MRC Embraces Roger Stone Conspiracy Theory Topic: Media Research Center
For an operation that tends to pride itself on being in the respectable part of the conservative spectrum, the Media Research Center sure felt the need to glom onto a conspiracy theory involving a friend of President Trump. Nicholas Fondacaro rants to set the scene in a Feb. 13 post:
Tameka Hart, the forewoman in the federal trial against Roger Stone, was exposed on Wednesday by Daily Caller investigative reporter Chuck Ross for once being a Democratic candidate for Congress, on top of being a staunch anti-Trump opponent. While the story continued to spread online, the liberal broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) tried to hide the revelation from their viewers.
On Thursday, the networks continued to insist (via obsession) that the only controversy with the case was Attorney General William Barr requesting a shorter incarceration period than what prosecutors were demanding.
A simple review of Hart’s Twitter account proves how politically motivated she was by far-left politics.
Jeffrey Lord followed two days later complaining that Hart is "a far left wing activist" and whining: "A biased, left-wing activist, anti-Trump, anti-Stone juror on the Stone jury? Ho-hum. Nothing to report here, move along." Fondacaro then repeated his complaint that "the lead juror in the Stone trial had a long history of anti-Trump statements and had once run for Congress as a Democrat."
Needless to say, Fondacaro and Lord will never concede that the Hart story isn't really a story at all. Why? Because Hart did not hide her history during jury selecction. As an actual news organization reported:
[T]he juror’s identity was always known to both Stone’s defense and prosecutors throughout pretrial proceedings, and she disclosed her background, including a Democratic bid for Congress, in public pretrial jury selection proceedings.
Stone’s defense and his trial judge had the opportunity to question Hart directly and challenge her eligibility.
Potential jurors were also asked if they, any close friend or family member had ever run for or held federal, state or local office, and if they had formed any opinion about Trump or Clinton, or if their possible connection in the case “would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial to both sides?”
It is not known how Hart answered the social media question, or whether she had commented publicly on Stone. But Hart, in jury screening observed by the public, said she had not formed an opinion about Stone, and was seated after both sides had a chance to press her. Hart’s identity was apparent to observers, but court rules forbid naming jurors publicly.
The Supreme Court standard for juror qualification is that they need not “be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved … It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
According to a court ruling released Wednesday, Stone’s defense did move, unsuccessfully, to seek a new trial alleging bias by another juror, but not Hart.
And Fondacaro and Lord are certainly not going ot tell you that another juror in the Stone case -- defended Hart as "perhaps the strongest advocate in the room for a rigorous process, for the rights of the defendant and for making sure that we took it seriously and looked at each charge," adding: ""Without her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly and without looking as deeply into the evidence. ... I'm firmly convinced of that."
Yes, there is that inconvenient fact that all 12 jurors agreed to convict Stone of the charges against him.
But then, neither Fondacaro nor Lord actually want impartiality here -- they want bias, just not the kind they're accusing Hart of. Because Stone is a friend of Trump, and the MRC exists today has a Trump protector, that means Stone must similarly not be held accountable for his behavior, and that everyone else, not them, has a biased agenda.
The duped, historic majority of the U.S. will willingly cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional safeguards – for the abstractions – offered by democracy. This, Democrats know only too well.
Moreover, being pushover-passive on matters domestic, Caucasian America is generally pro-immigration, the more exotic and culturally incongruent, the better. It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling about The Self. But while Americans don't see race; the people they're importing see nothing but race.
Take Indian Americans. They're a relatively new addition to the United States' top-down, state-planned, multicultural mess of pottage. Most Indian Americans have "arrived in America over the past two decades." But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat.
As many in the corporate world know all too well – once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power, he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion, talent be damned. Meek Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. Honky just doesn't have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with the Other's flinty duplicity.
This mercenary, extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a furious rate by the immigration-industrial complex. Asians, aforementioned, are especially primed to seek, and aggressively extract, advantage from positions of power.
In the context of democracy and its discontents, Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise. No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities.
Mercer then attacked Kamala Harris' Indian heritage, adding: "Angry, anti-white and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world – Kamala and her kind cannot be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a complete commitment to a constitutional design, in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit."
Mercer went on to depict strife currently happening in Western democracies as being the cause of "non-Western people" being allowed to live in those countries:
Because flooding Western democracies with non-Western people has created societies without social capital, societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political process.
Western nation-states are now imperiled entities. Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within, and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities.
By using their police powers to swamp their already fructuous populations with alien nations – where are the referenda on mass immigration? – governments have undermined ethnic balance in Western democracies and, with it, the fellow feeling so essential to democracy's endurance.
Consider: Before Comrade Ted Kennedy's coup of 1965, America was, by and large, a biracial nation. To quote author Ann Coulter, "From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable. … The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10 percent to 15 percent African American." In other words, America was largely a biracial compact; never a multicultural "nation of immigrants."
Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared, painful past.
Arguably, by opening the floodgates to mass, Third World immigrants, the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America.
