Even After Riot, MRC Still Did PR For Trump Topic: Media Research Center
It was embarrassing that anyone would continue to shill for Donald Trump after the Capitol riot he instigated. But Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro is clearly not afraid to embarrass himself.
In a Jan. 17 post, Fondacaro complained that MBC's Chuck Todd said of Trump's presidency that "it is hard to look at this as anything other than a failed presidency when you look at particularly the coronavirus in the last year and obviously the violent ending to his presidency." Fondacaro first retorted, "While Trump’s actions and the events of the last couple of weeks did taint his legacy and final days in office, there was a long list of accomplishments; even if Todd, a man who rents to Democrats, didn’t want to see them." That weird attack referenced a post by MRC executive Tim Graham claiming that Todd once rented a home he owned to Democratic Rep. Amy Klobuchar; apparently, Graham wants Todd to violate anti-discrimination laws by refusing to rent to a Democrat.
Then, Fondacaro started acting as if he was the payroll of former Truymp press seretary Kayleigh McEneny:
As noted by a list put out by the White House, the administration could brag about Operation Warp Speed which oversaw the fastest vaccine research and development ever. And before the coronavirus, “The unemployment rate reached 3.5 percent, the lowest in a half-century,” which included record low unemployment for many minority groups. Also, “The DOW closed above 20,000 for the first time in 2017 and topped 30,000 in 2020.” Plus, the tax cuts.
And aside from renegotiating the trade deal with Canada and Mexico (replacing NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), the Trump administration had other trade and foreign policy accomplishments like energy independence and getting our NATO allies to give more money to our mutual defense.
Just to name a few.
Nothing says "media research" like coping and pasting from a press release in order to obscure Trump's failures. Of course, the MRC hasacted throughout Trump's presidency as if it was an extension of his White House and his re-election campaign.
The lead story at WorldNetDailiy on Jan. 21 was an interview managing editor David Kupelian conducted with pro-choice doctor turned anti-abortion activist Bernard Nathanson. It's not until the fifth paragraph that Kupelian admits this interview was conducted in 1990 -- and it's not until the very final paragraph of this lengthy article that Kupelian notes: "Bernard Nathanson passed away on Feb. 21, 2011, at the age of 84." So not only is this a 31-year-old story, the interviewee died 10 years ago.
If Kupelian's interview sounds familiar beyond its date, that's because it is. He posted this exact same article two years ago, when we also noted its age and also the fact that it came from Kupelian's book "The Marketing of Evil." And if you look at that 2019 link, you'll see that the date now reads Jan. 21, 2021 -- meaning that Kupelian simply changed the date on this 2-year-old story to make it appear new. The URL indicates the original 2019 date.
A 2-year-old version of a 31-year-old interview of a man who died a decade ago is the anthesis of "news." It's the apex of lazy reporting. But do we expect any more from WND?
CNS Whitewashes Curt Schilling's Hate, Lets Him Play Victim Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister manufactured some victimization for retired baseball pitcher Curt Schilling in a Jan. 27 CNSNews.com article:
Former three-time World Series winning pitcher Curt Schilling is asking that he be removed from contention in next year’s vote for Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Hall of Fame, voted on by “morally bankrupt” sports writers.
Schilling, who won 216 games and had an 11-2 record in the playoffs in his major league career, made the announcement on social media on Tuesday via a pair of tweets linking to a Facebook post of his request in a letter to the Hall of Fame:
[...]
Schilling has been the subject of hostile press for his conservative views and public comments, such as his opposition to transgender bathroom policies, comparison of Muslim extremists to Nazi-era Germans, and characterization of liberals who refused to denounce last year’s violent riots in major U.S. cities.
But Bannister is not telling the full story about Schilling's "conservative" comments. Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy explained:
Curt Schilling would help himself if he’d stop spewing hate and claiming he’s being punished by Baseball Hall of Fame voters because of his “politics.”Supporting a racist mob that stormed the Capitol is not being “political.” Advocating for lynching journalists, calling Adam Jones a liar when he said he heard racist slurs at Fenway Park, bilking Rhode Island out of $75 million, collecting Nazi memorabilia, and posting anti-transgender material … these are not “political” stands.
