Politico and Reuters are just four of a number of leftist news outlets that haphazardly gobbled up the Hamas-controlled Gaza health ministry’s claim that an “Israeli” airstrike blew up a Gaza-based hospital, allegedly killing 500 people on Oct. 17. A U.S. intelligence assessment later concluded that Israel was not responsible for the bombing. Both the U.S. House and Senate intelligence committees absolved Israel. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) instead placed the blame squarely at the feet of a “failed rocket launch by militant terrorists.” Later reports also put the estimated death toll at a much lower count than what Hamas initially claimed.
But liberal media outlets across the internet just took the Hamas talking points and ran with them, which helped fuel mass anti-Israel protests and regional governments’ fury across the Middle East. MRC Free Speech America dug out the archived versions for each of the four outlets that originally smeared Israel in their reporting before later stealth-editing their stories and headlines. Then MRC researchers checked NewsGuard’s scores for the four respective outlets. In the three days that have passed since the incident, NewsGuard maintained the perfect 100/100 scores for all four outlets.
Vazquez offered no evidence that NewsGuard renders immediate judgments on news stories, and the headlines Vazquez himself is quoting about the incident make sure to attribute the death toll to the Gaza health ministry and not presenting it as indisputable fact,, and he largely ignored how these outlets treated questions about the health ministry's veracity and efforts to correct the record. He also failed to provide an example of a right-wing media outlet that he believed presented that information in a way he approves of. A real, credible researcher would have done those things, but Vazquez is a partisan activist, not a researcher.
Newsmax's Enthusiasm Diminishes With Third GOP Debate Topic: Newsmax
As with the second debate, Newsmax's enthusiasm level for the third Republican presidential debate on Nov. 8 was subdued, largely beause Donald Trump refused to take part and wasn't doing much in the way of counterprogramming. It published a wire article previewing the debate, then published a couple more wire articles along with its original content about the debate itself:
In a post-debate analysis, John Gizzi made sure to inject Newsmax's preferred (and no-show) candidate into the mix:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley were the big winners of the third Republican presidential debate, but there was still considerable force felt on the part of the candidate who wasn't there Wednesday evening — former President Donald Trump.
That was the opinion of a group of political experts who spoke to Newsmax shortly after the showdown between the five contenders who qualified for the GOP forum.
[...]
The political muscle of Trump was something to which Newsmax experts repeatedly returned to.
"Let's be clear: former President Trump remains the party's overwhelming favorite," said Rotterman. "And as long as that's the case, all the candidates on stage were just auditioning for backup quarterback."
Newsmax gave McDaniel space to respond to Ramaswamy's attacks in a Nov. 9 article by Sandy Fitzgerald:
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, dismissing calls from presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy during Thursday night's RNC debate for her resignation, said the GOP must stop "infighting" as it is "not helping" the party.
"This Republican-on-Republican infighting — I'm not running for president so I'm not in this primary — isn't helping our party," McDaniel told CNN after the debate Thursday night, The Hill reported.
"We lost races in 2022 because of vitriol within our party," she added. "We need every Republican and then some to win elections. And the Republican voters want to hear us talk about the border, fentanyl, Israel, our kids, crime, inflation, and they want to see us take on Joe Biden."
Newsmax also made sure to mock the debate's ratings in a Nov. 9 article by Jim Thomas:
The third Republican presidential primary debate, hosted by NBC News, witnessed a dramatic viewership decline with just over 6 million viewers tuning in, marking the lowest audience turnout of the current campaign season and a 45% drop in viewers from the first debate.
The drop in Wednesday's debate was blamed on RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy criticizing her handling of the forums and calling for her to resign.
[...]
Wednesday night's audience figure was lower than the 9 million viewers who tuned in for the second GOP presidential primary debate in September, which was broadcast on Fox Business and Fox News.
The third GOP debate was also significantly lower than the nearly 12.8 million who watched the inaugural debate on Fox News back in August — as that event saw a 50% decline in ratings from the first debate of the 2016 campaign.
With then-candidate Trump attending, the Fox News 2015 prime-time GOP debate drew a record 24 million viewers.
Thomas claimed that the fourth debate was "shifting from mainstream media to liberal cable." In fact, the lead channel airing it, NewsNation, is a right-leaning network built and staffed in part by former Fox News personalities and executives and regularly fawned over by Newsmax's right-wing friends at the Media Research Center.
Cashill Race-Baits About Police Officer Imprisoned For Killing Black Man Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has long had a ColinFlaherty streak, indulging his race-baiting tendencies by defending white people who kill black people (i.e., George Zimmerman and DerekChauvin). He edged even further in that direction in his Oct. 18 column about an incident in his hometown of Kansas City:
As the media made the public aware – the Kansas City Star relentlessly so – veteran Kansas City police officer Eric DeValkenaere did not shoot and kill an ordinary citizen. He shot a "black man."