Mercer has previously waxed nostalgic over pre-1965 immigration policies in the U.S., which largely blocked anyone who was not of northern European desent from moving to the U.S. and were largely driven by racism and eugenics. Yes, Mercer thinks diversity is a "coup."
MRC Can't Stop Being Triggered by Greta Thunberg, Then Bullying Her Topic: Media Research Center
The reaction from the Media Research Center to teen climate activist Greta Thunberg when she emerged last year consisted largely of insulting and bullying her for her activism. The insults and bullying haven't really stopped.
Gabriel Hays seems to be emerging as the MRC's chief Thunberg bully. In a November post mocking her for a magazine recognizner her as among those who, in his words, "are contributing to the delusion and hysteria of the next female generation,: Hays sneered that Thunberg was a "tantrum-throwing, Swedish Climate Change child, adding: "She’s definitely a nice caricature of the left, that’s for sure. Her anger and resentful 'How dare you?!' speech has become the greatest internet meme depicting the left’s tolerance."
In December, Hays ranted about the idea of someone making a documentary about Thunberg:
Oh, great, another super lefty is getting the fawning documentary treatment from Hulu in the near future. It was reported on Wednesday that everyone’s favorite diminutive doomsday cult leader Greta Thunberg will be immortalized via documentary by the streaming platform. Ugh, no more, please! Ahem, we mean, Yay! Greta Thunberg’s getting a movie everybody! She’s so awesome (because saying otherwise means we’re guilty of child abuse.)
Hays' Thunberg Deranghement Syndrome flared up again in a Feb. 12 post incensed that another documentary about Thunberg was coming:
“Dora the Extorter?” “Exploited Development?” “How I Nagged Your Mother?” Whatever the eventual title, be afraid. Greta Thunberg is headed for TV.
During the BBC Showcase on Feb. 10, the network announced production of a docu-series on the life and and propaganda of the Swedish Scold. In a statement the BBC said, “The series will follow Greta’s international crusade, which takes her to the front line of climate change in some of the most extraordinary places on earth as she explores what actions could be taken to limit climate change and the damage it causes.”
So we’ll see Thunberg (which definitely does not rhyme with “Funberg") yelling at hapless politicians and hobnobbing with concerned celebrities, interspersed with classic tearjerker shots of supposedly starving polar bears, and footage of the burning Amazon Rainforest. (Context-free footage that is, since many of the fires are necessary for the environment and global incidence of fires has been on the decline in general since 2003. But we digress.)
The statement continued: “as she travels Greta meets not only leading scientists but political leaders and business heavyweights, exploring the scientific evidence with them and challenging them to change.” Oh gee, more viral ‘How dare you?!’ moments. That should be a ratings bonanza.
"The films will also chart her own journey into adulthood as she continues to be confronted by the real world consequences of inaction,” said the Beeb. Sounds like a compelling case on borderline child abuse.
Never mind that Hays is the one talking like an abuser here, with his incessant, immature mockery and abject hatred of Thunberg.
Hays wasn't the only MRC writer to be triggered by Thunberg, though. Kyle Drennen complained that "radical teenage climate crusader" Thunberg was named Time magazine's person of the year with no mention fo "Thunberg's extreme beliefs." Kristine Marsh dismissed Thunberg as a "radical Swedish teen climate change activist," whining that "The media has spent months propping up the "climate crusader"with dozens of fawning reports that skip over her extreme beliefs.
Looks like a few someones got a memo to push a narrative that Thunberg is "radical" and "extreme."
In January, Marsh defended vicious right-wing attacks on Thunberg by playing whataboutism:
It seems only liberal kids are "off-limits" to the media. The media had no issues smearing a group of Catholic teens as racists for smiling while a liberal activist beat a drum in their faces. Several outlets had no problem attacking President Trump's teenage son for doing...absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, a Swedish teen radical who thrust herself into the global spotlight, lecturing world leaders for "stealing her dreams and childhood" gets the royalty treatment by the media and even Hollywood.
As much as Marsh would like to believe otherwise, making a mild pun on Barron Trump's name in congressional testimony is not an "attack" on him, though the MRC has had no problem with actual attacks on the minor children of Democratic presidents.
In a Jan. 28 post, Sadi Martin called Thunberg a "fanatic," huffing: "The leftist media loves to try and push the idea that those who are "fighting" for whatever cause is most popular to them are heroic, but trying to compare a 16-year-old girl who is known for screaming at world leaders for "ruining the planet" while doing basically nothing to actually solve what she sees to be a problem is a pretty big stretch, to say the least.
Even the most benign action by Thunberg triggers the MRC, In a Feb. 9 post, Rachel Peterson grumbled: "Hollywood’s favorite 17-year-old climate change expert Greta Thunberg kicked off the documentary mash-up during the Oscars on Sunday night. In a montage, she thanked David Attenborough for getting her interested in the environment through his documentaries." Yes, the MRC attacked Thumberg for saying something nice about a filmmaker.