Mariano Rivera is a Donald Trump supporter and he sailed into the Hall of Fame unanimously.
Shaughnessy added that even without his hateful remarks, Schilling's Hall of Fame entry would not be guaranteed: "Schilling’s baseball case for Cooperstown is legit, but hardly a slam-dunk like a Pedro or a Koufax. He was 11-2 in the postseason and a historic strike-throwing machine. Otherwise, he compares most favorably to Kevin Brown, Kenny Rogers, and Tim Hudson, who are not in."
But when you're pushing conservative victimization, as Bannister is here, the narrative is more important than the truth.
ConWeb Hypes Arrest Of 'Leftist' Rioter To Distract From Pro-Trump Nature of Capitol Riot Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb has had trouble accepting that their fellow Trump supporters committed the Jan. 6 Capityol Riot (witness WorldNetDaily's attempts to blame Antifa). But when an purported leftist was arrested for his alleged role in the riot, they were ON IT.
Unsurprisingly, WND dived in deeply, first with an anonymously written Jan. 14 article:
The FBI has arrested anarchist leader John Sullivan of Utah for participating in and committing various crimes during the riot at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.
He was quoted as saying, "We got to rip Trump from office" and "It's time for a revolution."
Videos showed Sullivan agitating the crowd and encouraging violence.
That was followed the next day with an article by Art Moore declaring that this proved Antifa provoked the riot:
The FBI's arrest of a "revolutionary" activist Thursday night has shattered the conventional narrative that the loose-knit, "anti-fascist" movement known as Antifa had nothing to do with the violence that shut down the U.S. Capitol and prompted the second impeachment of President Trump.
John Earle Sullivan of Sandy, Utah, insists he's not a "member" of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, but the activists in black bloc who were behind the estimated $2 billion in damage over the summer don't carry membership cards. In quieter moments, many explain their aim is to provoke a revolution and replace the American republic with an anarchist system in which there is no state.
[...]
Prior to Sullivan's arrest, the prominent "fact-checker" site published by the Poynter Institute, Politifact, declared there's "no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters."
In fact, BLM activists in Utah, where Sullivan is from, have said Sullivan was kicked out of the group for extreme behavior and suspected far-right ties. Observers of Sullivan at the riot have said they did not see Sullivan inciting violence.
Moore then labored to distance the rioters from purportedly real Trump supporters:
Along with anti-Trump extremists, the FBI has arrested extremists who have declared support for the president.
Among them is Jacob Chansley, the QAnon conspiracy theorist who was photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the Senate chamber.
However, Chansley doesn't fit the profile of a typical Trump supporter. He has explained he's a practioner of shamanism, and Reuters reported a detention memo by Justice Department lawyers in Arizona said he "has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality."
Among the mob at the Capitol were members of a "group" that has drawn the attention of the FBI ahead of the inauguration called the Boogaloo Bois.
The Atlantic reported the FBI warned earlier that boogaloos could launch attacks in state capitols this Sunday.
But the center-left magazine said "the boogaloos don't appear interested in fighting for Donald Trump — they tend to despise him, mostly because they think he panders to the police."
But Sullivan appears to have been the only non-right-winger arrested in connection to the riot, undercutting Moore's bogus contention that it was instigated by Antifa.
Moore is also being disingenuous by dismissing the "QAnon Shaman" arrested at the riot as not a true Trump supporter because "he's a practioner of shamanism." He's deliberately overlooking the QAnon part of the description, which is very much a pro-Trump movement.
CNSNews.com also glommed onto Sullivan's arrest in a Jan. 15 article by Melanie Arter touting how "A leftist activist was arrested and charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol," adding that "Sullivan told the Rolling Stone that he tried to blend in so that Trump supporters would trust him." Strangely, CNS deleted Arter's article; it's no longer in the CNS archive, and the original direct link comes up empty.