It did not matter that DeValkenaere had no known history of racism in his 20-plus year career, or that he was, in the words of one veteran colleague with whom I spoke, "courteous, professional, a hard worker who showed everyone respect and operated by the book."
The "white KC cop" shot a "black man," and for the media, that negated all other variables. Unfortunately, that dynamic seems to have affected the courts as well.
Cashill then recounted alleged offenses by the victim, Cameron Lamb, including a claim of reckless driving earlier in the day. We pick up Cashill's biased version of events as DeValkenaere and his partner, Troy Schwalm, went to Lamb's house in an unmarked vehicle:
After putting on his vest, DeValkenaere followed Schwalm to the address provided by Valentine. He wanted to assure that Schwalm "was not there by himself." Both parked in front.
Schwalm took the lead, walking up the driveway with gun in "low ready" position. DeValkenaere did the same on the far side of the house. Both "believed [the incident] was something more serious than a traffic violation."
Valentine meanwhile reported that the truck was backing into a garage below the house, presumably to duck the helicopter. At the beginning of the incident, Lamb's truck was parked on the street.
Standing at the top of the ramp leading into the garage, Schwalm ordered Lamb to put the truck in park, telling him that it wasn't going to fit in the garage in any case.
Coming around from the far side of the house, DeValkenaere was positioned on the retaining wall above the truck. He had a much clearer view of Lamb than did Schwalm.
Ignoring commands to stop, Lamb continued to back up. DeValkenaere claims he saw Lamb holding a pistol between his legs with his left hand. "He's got a gun, he's got a gun," he shouted.
Not sensing an immediate threat, DeValkenaere refrained from shooting until he saw Lamb bring the gun "up and around the left-hand side of the steering wheel."
"I can't let this happen," DeValkenaere thought, meaning that he couldn't let Lamb shoot Schwalm who was in the more vulnerable position. Fearing the worst, DeValkenaere shot and killed Lamb.
DeValkenaere never entered the garage or touched Lamb. He yielded the shooting scene to the arriving officers. Tactical officer Eurik Hunt testified that he saw the gun "just below … the driver's door of the vehicle just below where an arm was hanging out from the door."
You will not be surprised to learn that Cashill is omitting certain information in order to forward his narrative. In upholding DeValkenaere's involuntary manslaughter conviction, an appeals court found:
DeValkenaere and Schwalm did not have permission or a warrant to enter Lamb's property.
Lamb did not have a gun in his hand at the time DeValkenaere killed him (it was apparently a phone), and Schwalm never saw a gun. Thus, Lamb was not a threat to them.
DeValkenaere lied to authorities about a "lady in pink" telling him that Lamb had guns.
Like a good conspiracy theorist, Cashill ignores inconvenient facts. Instead, he played the race card against the judge that presidend over the trial that originally convicted DeValkenaere:
In his ruling, Youngs compared DeValkenaere to Chauvin – favorably. But that he made the comparison at all suggested that a white officer killing a black perp deserved its own special criminal classification.
As Youngs saw things, "One issue of law … countermanded every other factual issue in the case," namely "whether or not Sergeant Schwalm and Detective DeValkenaere were lawfully present on the premises when they engaged Cameron Lamb."
Unless the state of Missouri intervenes, DeValkenaere will have six years to study up on the various interpretations of the Fourth Amendment under the heading, "white cop/black perp."
Again, DeValkenaere and Schwalm were not lawfully present on Lamb's property. But Cashill has a race-baiting narrative to peddle, and facts just get in the way.
Cashill continued to defend Devalkenaere and Chauvin in his Oct. 25 column:
"Murder and involuntary manslaughter arising from criminal negligence are two different things," said Missouri Circuit Court Judge J. Dale Youngs in handing Kansas City police officer Eric Devalkenaere a six-year prison sentence.
"They are different legal concepts. They are different things. Eric Devalkenaere is not Derek Chauvin who murdered George Floyd."
As it turns out Derek Chauvin is not the Derek Chauvin who murdered George Floyd for the simple reason that George Floyd wasn't murdered.
Cashill went on to claim that "So dubious was the evidence against Devalkenaere that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote a convincing appeal to have the verdict overturned. Even more convincing is the appeal made by Devalkenaere's father, Albert, a retired KCPD master detective." Cashill didn't explain what, exactly, was so "convincing" about either statement, given the inherent bias in their appeals: Bailey is a highlypartisan right-wing AG, while Albert Devalkenaere is the perp's dad and cannot possibly be objective; indeed, he repeated the false claim that Lamb "dr[e]w a gun as the police were approaching him" and echoed Cashill's race-baiting narrative that prosecutors "wanted to gain notoriety for prosecuting a white police officer in the death of black man."