Saying nice things about Thunberg also puts you in the crosshairs. In a Feb. 8 post, Tim Graham was apoplectic that actor Harrison Ford praised her, insulting his (and Thunberg's) intellectual capabilities in the process:
It's fascinating that a movie star with no science degree is hailing the "wisdom" and "disclipline" of science in the same breath as he hails a 17-year-old high school dropout with no science degree. The "young people" Ford is touting have no scientific degrees. In that "ideological campground," as long as you're on the "right side of History," so you don't need to know all the science.
Funny how education and expertise suddenly become important when it suits the MRC's conservative agenda. A few years ago, the MRC demanded coverage of a right-wing petition criticizing climate change even though few of the petition's signatories had any relevant education or expertise in climatology.
CNS Hides Jewish Activist's Extremism In Order To Attack Tlaib As Extreme Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman complained in a Feb. 11 blog post:
When former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a conservative Democrat and a Jew, challenged Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) about her alleged anti-Semitism at a Muslims for Peace event on Sunday at Rutgers University, several police officers surrounded him and then forcibly removed him from the event.
Chapman's benign description of Hikind seriously undersells his actual behavior. The very idea of his being a "conservative Democrat" is dubious because he believes the Democratic Party is too far left for him. Indeed, he's actually pretty far right: we've reported that he was once a follower of the terrorist Meir Kahane and a reliable voice for far-right WorldNetDaily Jerusalem-based reporter Aaron Klein to attack the liberal-leaning Israeli government under Ehud Olmert. We also caught Hikind doing a weird blackface stunt.
But Chapman isn't interested in telling the full truth. He must hide Hikind's extremism because his mandate is to portray Tlaib -- who has been a CNS target ever since she was elected in 2018 -- as an extremist.
Tim Graham's War on Fact-Checkers Expands To People Who Like Them Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham hates fact-checkers so much, he's even attacking someone simply for liking them. No, really: Graham devoted a Feb. 11 post to attacking comedian Sarah Silverman -- whom he made sure to also identify as a "Bernie Sanders-endorsing activist" -- for saying that people should be reading newspapers and that factc-checking operations like Snopes and PolitiFact are "helpful."
Graham hufed in response: "When the socialists are touting PolitiFact and Snopes as “helpful,” it underlines why conservatives are right to suspect these websites are deeply biased against them." Or, you know, that conservatives like Graham can't deal with the fact that his favorite president lies so often and so blatantly that it's all fact-checkers can do to keep up.
Graham, meanwhile, wasn't done whining, adding: "Sarah Silverman can recommend these 'fact-checking' sites because they've been kind to her. PolitiFact offered only two fact-checks on Silverman, a 'Half True' in 2014, and a 'True' in 2015." Graham seems to have overlooked the relevant fact that Silverman is a comedian, not a politician, and so maybe fact-checking her isn't exactly a high priority.
Graham closed with a bit of trademark MRC hypocrisy: After grousing that "It's fascinating that Snopes would wage war on the Babylon Bee and other satirical sites for slanting the truth," he complained that "No one will do a fact check on her genius tweets." Graham deliberately ignores the fact that the reason Snopes does fact-checks on the Babylon Bee is that too many people mistake its satire for real news, while nobody is doing that with the Silverman tweet he cites as an example of her "genius."
Pelosi Derangement Syndrome At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
I urge all women not to follow the example of the pettiest, rudest, lowest female in public America: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The utterly disgraceful display of lack of manners as President Donald Trump held his State of the Union address Tuesday, makes me ashamed to be a woman.
What happened to America when such women are its proudest display of female power? Is it not the very core of political work to make sure that the population prospers? Not for Pelosi. She saw no reason to clap for the end of American economic decline.
This is why we need men. They have the ability to rise above personal sentiments, division, quarrels based on slander and allegations, the ability not to care about petty rumors, but stand firm and perform in the office they hold. Why do women so often seem susceptible to the low-life urge to speak evil of others? They just can't get over their own inner ocean of ramped-up, cluttered personal feelings.
Whether or not Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was born a pernicious pathological liar or transmogrified into one as a result of being born the daughter of a mobbed-up Baltimore, Maryland, shiny-suit gangster wannabe politician is open to debate. But it's not open to debate that's what she is. That said, we've heard more believable lies from Elizabeth "Faux-ka-haunt-us" Warren.
Watching Pelosi making hand gestures and facial contortions while seated behind President Trump during the State of the Union address (SOTU) couldn't have been more nauseating. She's a hideously unattractive woman with demeanor to match.
Pelosi can throw temper tantrums, rip up speeches and call President Trump a liar all she wants, but that behavior is not going to slow the juggernaut that is Donald J. Trump.
America sees Pelosi and her Democrats for what they are: a bunch of lowlife anti-American, elitist, jihadi-loving, open-borders, government-dependence-loving, do as we tell you to do authoritarians who have had 60 years to do what President Trump has done in three.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acts more like Cruella de Ville in Disney's "101 Dalmatians" than she does a woman at the apex of the nation that is the most prosperous and generous in the world. Cartoonist Gary Varvel was genius in his recent illustration of Mrs. Pelosi as the evil Cruella throwing a vitriolic temper tantrum.