At the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog, P.J. Gladnick got all excited about Sullivan's arrest -- and his appearance on CNN after the riot but before the arrest -- in a Jan 15 post:
On January 6, after the rioting in the Capitol building, Anderson Cooper interviewed a leftist "journalist," John Sullivan, who was filming the scene when Air Force veteran, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed. Conveniently not mentioned by Cooper during the interview was the fact that Sullivan had been arrested the previous July for rioting and making threats in Provo, Utah. Somehow this important fact, which would have put Sullivan's background in the proper perspective, was skipped although CNN seemed to know enough about Sullivan to identify him as the founder of far left Insurgence USA in its transcript.
[...]
It is therefore not very surprising that this "journalist" has now been arrested for very similar activity at the Capitol that CNN somehow overlooked although his organization appears in the report of Sullivan's Provo arrest.
Interestingly, we have not seen that WND, CNS or the MRC has given another other person arrested at the riot the kind of headline coverage it gave Sullivan -- which tells us they're using Sullivan as a distraction from the fact that the rioters were, in fact, pro-Trump extremists not too much unlike themselves.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's War On Warnock Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center and its "news" division, CNSNews.com, formed a tag team to attack Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidate for a Georgia Senate seat -- effectively serving as the (unpaid?) oppo-research division of his Republican opponent. Read more >>
CNSNews.com found its two great hatreds of late -- transgender people and PresidentBiden'scabinet nominees -- merging into a single story. A Jan. 19 article by Melanie Arter introduced it, making sure to find an unflattering screenshot to illustrate it:
President-elect Joe Biden nominated Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine to be assistant secretary of the Department Health and Human Services on Tuesday.
If approved, Levine would become the first openly transgender Senate-confirmed federal official, The Hill reports.
“Dr. Rachel Levine will bring the steady leadership and essential expertise we need to get people through this pandemic — no matter their zip code, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — and meet the public health needs of our country in this critical moment and beyond,” Biden said in a statement.
Transgender Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine, who was tapped by President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday to be assistant HHS secretary, faced scrutiny last year for moving her own mother out of a nursing home after ordering all nursing homes and long-term care facilities to accept COVID patients from hospitals.
The Daily Caller reported in May 2020 that Levine admitted she pulled her mother out 11 days after issuing the order on March 29. Levine’s admission came after a local TV station discovered what the secretary had done.
In fact, Levine's mother was not in a nursing home but, rather, in a personal care facility that is regulated separately and under Levine's jurisdiction as state HHS director.
Arter also repeated criticism of Levine from a Republican state senator who claimed that moving COVID patients from hospitals to long-term-care facilities caused coronavirus to spread there, killing patients. But Arter censored the state government's response, that doing so freed up beds in hospitals for more COVID patients and that the virus' spread in long-term-care facilitiesis more likely due to asymptomatic employees.
CNS editor Terry Jeffrey went transphobic on Levine in his Jan. 20 column:
When Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf named Levine his state's "physician general" in 2015, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a story explaining the doctor's background.
"She has been a leading voice in efforts to treat teens with medical and psychological problems," the paper quoted the governor as saying.
She went to Harvard as an undergraduate and then to medical school at Tulane, and eventually worked at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center and Health System.
"Along the way, she was married and fathered two children," said the Inquirer.
That's right: The Inquirer reported that "she ... fathered two children."
Someone else, apparently, mothered them.
"Now divorced," the paper explained, "Levine said she began the transition to becoming a woman about 10 years ago."
The internet played an important role in this "transition."
[...]
This week, both The Washington Post and The New York Times featured Levine's transgenderism in their online headlines about her nomination. "Biden Selects Transgender Doctor Rachel Levine as Assistant Health Secretary," said the Post. "Biden Chooses Rachel Levine, a Transgender Doctor, for Senior Health and Human Services Role," said the Times.