NEW ARTICLE -- New Press Secretary, Same MRC Hate: August-September 2023 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center served up even more fanboyish gushing over Peter Doocy after his return to the White House briefing room from paternity leave. PLUS: The MRC flip-flops on Simon Ateba, finally getting tired of his briefing-room antics. Read more >>
MRC Defends Musk's Vulgar Dissing Of Advertisers Leaving Twitter Over His Anti-Semitism Topic: Media Research Center
There is so much bad news regarding Elon Musk that the Media Research Center -- who continues to hero-worship him -- is having trouble trying to spin away his increasing extremism. We've already caught the MRC desperately trying to ignore how Musk endorsed an anti-Semitic tweet, and it wouldn't even talk about how Musk sued Media Matters, the MRC's more liberal rival, for exposing how ads are appearing on Twitter (well, X) next to neo-Nazi content. Meanwhile, the bad news continued to pile up: He nastily insulted Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for seeking aid to fight off Russia's invasion of his country, he's trying to implement new subscription schemes as he scares off advertisers with his right-wing extremism, and he has gotten caught shadowbanning his critics.
Again, the MRC doesn't want to talk about any of that, even though it has previouslycriticized alleged shadowbanning pre-Musk, and it even mocked a commentator for arguing that Musk will shadowban liberalss (that sure didn't age well). It will, however, defend Musk's meltdown over the aforementioned advertisers fleeing Twitter over all the hate. Tom Olohan was on spin patrol in a Nov. 30 post:
Pro-free speech advocates showed their support for X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk after he let advertisers know how he really felt about their anti-free speech blackmail campaign.
During a Nov. 29 interview with leftist Squawk Box co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin, Musk made clear that he would not be deterred by advertiser boycotts. Musk told Sorkin, “If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising— blackmail me with money? -–, go f*** yourself. Go f*** yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.” Musk’s comment came in response to pressing questions about how some companies, including Walt Disney Corporation, pulled advertising on X. After Musk’s statement, past victims of censorship and proponents of free speech spoke up to support Musk.
Rather than admit that Musk's insult was counterproductive as well as immature -- why would anyone advertise with a platform whose owner disdains them in such a vulgar manner? -- Olohan hyped those "pro-free speech advocates" (actually hate-filled right-wing activists) praising Musk and pledging to buy adds on Twitter:
Praising Musk’s pushback, The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon responded, “This is how you handle woke bullies. You refuse to give them what they want because what they want is your integrity,” before promising to double advertising spending on X.
Echoing Dillon’s response, creator of Libs of TikTok Chaya Raichik, reposted the exchange, calling it “the most incredible clip you will watch today,” and saying that she couldn’t stop watching it, before passing on Musk’s message to boycotting advertisers herself.
The Daily Wire host Michael Knowles weighed in on the Nov. 30 edition of The Michael Knowles Show, to say that Musk was right to push back against advertisers. Knowles asked his listeners, “If the richest man in the world is not allowed to speak his mind. If the richest man in the world is not even allowed to let other people speak the truth as we see it, then why even go on pretending that we live in anything resembling a free country anymore?"
Pundits such as The Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro,Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, Louder with Crowder host Steven Crowder and Benny Johnson also chimed in to praise Musk.
Olohan didn't mention that Knowles and Raichik are famous for their homphobia and that Crowder is famous for verbally abusing his ex-wife -- let alone explain why anyone would be proud to have such people as advertisers.Olohan also censored any mention of the hate and anti-Semitism that's rampant on Twitter and even spread by Musk himself that's making advertisers flee the platform.
In usual MRC fashion, it was angry that people pointed out Musk's immature rage. Curtis HOuck complained in a Nov. 30 post:
Reacting Thursday morning to Wednesday night’s bombshell Elon Musk interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit, NBC’s Today co-host Hoda Kotb and CNBC’s Squawk Box co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin, The Times columnist who interviewed Musk, described it as an illustration of Musk’s “demonic side” and “version” as Musk blasted corporations who’ve pulled advertising from X.
The blowback came after a November 15 X post by Musk in which he responded favorably to an anti-Semitic trope (despite his apologies).
Sorkin was teed up by co-host Savannah Guthrie, who remarked that Musk is “in the middle of this fire” of controversy, but didn’t “mince words, shall we say.” Sorkin obviously agreed, calling the interview “fascinating” and confirming he “was speechless when” Musk dropped multiple f-bombs in telling off (liberal) corporations.