What Mrs. Pelosi fails to realize in choosing to emulate the children's cartoon character is that the purpose of the villain is to teach that being treacherous is not something to which one should aspire. Yet Mrs. Pelosi seems to relish it.
Doesn't she care that our daughters are watching?
Mrs. Pelosi and her coven don't seem to care that they do not have the right to be considered role models. With their selfish, sophomoric behavior, they have revealed the truth: Feminists don't seek to inspire and lift women up; they seek to destroy any cultural memory of what it means to be a lady.
MRC Attacks Google Again Over YouTube Funding Journalism Projects Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has previously attacked the Google News Initiative by tarring all the recipients of its grants as irredeemably liberal, even though several recipients were actually mainstream operations and the vast majority of the projects being funded are not ideologically driven. Now the MRC is taking another shot now that it has an unambiguously liberal target to bash.
Alexander Hall complained in a Feb. 11 post that the Young Turks -- which he branded as a "far-left media outlet" -- "launched a new project to train a new generation of liberals to dominate local media -- all funded by Big Tech giant YouTube and its owner, Google" as a part of the News Initiative. After repeating a Young Turks statement that its educational program to teach people how to use digital media to report on local issues, TYT Academy, is not designed to push any particular viewpoint, Hall huffed: "Based on The Young Turks’ track record as an outlet, that statement may be difficult for some to believe."
Hall seems to be assuming that the Young Turks operate the way programs that train conservative journalists, where viewpoint bias is demanded and you're branded a "Benedict Arnold" if you exercise editorial independence.
Hall then rehashed some of the MRC's previous lame hit jobs on Google. First, he claimed, "Google has a history of leaning to the far-left. Google fired engineer James Damore in 2017 after he wrote a memo criticizing political correctness and identity politics." As we documented, Damore's memo claimed that that women were psychologically and biologically unsuited to work as engineers and cited as a source the website Quillette, which dabbles in "alleged links between genetics and IQ, and Damore himself went on far-right and white nationalist talks shows and podcasts to promote his memo.
Hall also name-checked Google-hating professor Robert Epstein, who "testified at a state hearing in July of 2019 that Google had helped influence no less than 2.6 million votes in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election." As we also documented, Epstein's conclusions were based on a tiny pool of 21 undecided voters and didn't explain how he determined whether a given website exhibited "pro-Hillary bias."
True to form, Hall censored the inconvenient facts from the examples he cited, instead choosing to rant that "With Google/YouTube’s generous funding, this project alone may have power to swing future elections." He then repeated the two tracks the educational series would take: “Journalism tactics and responsibilities” and “Best practices for online video production.”
MRC's West Trashes Vindman For Telling The Truth Topic: CNSNews.com
Media Research Center senior fellow Allen West spent his Feb. 10 CNSNews.com column mostly raging at Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for telling the truth. First, he complained that the "progressive socialist left" was making Vindman into a hero. After needless diversions into the cases of Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning, West finally got around to his attack:
LTC Vindman is still an active duty soldier, meaning he is held to a higher standard of justice, the UCMJ. The actions of LTC Vindman are not in keeping with the good order and discipline expected of our men and women serving in uniform. It is well known that LTC Vindman acted outside of his chain of command and truthfully, displayed “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”
And yes, that is a charge that could be levied against him under the UCMJ. Of course, the progressive socialist left sees LTC Vindman as a “hero” because he did their bidding. If any military officer had conducted themselves as LTC Vindman did during the reign of Barack Obama as commander in chief, he would have been declared treacherous, traitorous, and treasonous.
West is simply parroting President Trump's attack on Vindman in his justification for firing the lieutenant colonel from the National Security Council. He's also repeating a claim from Timothy Morrison, a supervisor who claimed that Vindman didn't follow the chain of command when reporting issues with Trump's phone call with Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky; in fact, Morrison had been Vindman's superior for just a week at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, and his predecessor had a different view of chain of command than he did.
Further, since the NSC is a civilian operation, not a military one, it seems highly unlikely that Vindman could be punished under the UCMJ for his purported chain-of-command violation.
West then went on to rant:
The actions of LTC Vindman, if done under the Obama administration would have been termed “rogue” and the demands would have been for his firing.
LTC Vindman may have served admirably on the battlefield and even earned a Purple Heart. Then again, Benedict Arnold was a revered military leader until he was angered and turned against the cause for which he had fought.
LTC Vindman served in the National Security Council at the behest of the President. LTC Vindman has proven that he no longer has the trust and confidence of the commander in chief, and therefore was released from his duties at the NSC. LTC Vindman has not been kicked out of the Army. He has not been charged with anything. He has simply been removed from his assignment.
West couldn't come up with anything more serious against Vindman than having "acted outside of his chain of command," and suddenly he's a Benedict Arnold-level traitor?
West concluded by ranting:
How interesting that the left is all up in arms over LTC Vindman, yet they could not celebrate a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman who flew combat missions in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The left celebrates a deserter like Bowe Bergdahl yet criticizes the release of Army 1LT Clint Lorance who was imprisoned for six years because he killed the enemy in Afghanistan…even the Army withheld exculpatory evidence in his case.