But does the science say that a male can become a female when he changes his name and his manner of presenting himself?
The same day, Craig Bannister complained that "This week Biden nominated transgender Dr. Rachel Levine — the former Dr. Richard Levine — as an assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services."
In his Jan. 29 column, dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue claimed that a Catholic media outlet's Twitter account was suspended after it described Levine as "a biological man identifying as a transgender woman," insisting that this was "innocuous speech" and ranting, "the free speech rights of all Catholic media outlets and websites are in jeopardy. Twitter is a menace to freedom. It needs to be reined in by the Congress."
Tony Perkins referenced the incident in his Feb. 2 column, adding, "It's incredible how far we've come since November. Now, Big Tech can't even co-exist with the facts!"
How Has The MRC Been Freaking Out Over George Soros Now? Topic: Media Research Center
The last time we checked in on the Media Research Center's obsession with George Soros, MRC writer Joseph Vazquez seemingly had an assignment to fearmonger abaout him every week or two. Vazquez was at it over the last half of 2020 and into 2021:
In a Nov. 30 post, Vazquez complained that "It took Election Day being over for CNN to slam Democratic hypocrisy on the use of dark money," highlighting that "The George Soros-funded Sixteen Thirty Fund — a left-wing group CNN noted as responsible for about a third of the 'dark money' that helped fuel Democratic candidates this cycle — had given $52 million to other 'groups active in the 2020 elections.' CNN ignored mentioning that the group was connected to Soros." Vazquez wasn't similarly concerned about dark money in Republican political campaigns.
Meanwhile, Alexander Hall went on a Soros-blaming binge in a July post:
Don’t doubt that Wikipedia is liberal. Fierce debate erupted among Wikipedia moderators about whether Fox News could even be used as a credible source in Wikipedia entries. It ended by being a source that could only be used with proper warnings in place.
Wikipedia labels itself as the internet’s encyclopedia. Like so many other internet institutions, it seems to have been co-opted by left-wing radicals. “The Wikipedia community recently engaged in a spirited debate over whether Fox News is a reliable enough source to use as a citation in entries on the encyclopedia,” CNN’s’ Reliable Sources newsletter reported.
The administrators overseeing the platform decided that since there was “no consensus regarding the reliability" of Fox News, that it “should be used with caution.” Perhaps this shouldnt be a surprise from an institution which has received $2 million in donations from liberal billionaire George Soros.
Yes, Hall really was blaming all of this on Soros giving money to Wikipedia.
In a Dec. 2 post, Hall complained that Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the "infamous" Anti-Defamation League, "has smeared online conservatives as being 'anti-Semitic' for their criticism of liberal billionaire George Soros. He claimed 'George Soros is patient zero for the anti-Semites.'" The MRC has declared Soros as a Jew conservatives are permitted to hate, pre-emptively absolving them of anti-Semitism in doing so, even though it has applied the anti-Semitic "puppet master" trope to him.
We've already noted that on Dec. 18, MRC chief Brent Bozell attacked the Americans for Prosperity Foundation for seeking emails the MRC may have sent to Trump administration officials to pushing its dubious conservative victimization agenda regarding social media, further attacking key AFP funder the Koch brothers for having "launched a multi-million dollar venture with George Soros."
Dick Morris Spins More Craziness At Newsmax Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax pundit Dick Morris has had to back off somewhat from the election fraud conspiracy theories he's been spouting sinceNovember, but he's still pushing other kinds of craziness. Take this slice of fearmongering from his Jan. 14 column under the wildly hyperbolic headline "The Democratic Reign of Terror Has Begun":
Like Maximilien Robespierre, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are taking no prisoners.
A new Democratic reign of terror is upon us, endangering our free speech, free press, political playing field, and personal liberty.
Watch your back.
The Democrats are using the outrageous and unsupportable Capital riot the same way that the Reichstag Fire of 1933 was used — as a pretext for an authoritarian crackdown in Germany.