“I do encourage people to see the whole thing because, in many ways, I think you got to see the full Elon Musk. I think you saw that Elon Musk is many people. You can see the Einstein and sort of Steve Jobs version of Elon Musk,” Sorkin added.
On the other hand, Sorkin opined, viewers saw “almost a demonic version of Elon Musk. And the idea is — the question is: Can people hold all of these ideas in their head and can they be in the same person? What’s so interesting to me he sent saying, I don’t care if I am loved or I am hated, but what I kept trying to get back to, do you care about being trusted?”
Moments later, Kotb doubled down on this label: “You talked about demonic — the demonic side. He talked about his own demons. Like, what did you glean about that part of him?”
Houck was dishonest about the nature of Musk's "apologies" for endorsing an anti-Semitic tweet: There was only one apology, and he didn't make it until earlier in the conference that he vulgarly attacked his advertisers -- 15 days after the original tweet.
Jorge Bonilla whined further that Musk was feeling the consequences of his own actions in a Dec. 1 post:
NBC Nightly News presented an oddly cobbled together news item on Elon Musk that, more than anything, seemed intent on extending the controversy over a recent post and further instigating an ad war against X.
[...]
So what the report did is that it glued several things together: Elon Musk’s interview with Aaron Ross Sorkin of CNBC wherein he told various corporations to go blank themselves, the long-awaited release of the Tesla Cybertruck (NBC were the only ones to report that tonight), and the ongoing controversy over X advertising resulting from a Musk post that was perceived as antisemitic.
Bonilla complainined that the report included only Musk saying he was sorry and not the lengthy entirety of Musk's "clarifying remarks" about his endorsement of anti-Semitism, which he soft-pedaled as merely being "perceived as antisemitic." He then seemed to excuse Musk's anti-Semitism because he's purportedlymaking Twitter safe for "free speech":
That’s a far different picture than “I’m sorry for that tweet or post”. And having part of that statement in a tear sheet isn’t the same as video. The tone is entirely different in what the reporter is trying to convey.
This is an item meant to keep the controversy alive, and to further instigate the advertising boycott against X, a site that has done its level best to defend free speech and regain its place as the digital public square since being acquired by Musk.
Of course, free speech does not equate to being free of consequences for that speech. Bonilla doesn't seem to understand that part.
WND's Brown Outraged A Pastor Allowed Gay People At Religious Conference Topic: WorldNetDaily
LGBT-hating Michael Brown raged in his Oct. 6 WorldNetDaily column:
do my best to be sensitive in the language I use, not wanting to drive people away from a life-giving message because of controversial terminology. Yet there are times when being blunt is essential, and now is one of those times. That is why Pastor Andy Stanley must be called out publicly for inviting practicing homosexuals to speak at his Unconditional Conference last week. The fact that these men claim to be committed Christians makes the sin all the more grievous.
I'm speaking specifically of Justin Lee and Brian Nietzel, both of whom are not only openly "gay Christians" but are also "married" to their same-sex partners. This means that, according to the plain teaching of Scripture, they will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and their actions are detestable in His sight (Leviticus 18:22).
Justin and Brian might be very gracious and kind men. Their partners might be terrific people in many ways. They might even model certain aspects of Christian compassion and grace and profess some orthodox beliefs.
But that only magnifies the level of deception involved, since Satan himself comes as an angel of light (see 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
It turns out that "both Justin and Brian have spoken to his people before, with his blessing and approval," which only seemed to outrage Brown more (while, of course, pretending to have sympathy toward LGBT people):
We need to do better. We need to show unconditional love. We need to recognize how deep these struggles can be. And we need to understand the degree to which Christian young people, in particular, can suffer an acute conflict over these feelings, which they did not ask for. Yes, let us be educated and let us love well.
But under no circumstances should we affirm a child's gay or bi or trans or queer identity. Even more emphatically, under no circumstances should we tell them that they can follow Jesus and be in a same-sex, sexual or romantic relationship. God forbid. To do so is to be complicit in their demise.
Brown was particularly enraged that Brian and Justin portrayed themselves as good Christians who happened to be gay:
What about the example of Brian? What about their online resources and teachings?
To paraphrase, "I'm not taking a public position here on same-sex marriage or sexual behavior. But in my personal example, in which I am in a same-sex marriage and have sex with my male partner, I'm shouting quite loudly to all of you."
The very presence of Justin and Brian at the conference, along with men like Christian ethicist David Gushee, who believes that God affirms committed, same-sex relationships, sent a clear message to all those in attendance. "Yes," they were saying, "your kids can practice homosexuality and follow Jesus at the same time."
nd these men were not just given a platform but were honored and celebrated for who they are. Otherwise, they would not have been invited to speak.
Consider that it was Justin who founded the "Gay Christian Network," with most of the adherents in the network affirming same-sex, "Christian" relationships.