Weird that West is turning against the UCMJ that convicted Lorance of murder, while demanding that Vindman face the UCMJ for his actions. It's also far from clear that Lorance "killed the enemy in Afghanistan"; he was convicted of ordering his troops to shoot at a group of unarmed civilians, killing two, and even his own soldiers testified against him, describing him as ignorant and overzealous. Lowrance was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men were killed.
All of which seems much more serious than making a report outside the chain of command. But for a guy who violated the UCMJ by torturing an enemy combatant, that's apparently a more honorable way to behave.
MRC, CNS Paper Over Kobe Bryant's Rape Allegation Topic: Media Research Center
Basketball star Kobe Bryant's death in a helicopter crash prompted tributes even inside the ConWeb -- while downplaying a sertain something that would otherwise be the lead story.
At the Media Research Center, mysterious sports blogger Jay Maxson paid tribute to Bryant's "devotion to faith and family" while burying the thing that would seem to disprove that notion. Maxson eventually conceded that "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault in Colorado, but the charges were dropped when his accuser refused to testify in a civil court and settled out of court" -- but then he touted how "With his wife by his side in a press conference, Bryant admitted he had committed adultery," then quoted Bryant's denial of assault charges, which Maxson framed as an "apology" because he claimed to understand how the accuser thought that their sexual encounter wasn't consensual. Though Maxson claimed Bryant made this claim in court, it was actually issued through his attorney, not from the lips of Bryant himself.
Maxson then gushed: "How many celebrities will own up to sin in the 21st century? He tried to redeem himself through devotion to family -- his wife and four daughters. There were rocky times ahead for Bryant with his wife and family, but they appeared to weather those storms." Maxson invoked Bryant's professed Catholicism for allegedly having "helped him through the difficult times in his life, especially the sexual assault charge," then closed by reiterating: "Kobe Bryant's life was an imperfect life, but he finished strong and devoted himself to faith and family."
(Of course, Maxson would never give, say, Colin Kaepernick the consideration of being "imperfect.")
At the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, Craig Bannister similarly gushed how "Pro basketball legend Kobe Bryant, who died Sunday in helicopter crash in Southern California, was a practicing Catholic who credited his Catholic faith for helping him through the toughest times in his life." He too took a while before admitting that the "toughest time" was the sexual assault charge:
Bryant relied on his Catholic faith as he dealt with, and sought to find peace after having been accused of sexual assault in 2003 – an accusation he denied, though he eventually issued an apology and agreed to a civil lawsuit settlement.
Bannister finished by noting a tribute Bryant by the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles.
CNS Melts Down Over Super Bowl Halftime Show Topic: CNSNews.com
The Super Bowl halftime show featuring Jennifer Lopez and Shakira did not sit well with the moral scolds at CNSNews.com.
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted attacks on the show by Franklin Graham and other conservatives as a mockery of "moral decency,"and Chapman helpfully added a description of the show: "The halftime show was little more than a striptease performed by pop-tarts Shakira and Jennifer Lopez, complete with crotch-rubbing, butt-shaking, hip-grinding, S&M leather, and a stripper pole."
In a Feb. 6 column advocating for "religious freedom," Ken Blackwell added an aside that "Public figures embrace hypocrisy, and the entertainment industry mocks values and celebrates immorality, as recently demonstrated in the Super Bowl halftime show." An otherwise empty item links to a post by Leesa Donner at the right-wing Liberty Nation with the headline "Avert Your Eyes: Do we Really Need a Super Bowl Stripper Pole?" who called the show "a prime-time gentlemen’s lounge act complete with sadomasochistic attire and stripper pole."
The winner for full meltdown, though, goes to John Horvat II, who uses the show to go on an extended morality rant under the headline "Wny Mothers Now Weep For Their Children":
I received an email recently that brought home the extent of the tragedy for which I grieve. It touched me to the very depth of my soul. It was from a mother commenting on the half-time show at the 2020 Super Bowl. The nation’s most-watched event featured an extravaganza of lewd dancing, scanty clothing and sexualized moves never seen before. It was much worse than past outrages.
In this display, we sense a desire to corrupt. There can be no other explanation. Everyone knows that millions of young children, teenagers and youth watch the game and the show. Most of those watching profess religious beliefs contrary to the immoral performance. Many adults could not hold back their disgust at seeing this family event turned into a shameless spectacle of impurity. I initiated an online protest so that people’s outraged voices could be heard.
In another email, a mother said that, upon seeing part of the show, “I sat on my couch and wept as I am trying to raise four kids in this culture. Thank you for speaking out.” Her message was echoed by many others who were shocked by the “pornographic” display so contrary to “purity, chastity and modesty.”
Horvat uses this to rnat against "the decline of morals, the outrage of abortion and the LGBTQ+ tyranny," with particular focus on "ever-growing presence of drag queens, especially in their story hours that target pre-school children in public libraries and elementary schools," which purportedly demonstrate "the desire to corrupt," adding: "As one drag queen said at a public hearing in Lafayette, La., “this is going to be the grooming of the next generation.”