The re-impeachment of President Trump and the banning of his emails, tweets, texts and Facebook posts are merely the first examples of a growing authoritarianism.
But the threat of punitive actions and censorship in this new reign of terror hangs over us all.
And, yes, Morris did work an election fraud conspiracy into this bit of paranoia as well:
Will the Democrats equate our political speech in even mentioning vote fraud issues and election irregularities with sedition, subjecting us to fines or imprisonment just for challenging the election of 2020?
That is the new premise of the coming Democratic reign of terror: That political statements charging that the election of 2020 was stolen or riddled with fraud are, by themselves, inciting violence by Trump supporters.
This approach harks back to efforts to suppress opposition to the World War I draft, the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by John Adams in 1798, and the 1954 law criminalizing membership in the American Communist Party (Communist Control Act of 1954).
Morris also served up a few bullet points to absolve Trump of any responsibility fir the Capitol riot:
Trump never advocated entering, much less taking over, the Capitol building and always explicitly opposed violence.
The charge that he "incited" the riots only refers to his peaceful exercise of free speech, denouncing the election of 2020 as the result of fraud and saying that it was “stolen.” Whether you agree with his statement or not, that is the essence of free speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Impeachment has been a vengeful kick while the President is down. A purely symbolic act, removal from office is a logistical impossibility within the time remaining until inauguration day. Although the Speaker and her minions claim that President Trump is so dangerous to the country that he must be removed immediately, they speak of sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate in months with a trial to follow!
In his Jan. 18 column, Morris spun another conspiracy, that polls showingexceptionally low approval rates for Trump after the riot were "manipulated" because the polls use a smaller percentage of Republican respondents than the vote Trump got in the election.For instance: "Pew Research captured headlines by finding Trump’s approval at only 29%. This poll was heavily by Chris Wallace on Fox News this weekend. But its sample is heavily biased against Trump. Although the president got at least 47% of the vote on November 3rd, Pew’s sample only has 30% Trump voters."
But the poll meticulously describes its methodology, which includes weighting results to correspond with population benchmarks. Does Morris not know how that works?
Apparently not, because he went on to tout the one poll whose results he likes: "The only outlier — which is to say the only honest poll — is by Rasmussen that shows the president maintaining a 48% job approval." Morris didn't mention that, according to FiveThirtyEight, Rasmussen has a pro-Republican bias and lower quality polls.
Chuck Norris Promotes Shoddy 'Historian' David Barton Topic: WorldNetDaily
Chuck Norris' Jan. 11 WorldNetDaily column began in a relatively normal fashion, expressing "heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the Capitol police officer and other lives lost in the U.S. Capitol last week. But by the third paragraph, he was quoting "historian David Barton" to bash last summer's protests against police brutality. He came up agani later in the column:
I'm not ignorant of how some protests turned violent in the formative years of our republic leading up to the Revolutionary War. But both sides of the aisle today must be careful not to cite historical precedent in revolts like the Boston Tea Party to justify violence. According to historian Barton again, that resistance event "was 100% peaceful with no looting, rioting, injury, or destruction of person or private property." (The same can basically be said of patriot resistance in 1765 against the Stamp Act and in 1767 against the Townshend Acts.)
Indeed, America had a violent birth, but the framers established and wanted to grow a peaceful republic while simultaneously securing freedoms of religion, speech, press and even grievance assemblies. They intentionally used the term "peaceably" because they also were familiar with angry, violent mobs. That is why Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., said of the U.S. Capitol riot this last week, "It's the Founding Fathers' worst fear." Mob rule is not the path to liberty.
Bottom line, as Barton concluded, "Peaceful protests are protected by the Bill of Rights, but violent riots which destroy, loot, and victimize are antithetical to the American idea. The comparison of the violent riots to the Boston Tea Party is wildly unfounded and demonstrates that Americans should study their history before they try to weaponize it."