And Justin's new organization, called Nuance Ministries, recommends groups like the Reformation Project, which actively seeks to change church views on the Bible and homosexual practice. (See https://gaychristian.net/, one of the Nuance Ministries links; while still under construction, the site links to the Reformation Project and others of like mind.)
As for Brian, his bio states that he "is a gay man committed to his faith and love for Jesus. He grew up in the Evangelical Church and struggled with his sexuality, then later in life found his peace with God. He is now happily married to his husband Dan and is a proud father. He founded the organization Making Things Right to invite Christians to reimagine their relationship with LGBTQ+ people" (my emphasis).
To repeat: This is detestable in God's sight, no matter how loving, kindhearted, caring and "Christian" Dan and his partner may be. They are in fundamental violation of the order and plan of the God who Himself is love. They are sinning, and they are leading others into sin.
Yet it is men like Brian and Justin whom Andy chose to have speak at his conference – not ex-gays, not compassionate Christian counselors with a very different approach, not biblically grounded theologians, not parents of LGBTQ+ identified kids who unconditionally love without affirming.
Brown returned to attacking Stanley for not hating gay people like he does:
As crazy as this seems, is it any crazier than Andy Stanley inviting professing Christians who are "married" to their same-sex partners to speak at an LGBTQ+ related conference? Can you imagine Paul asking a homosexual "Christian" couple to share with the Corinthian church about the importance of being loving towards children who struggle with same-sex attraction?
To the contrary, Paul would have lovingly and firmly called them to repent, and if they refused to repent, he would have called on the Corinthians to excommunicate them (see 1 Corinthians 5).
Rather than do this, Pastor Andy Stanley gave them a platform – a very big, influential platform. What a horrible shame. And what lasting damage this will do.
To be sure, all of us fall short of God's glory and live in daily need of His grace and mercy. And without question, if we turn to Him in repentance, the blood of Jesus will wash us clean. But if we continue in unrepentant sin, let alone justify it, we will face His judgment.
It was the Puritan Thomas Manton who said, "First we practice sin, then defend it, then boast of it."
This is exactly what Andy Stanley and the Unconditional Conference have done, platforming practicing homosexuals who claim to have the blessing of God on their same-sex relationships.
May God grant them repentance before it is too late. And may all of us take careful stock of our lives before Him.
So much for Brown's purported empathy for LGBT people -- he clearly wants not only them banished from society, but anyone who doesn't hate them as much as he does should apparently be shamed and ostracized from his version of right-wing Christianity. Brown clearly does not believe in compassion for anyone different from him -- for them, there is only hate and disapproval and exile.
MRC Still Praising Aaron Rodgers' Selfishness In Lying About Getting COVID Vaccine Topic: Media Research Center
Along with tennis player Novak Djokovic, NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers has long been a sports hero at the Media Research Center for his anti-vaxxer stance, as well as for lying to his fellow players about his vaccination status (he claimed to be "inoculated," which he wasn't -- it was homeopathic quackery). John Simmons tried to justify Rodgers' lie again (by pretending he didn't) in an August 2022 post:
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has been called many things for deciding to not get vaccinated despite the NFL’s mandate last season. Thanks to Shannon Sharpe, we can now add “prick” to the list of pejoratives.
The co-host of Skip and Shannon: Undisputed went on air yesterday and promptly ripped Rodgers for his decision to be, as the quarterback put it, “immunized” against COVID-19.
The quarterback recently went on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast and detailed that he was allergic to an ingredient in the mRNA vaccine, Polyethylene glycol (PEG). As MRCTV’s Nick Kangadis pointed out, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was discontinued because it was causing blood clots in those took it.
As such, Rodgers had to find another way to get treated against the virus, and presented the NFL with 500 pages of research to explain why he didn’t take the vaccine, his treatment process, and the effectiveness of that process (for which he was called a “conspiracy theorist” by the league).
Simmons didn't examine or even offer a link to Rodgers' purported "research," nor was any proof offered for Rodgers' contention that he was allergic to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. There's also no evidence that Rodgers had ever met with NFL medical officials, as he had once claimed. Still, Simmons sneered without evidence that the COVID vaccine "is as ineffective as the most politicians in office."
With the new year came a new football season -- and a new team for Rodgers -- and the MRC was still trying to defend the guy. We've already noted how Rodgers praised Djokovic's anti-vaxxer selfishness, as noted in a Sept. 5 post by Simmons; he went on to tout Rodgers' defiance:
Similarly, Rodgers decided to not take the COVID vaccine despite the NFL practically forcing all of its personnel to do so. He also decided to take Ivermectin to fight COVID instead of getting the jab and used his platform to call out the absurdity of America’s COVID mandates and solutions to the “pandemic.”