Horvat is deliberately taking the "grooming" line out of context. As we documented, the drag queen said that he has no agenda and the "grooming" that is taking place is about not hating drag queens the way Horvat does.
And don't doubt that hate is driving Horvat: He then huffs that "The drag queen is the cutting edge of the Sexual Revolution that seeks to destroy all sexual restrictions, identities, and taboos," adding: "We are entering times when unnatural vice and macabre lifestyles are becoming normalized. Satanism and “black masses” are proliferating."
Yep, he jumped rather easily from drag queens to Satanism.
How Is The MRC Melting Down Over Jim Acosta Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has toned down its bizarre, obsessivehatred for CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta of late. But that doesn't mean that the flare-ups of Acosta Derangement Syndrome have completely disappeared.
We've already documented a November meltown and noted how the MRC freaked about Acosta accurately describing Rush Limbaugh has a "history of making derogatory comments about African-Americans" while never actually disputing the accusation. Butit's gone on other Acosta-bashing tirades as well.
IN January, Nicholas Fondacaro groused that "Acosta chided Trump’s calm and reassuring tweet to the American people" following Iran's attack on a U.S. military base in Iraq, ranting that Acosta was "bitter" and was "gaslighting CNN's viewers." Fondacaro went on another mind-reading escapade, declaring that Acosta was "increasingly indignant" and "seemed to grow more and more irritated" and proclaiming that the reporter was "obviously more angry at Trump than the Iranians who were trying to kill Americans." Fondacaro is obviously angry that Acosta won't act like he's on Fox News and be a good little Trump-bot like himself.
Chief Acosta-hater Curtis Houck chimed in with a Feb. 5 post smearing Acosta as "Fake News Jim" for noting the relevant fact of Mitt Romney's support of one article of impeachment against President Trump.
Two days later, Scott Whitlock complained that the "pompous" Acosta "appeared at Point Park University on Thursday to lecture on how his truth telling 'gets under your skin.' Acosta also explained his worry that the President’s comments could lead to violence against the press." Remember, the MRC hates journalists and is actively callous toward their safety, actively denying that Trump's (and, by extension, the MRC's) anti-journalist rhetoric doesn't inspire violence.
Lie-Loving WND Unironically Attacks Democrats For Lying Topic: WorldNetDaily
The latest edition of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine gets touted in a Feb. 7 article:
When conservatives attempt to explain the left’s shockingly wanton disregard for truth, they often say things like, “These people are captive to a toxic ideology” or “They’re obsessed with power” or “They’re playing to their radical leftwing base” or “They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
All true, says Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, “but the ultimate reason the left is so comfortable with lying – as with so many truly big issues in life – has to do with God. Do we honor and submit to the Creator of the Universe and His laws of life, or do we rebel against Him so that we can be, in effect, our own gods?”
It’s difficult for normal people, restrained by a functioning conscience, to comprehend how politicians like Adam Schiff and Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi can look into a TV camera – which is to say, look right into the eyes of millions of people – and flat-out lie continually.
This total divorce from honesty and truth, which has captured today’s Democratic Party, is explored in a powerfully eye-opening and original way in the latest issue (January 2020) of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine – headlined “IN LOVE WITH LYING: For today’s enraged, power-obsessed Democrats, deception is a creative force.”
You know who else is in love with lying? Kupelian and WND.
To name just two of the worst examples, WND spent eight years pushing the lie that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his birth certificate was fraudulent, and it also pushed the lie that Seth Rich leaked Democratic emails. And its recent years haven't stopped it from publishing false, fake news -- heck, we caught them just the other day inventing a quote nobody is on record as saying.
The cognitive dissonance continued in Kupelian's column from the issue filled with more ranting:
Question: What do Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Peter Strzok, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff all have in common?
It’s so painfully obvious, I don’t even need to say it.
Americans of sound mind and morals are being forced right now to confront a bizarre but inescapable truth about their nation’s leadership: The Democratic Party has become essentially a gargantuan web of lies and liars – and very little else.
It’s difficult for normal people, restrained by a functioning conscience, to comprehend how politicians like Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi can look into a TV camera – which is to say, look right into the eyes of millions of people – and flat-out lie.
I couldn’t do it and neither could you. Conscience and inner conflict would paralyze us.
Trust us: Conscience and inner conflict is not something Kupelian is burdened by. If he was, he would have used his position as de facto WND leader in Joseph Farah's absence to apologize for the above-cited lies he has spread through WND over the years. The fact that he hasn't shows us he knows he's lying and doesn't care.
Unsurprisingly, we've also caught Kupelian tellinglies, for which he has yet to apologize as well.
Kupelian once wrote a column accusing Democrats of "projection" in criticizing conservatives. But Kupelian was the one projecting then, and he's doing the exact same thing now.
CNS Floods The Zone On Pelosi's Speech-Ripping Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com may develop selective amnesia when it comes to reporting relevant details about its fellow conservatives, but when a Democrat or liberal does something it can exploit for its fellow travelers, CNS is ON IT.
Patrick Goodenough wrote disdainfully in a Feb. 5 article:
As President Trump completed his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slowly and deliberately tore in half what appeared to be her copy of the speech, before tossing the bits of paper onto the desk.
“The American age, the American epic, the American adventure has only just begun,” Trump said. “Our spirit is still young. The sun is still rising. God’s grace is still shining. My fellow Americans, the best is yet to come. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.”
Scarcely had the words left his mouth when Pelosi held up a sheaf of papers. She tore them in two, then – as seen from various camera angles – repeated the action three more times, before throwing down the stack of ripped pages.
Goodenough encapsulated CNS' right-wing bias by quoting three politicians commenting on Pelosi's act -- two of whom were Republicans but only one (Rep. Liz Cheney) was identified as such; the other, Dalia al-Aqidi, is identified only as running to unseat Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar -- and, as it turned out, who Goodenough did a fawning profile of just last month.
CNS followed up with more biased reporting in the form of attacks on Pelosi for her act:
Trump fangirl Susan Jones dutifully transcribed Trump's tweetstorm bashing Pelosi, touting how Trump was "retweeting some of the #PelosiTantrum criticism."
Melanie Arter featured how Trump White House official Kellyanne Conway claimed on Fox News that Pelosi's act "demonstrates that the Democratic Party has devolved into a petty, peevish and partisan party." In her lengthy summary of Conway's appearance, Arter did note whether Conway was ever asked if Trump's anti-Pelosi tweetstorm was an example of him being "petty, peevish and partisan."
Craig Bannister repeated how Jody Jones, who earned an invitation to theState of the Union address because his brother "was shot and killed by an illegal alien," went for the full-drama effect by declaring (on Fox News, natch) that Pelosi's speech-ripping "ripped our hearts out ... it just tore us up."
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman cheered how House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy "mocked" Pelosi's "stunt" and responding with a "video on Twitter, in which he declares, 'Acquitted for life' and tears up what, presumably, are the articles of impeachment."
Bruce Truax wrote that "In reference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tearing up the president's speech on national television after the State of the Union on Tuesday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) said he was surprised that Pelosi did not 'hit' Trump with the speech."
Chapman followed up on Goodenough's reference to Cheney by giving her her own article to rant that the speech-ripping allegedly showed that Pelosi is "unfit for office."
Finally, for some reason, editor in chief Terry Jeffrey felt the need to hunt down a Republican senator from North Dakota for his opinion of Pelosi's speech-ripping and then devote an article to said opinion, which could largely be summarized by his calling it "very, very, very odd."
That's a total of eight articles focused on a couple seconds of Pelosi ripping up a speech -- six of which were devoted exclusively to attacking Pelosi. Good thing CNS doesn't have to live up to the standards of fairness and objectivity its parent, the Media Research Center, demands from other media outlets.
AIM Joins The ConWeb's Dershowitz Defense Game Topic: Accuracy in Media
The Media Research Center and Newsmax weren't the only ConWeb outlets playing defense for Trump-loving lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Accuracy in Media made its own attempt in the genre with a Jan. 20 post by Spencer Irvine that continues AIM's newfound obsession with obscure media outlet NowThis News:
Alan Dershowitz, who taught law classes at Harvard University, has defended O.J. Simpson, Jeffery Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. NowThis News’s coverage pointed out that Dershowitz represented terrible people, such as Weinstein and Epstein. The website also said that Weinstein is currently facing charges of sexual misconduct and other sex crimes, while Epstein was a convicted sex offender.
NowThis News also wrote that Starr, who was the independent counsel during the Clinton impeachment investigation, also represented Epstein in legal proceedings. But the website failed to acknowledge that lawyers defend the innocent and guilty alike, as the criminal justice system operates on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It was not a crime for Dershowitz or Starr to defend people that lacked character and morals.
The website also accused Bondi, the former Florida Attorney General, of giving Trump a pass. It said that she was the attorney general “who dropped an investigation into Trump’s fraudulent university scam after receiving campaign contributions (a $25,000 donation) from the Trump Foundation.” NowThis News did not provide a source for that allegation, which is ironic because this was an article about legal proceedings and lawyers.
Irvine is playing dumb here: The story about the Trump Foundation's donation to a group supporting Bondi's campaign appeared innumerousplaces, including the New York Times. It's a well enough known story that NowThis didn't really need to source it. And Irvine certainly isn't going to mention that the Trump Foundation paid a fine to the IRS over the donation, since the foundation's tax status forbade it from making political donations. Nor will he tell you that the appearance of a quid pro quo is unmistakable.
Suggesting that an accurate story isn't accurate would seem to run counter to AIM's name and mission.
MRC Defends Limbaugh After Cancer, Medal of Freedom, Denies His History of Racial Attacks Topic: Media Research Center
In the eyes of the Media Research Center, Rush Limbaugh can do no wrong -- remember, the MRC's response to perhaps Limbaugh's most odious moment of disgustingly smearing Sandra Fluke as a "slut" and a sex maniac was to reward his hate by launching an "I Stand With Rush" campaign. So when Limbaugh grabbed the spotllight by first announcing he has lung cancer and then being awarded a surprise Medal of Freedom during President Trump's State of the Union Address, you knew that the MRC would slobber over -- and fiercely defend -- the right-wing radio host.