Given that more than 1.1 million Americans have died from COViD, Simmons' decision to put "pandemic" in scare quotes is a bit bizarre. Also, ivermectin has been repeatedlyshown to be ineffective against COVID, meaning that Rodgers took that pill for nothing.
When Simmons suffered a season-ending injury just a few plays into his first game for his new team, Simmons spent a Sept. 13 post being mad people were feeling a bit of schadenfreude:
The New York Jets defeated the Buffalo Bills on Monday night 22-16 in overtime, which was the ending most people wanted given that the game was played on 9/11 in a city just minutes away from where terrorist cowards attacked our nation.
However, the win came at a terrible cost.
Quarterback Aaron Rodgers suffered an Achilles tendon injury just four plays into his debut that will sideline him for the rest of the season. The Jets began the season with Super Bowl aspirations, but those hopes will have to spend an overnight layover in injured reserve before they can hope to reach that destination.
While some people are dismayed by these recent events, whack-job liberal Keith Olbermann isn’t one of them. In fact, he’s elated that Rodgers suffered the injury, since the quarterback refused to take the COVID vaccine.
[...]
I fully respect someone’s right to think taking the COVID vaccine is a wise decision. What infuriates me beyond all reason is someone rejoicing over someone suffering a major injury because they didn’t get the jab.
Best of luck to Rodgers as he begins his recovery journey. Olbermann can go kick rocks.
Again, Simmons didn't mention Rodgers' rank dishonesty in lying to his previous teammates and buying into a conspiracy theory about ineffective pills being a substitute for actual vaccines.
A few days later, Simmons cheered that Rodgers "clap[ped] back" at Olbermann by saying, "Get your fifth booster, Keith. Bum!" Which, of course, is five more boosters than Rodgers has had, so that may not be the clapback Simmons thinks it is. And, again, which one of those guys is currently convalescing from a major injury right now?
WND's McMillan Thinks God Opposes Mail-In Ballots Topic: WorldNetDaily
Craige McMillan's Oct. 13 WorldNetDaily column started off with his usual religious pontificating, with lots of whining about "God's enemies." He then started inserting God into more secular matters like education:
God's Will cannot be overcome, thwarted, denied or disabled by anyone or anything. When Christian education returns to the educational system, more people will know and understand this. Gee, I wonder what subjects will be cut from the education curriculum to make room for God's wisdom?
One gets the idea that this is not what God wants but, rather, what McMillan wants. This is made even more clear later in his column:
God seeks to guide people by His Goodness, not intimidate them by His power. We are, however, very close to witnessing God clean up some of the messes that have been plaguing our nation – and others – for a long time. In America's case, this mainly happens because we have chosen to ignore the constitutional guideline that says, Election Day means Election DAY. What part of this is difficult to understand? Before we had automobiles and public transportation, people traveled from their homes to polling places and cast their paper ballot. They were known by their friends and neighbors. They didn't have fancy counting machines designed to insure that the "right" candidate was elected.
We don't remember the Bible spending much, if any, space on election administration, and there certainly wasn't any pronouncement by Jesus that "Election Day means Election DAY." McMillan did not explain what, exactly, is supposedly unbiblical about mail-in ballots.
McMillan concluded by claiming that God will smite anyone who doesn't want right-wingers (like him) to run the government:
Government, at least in America, was not designed to control us; it was designed to serve us. As we allowed government to drift further and further away from its godly foundations, it began to think that it – at least the people within it did – was God. It's not. It never was. And God Himself is going to make that abundantly clear to everyone. Every good show must end. Right now, I'd step away from where the curtain is coming down. You don't want to be under it when the curtain falls on this show.
So, yeah, this is much more about what McMillan personally wants to impose on people, while manufactureinga religious justification to hide behind, rather than any sort of divine will.
MRC Whines Late-Night Hosts Are Making Fun Of Trump Again After Writers' Strike Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy had to give up his main job of being a comedycop for late-night TV shows during the writers' strike (Fox News' Greg Gutfeld is totally exempt from scrutiny, of course). When the strike ended and late-night hosts returned, it was time for Christy to put on his belt and make a sulky, humor-devoid return to his beat. He spent an Oct. 3 post whining that the hosts were making fun of Donald Trump again:
The men of late night returned from the writers’ strike on Monday and other than CBS’s Stephen Colbert no longer censoring Donald Trump’s name, not much changed as the hosts were eager to get back to their Trump jokes.
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel recalled how, “Trump is now facing 91 felony counts, 91 felony counts. It's like all of Melania's birthday wishes came true at once.”
On their Strike Force Five podcast, Kimmel lamented he could not mock Trump’s weight in real time, but on Monday, he got that chance, “Every time something happened in the news, I would get texts asking me if I was bummed we didn't have a show that night, and mostly, I was fine. But the one that really got me was when they booked Trump in Georgia, and he self-reported his weight at 215 pounds. I almost crossed the picket line for that.”
[...]
Over at The Late Show, Colbert also lamented he was not on the air during Trump’s legal troubles, “On June 8, June 8, I really, really missed having a show because that was the day Donald Trump was hit with a 37 count indictment for hoarding national secrets and we saw some unbelievable photos of where he stored them, next to a Mar-a-Lago guest toilet.”
As for Trump’s mugshot, “On August 24, Trump was arrested at the Fulton County jail and for the very first time we got a mugshot. Yes! That is one anger-glazed ham.”
Colbert also compared selling a T-shirt of Trump’s mugshot with a “Never Surrender” slogan to “the time Nancy Reagan sold ‘Just say no’ t-shirts with a picture of her doing a line of coke off Gorbachev's forehead.”
[...]
NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers began with a bit of a different approach. During a rapid fire summation of all that he missed, Meyers went heavy on recalling all of Trump’s misfortunates as well as various GOP-related news, “So just bear with me while I try to get through this. Donald Trump appeared in a Manhattan courthouse today for a fraud trial after a judge ruled that he and his family had lied about their business assets for years. House Republicans descended into chaos and finger pointing after nearly shutting down the government while simultaneously embarrassing themselves with a sham impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden that even their own witness admitted did not have any evidence.”
Hunter Biden should be a gold mine for comedians, but Meyers rolled right along, recalling Rep. Matt Gaetz’s fights with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, more Trump- legal drama, Sen. Ted Cruz’s reaction to Barbie, Rep. Ronny Jackson getting “detained at a rodeo,” Trump’s windmills and whales comment, and how Rep. Lauren Boebert “got to second base at a Beetlejuice musical,” among other things.
Meyers ended by asking “Did I miss anything?” Before anyone answer Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulling the fire alarm, Meyers continued, “Oh, right, Trump went to a gun store and held a Glock like he was a Price is Right model.”
Christy didn't explain why it's forbidden to make fun of Trump even when engages in so much mock-worthy behavior.Instead, he followed it with a post complaining that Kimmel talked further about Trump's fantasy weight:
For his first post-Writers’ Strike guest, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel welcomed Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss his favorite topic: Donald Trump’s weight. Schwarzenegger would also insist that he is still a Republican by offering up left-wing causes such as climate activism and “universal health care” as reasons why.
Kimmel really does love the topic of Trump’s weight. During the strike, he admitted it was the topic he most wanted to be on the air to joke about and he had already brought it up in his monologue, so he naturally brought it up with Schwarzenegger, “I want to ask you a quick question about Donald Trump, because, you know, you guys both hosted The Apprentice, you don't necessarily see eye to eye on most things. He listed his weight at 215 pounds. Now, you are one of the foremost experts on the male physique, bodybuilding, et cetera. When you size him up, what would you guess that that man weighs?”
Christy took further offense when Schwarzenegger pointed out that Richard Nixon supported universal health are: "By 'universal,' Schwarzegger means either tremendously expensive and unaffordable state-run health care or some Obamacare-like mandate where the state compels you purchase a given product which sounds more like something Bernie Sanders supports." Again, Christy failed to explain why Trump soblatantly lying about his weight is not deserving of mockery.
Tim Graham rehashed a lot of this whining in his Oct. 13 column:
Conservatives and Republicans should be at the top of the list of people who enjoyed the writers' strike over the summer. From May through September, the alleged comedians who are an important part of the Democrat messaging and morale machine were sidelined.
They missed the opportunity to wallow joyfully in Trump indictments and mock the first two presidential debates (and Trump skipping them). So when the strike ended, the usual parade of unfunny Republican-trashing began.
[...]
These comedians are trying to make up for lost time, trying to be the wind beneath the wings of the Democrats. They are certainly not attempting to please a general audience, like we're living in the last century. To most people, they're just unfunny hyper-partisans.
"Unfunny hyper-partisans"? Sounds llike Graham is talking about himself and Christy. And Graham is never going to accuse Gutfeld of being an "unfunny hyper-partisan" who's "trying to be the wind beneath the wings" of the Republicans.
Newsmax Pushes Bogus Claim That Biden Read Teleprompter Direction Topic: Newsmax
Theodore Bunnker wrote in an Oct. 20 Newsmax article:
President Joe Biden on Thursday appeared to read aloud a direction from a teleprompter during his Oval Office address when talking about the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the Washington Examiner reported.