Sadly, not even lung cancer diagnoses are enough to escape the bitter taste of partisan politics.
Only a couple of short hours after legendary conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh revealed his diagnosis of an advanced stage of lung cancer, media publications and media figures began to get their digs in on the man because of his massive decades-spanning conservative influence.
Hays was effectively complaining that people were as insensitive to Limbaugh as Limbaugh has been to people he has hated over the decades. Very hypocritical -- and, needleess to say, Hays made no mention of the insults Limbaugh has hurled over the years that might have made some people feel a little less charitable toward the man.
Hays wrote a similar post the next day, this time grousing: "Cruel media leftists absolutely cannot stand Rush Limbaugh having a joyful moment even after his late-stage cancer diagnosis." Does he think Limbaugh himself would act any different if, say, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama suddenly faced a similar medical crisis?
Kyle Drennen complained that on on TV show "a vicious tweet was featured of a left-wing celebrity claiming that Limbaugh 'doesn’t think poor people deserve' medical care." Drennen did not dispute the accuracy of the tweet.
Scott Whitlock grumbled that "hard-left CNN journalist Jim Acosta ... smeared the radio star as a racist, claiming a 'history of making derogatory comments about African-Americans.'" Not only did Whitlock not offer any evidence that Limbaugh never made derogatory comments about African-Americans (beyond a blanket denial from Rush's producer), he offered no evidence that Acosta is "hard-left"; that's just a flare-up of the MRC's Acosta Derangement Syndrome. In a separate post, Whitlock complained that another commentator "exchoriated" [sic] Limbaugh as the "face of racism" again without offering proof to the contrary.
In a similar vein, Curtis Houck attacked ABC for describing Limbaugh as "controverisal and divisive" as well as "racist" but, similarly, offered no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the claims.
When another commentator noted that "birther" Limbaugh got the Medal of Freedom in a State of the Union scene akin to Oprah Winfrey handing out free cars, Nicholas Fondacaro could only muster in response: "Well, [April] Ryan, here’s some facts for you: Many people were very happy for Limbaugh too" -- apparently approving of Rush's birtherism.
MRC chief Brent Bozell popped in on a Fox Business appearance to complain about what an anonymously written NewsBusters post descrbied as "nasty jabs from CNN anchors that Rush Limbaugh is a racist (he’s not)." Again, no proof to back that up.
In a post unironically headlined "CLASSLESS AND CRUEL," Geoffrey Dickens grumbled that "haters in the liberal media couldn’t let Limbaugh – who just announced he is battling advanced lung cancer – have this one heartwarming moment for his family and millions of fans to savor without attacking him as an undeserving racist." Rather than offer proof to the contrary, Dickens merely claimed that "longtime Limbaugh producer Bo Snerdley [went] to his Twitter account to debunk Acosta and other liberals’ claims of racism" though that's not what happened at all; Snerdley merely demanded evidence of racial attacks, of which there is plenty.
Kristine Marsh joined in by whining that a couple of "The View" co-hosts "unfairly accusing Limbaugh of being a racist," but she too offered no evidence to contradict the claim.
Randy Hall detailed Fox News host Laura Ingraham denouncing Acosta's yet-to-be-contradicted statement about Limbaugh's history of racially derogatory remarks as "disgusting," but Hall offered no evidence that she disprove it; instead, guest and right-wing writer Sara Carter was given space to rant that the claim was "absolutely false," again without supporting evidence.
Clay Waters, meanwile, finally attempted a response to claims of racism when the New York Times suggested it, albeit nothing but a lame conservative trope: "It is easy to get offended if you assume any race-related comment by a conservative is racist.
And Brad Wilmouth complained that a CNN correspondent other than Acosta pointed out that Limbaugh has shared "xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist sentiments with the masses." He did a better job of responding to the claims, even if he was recycling old kneejerk MRC defenses of Limbaugh. He deflected on the "Barack the Magic Negro" parody song LImbaugh loved by claiming that it "was based on a Los Angeles Times piece that called Obama a 'magic negro,'" though he didn't explain how that made it less offensive.
After the reporter pointed out Limbaugh declaring that Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease activism was a act, parroted an old justification that "Fox himself, in his book, confessed that he had once deliberately avoided taking his medication so that his symptoms would look worse than usual as he lobbied for federal spending on stem cell research." Which didn't address the fact that Limbaugh implied that Fox was faking it all the time.
These weak or nonexistent responses tell us that even the MRC knows his history of offensive comments can't be defended -- so it tries to shout down the critics instead.
Needless to say, there was plenty of gushing over Limbaugh at the MRC as well. Hays devoted a post to the "immense outpouring of support from conservative leaders" who "showed their gratitude for how much of an impact the man had on the mainstream conservative movement," and Houck wrote up how Trump presented thte Media of Freedom to Limbaugh.