In a prime-time address to the nation, Biden, while asserting that the U.S. has no desire to send troops to fight against Russia, said, "We will have something that we do not seek — make it clear: We do not seek — we do not seek to have American troops fighting in Russia or fighting against Russia."
But that's not what happened. As Mediaite pointed out:
But according to the prepared remarks reviewed by Mediaite, the line in question — although altered in its delivery — was not an instruction.
“And let me be clear about something: we send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpile,” the prepared remarks read. Also, “[make it clear]” is not the sort of instruction that typically appears in Teleprompter drafts.
Despite that, Bunker tried to pile on:
Biden previously came under fire after saying, "End of quote, repeat the line," while delivering a speech, though a White House spokesperson denied that he made a mistake at the time, claiming that Biden actually said, "Let me repeat that line."
But that's not what happened either. As PolitiFact noted: "A White House press secretary told us Biden intentionally said 'end of quote' and then said 'repeat the line' for emphasis, and the full, live remarks support that explanation."
WND Hypes Dr. Drew's Misrepresentation Of COVID Vaccine Study Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh wrote in an Oct. 19 article:
A new video has surfaced revealing Dr. Drew, the popular media personality and medical commentator who runs his own show, being interviewed on the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXm.
And he's warning of the "emergency" myocarditis danger to young men from the COVID-19 shots, actually genetic treatments that were described by government officials as "vaccines."
"It's more common than we thought," he said. Sarcastically, he states: "It's mild … it's mild … it's no big deal."
However, it is, he said.
"Look, in my world, throughout my entire career, 40-year career, myocarditis is a medical emergency," he charged. "It's a dire problem."
And then he reveals what's troubling.
"A publication just came out five days in circulation," he said. "A major cardiology journal, … excellent study and it showed, it took my breath away. I don't know why it wasn’t headline news. Large study and it showed that about approximately half of the young males that got myocarditis had permanent heart damage."
"Permanent."
He said, "That means that a we don't what percentage are going to be disabled by this [or] are going to develop heart failure. Or [are] going to need cardiac transplants."
He called the study, which he did not identify, "breathtaking."
Of course Drew Pinsky didn't identify the study -- that would have made it easier for someone to fact-check him (not that Unruh fact-checks anything that advances employer's right-wing agenda).Based on a retweet on Dr. Drew's Twitter feed, we can deduce that he appears to be referring to this study from the journal Circulation, which was actually published in August, not "five days" before his interview with Kelly. And, yes, he's grossly misrepresenting the study results.
First, the study was comprised of just 39 young people in Hong Kong, but as many as six of them were female, contrary to Pinsky's claim that it involved only "young males." Second, the study made no claim about "permanent heart damage," as Pinsky asserted; it merely stated that such conditions persisted in that subset of study subject and that "there exists a potential long-term effect on exercise capacity and cardiac functional reserve during stress." The study authors also admitted that there is a "lack of a trajectory that depicts changes in myocardial deformation over time."
Unruh inserted his own lie as well -- mRNA vaccines are vaccines, not "genetic treatments."
Pinsky, bythe way, is an anti-vaxx activist. His twitter (well, X) account promoting and appearing with fellow anti-vaxxers like Robert Kennedy Jr. as well as a host of other right-wingers, and he has touted the "Zelenko protocol," a dubious regimen of medications that purportedly fight COVID invented by dubious, deceased and WND-hyped doc Vladimir Zelenko. He also promoted the bogus conspiracy theory that actor Jamie Foxx's recent hospitalization was caused by a COVID vaccine. He can't be trusted as a source of reliable medical information -- but he's a reliable anti-vaxxer, and that's good enough for Unruh and WND.
After blaming everyone but Republicans for Kevin McCarthy getting ousted as House speaker and trying to defend failed replacement Jim Jordan from everyone pointing out what a terrible person he is, the Media Research Center returned to defense mode when little-known right-winger Mike Johnson was abruptly chosen and elected as speaker. Alex Christy grumbled in an Oct. 25 post: 
Craig Bannister wrote in an Oct. 27 
The Media Research Center has long been a fan of Republican Rep. Jim Jordan -- even 
The Media Research Center's 
As with the second debate, Newsmax's enthusiasm level for the third Republican presidential debate on Nov. 8 was subdued, largely beause Donald Trump refused to take part and wasn't doing much in the way of counterprogramming. It published a 
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has long had a 
There is so much bad news regarding Elon Musk that the Media Research Center -- who continues to hero-worship him -- is having trouble trying to spin away his increasing extremism. We've already caught the MRC 
LGBT
Along with tennis player 
Craige McMillan's Oct. 13 WorldNetDaily 
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy had to give up his main job of being a 
Theodore Bunnker wrote in an Oct. 20 Newsmax 
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh wrote in an Oct. 19 