But as actual historian John Fea wrote in fact-checking Barton, the Boston Tea Party was, in fact, a riot, the "partiers" were vandals, and property was destroyed: the tea.
Norris isn't going to tell you that Barton is a heavily discredited "historian" -- so much so that his book on Thomas Jefferson was recalled by its publisher for its inaccuracies. Then. of course, WND apparently bought up some of those copies for sale in its own online store, then republished it with only minor edits that didn't fix the book's problems and an added attack on the historians who exposed Barton's shoddy work.
Norris further embraced Barton in a plug at the end of his column: "For more great perspectives on patriotism and our founders, I would encourage you listen daily to Wallbuilders Live broadcasts with Rick Green and David & Tim Barton, especially last week's broadcast on 'What Happened at the Capitol.' Encourage others also to listen to their inspiring and educational 'Constitution Alive' series. Last, check out their excellent interview with Jim Garlow on 'The Theology of Protests.'" Garlow is an anti-gay pastor who has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump.
After Gushing Over McEnany, MRC's Houck Gives Thumbs-Down To Psaki As WH Press Secretary Topic: Media Research Center
In sharp contrast to the obsequious and embarrassing fawning and gushing he did over Trump's final White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, Curtis Houck and the rest of the Media Research Center have had their knives out for Biden press secretary Jen Psaki literally from the first day she started on Jan. 20.
That day, Nicholas Fondacaro whined: "As the liberal media were eagerly awaiting the first White House press briefing, chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell spun a false tale about Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s “great reputation” at the State Department. Of course, what they weren’t telling viewers was that her press shop manipulated an official briefing video of Fox News catching them in a lie about the Iran nuclear deal" when she was woking for the State Department in 2016. Fondacaro did not mention thenumerouslies McEnany was caught in during her tenure.
Houck served up a harsh review of Psaki's very first briefing that day and the media covering it:
On Wednesday night, the White House press corps made their embarrassing debut before White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, going from raging hyenas under Kayleigh McEnany to snoozing lapdogs for Psaki with a combination of boring, straightforward, and unserious questions with only a select few probing queries.
This was in stark contrast to the first briefings from Trump White House Press Secretaries Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kayleigh McEnany (with Stephanie Grisham never having held an in-person briefing during her tenure).
Houck didn't admit that his assessment was in stark contrast to his own lapdog-esque behavior over McEnany's allegedly sick burns and unveiled contempt of the media she was supposed to be briefing. He then touted biased right-wing reporters who asked biased questions of Psaki:
It was following this walk-in-the-park that Fox News’s Peter Doocy got his chance and asked two of the three toughest questions of the nearly 30 Psaki faced[.]
[...]
The other tough question came from EWTN’s Owen Jensen as he grilled Psaki about what this new administration’s abortion policies will look like:
[...]
Between Doocy and Jensen, note how all three questions were tough, but free of condemnations, juvenile comebacks, and snark. Amazing how so many were unable to do that for four years.
Houck seems genuinely amazed that reporters can ask questions "free of condemnations, juvenile comebacks, and snark" when the press secretary is also free of them.
Houck then took it upon himself to do "reviews" of Psaki's press briefings. His review of Psaki's Jan. 21 briefing shows that he has found a new person to fanboy over in Doocy:
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki returned for a second briefing late Thursday afternoon and, after Dr. Tony Fauci and the press corps had a friendly, laugh-filled chat about the evils of the Trump administration, she took her turn for yet another relatively pressure-free briefing.
However, Psaki faced a few exceptions, led by the Fox Business Network’s Blake Burman on the Keystone XL pipeline, the Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy on Amazon and President Biden not wearing a mask at the Lincoln Memorial, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Debra Saunders on religious liberty.
And with the others so pedestrian, we found it worth highlighting those that were actually doing their jobs.
Doocy had two back-and-forths and the first pertained to Biden’s blatant disregard Wednesday night for an executive order he had signed hours earlier mandating mask use on federal land (which would include National Parks).
Of course, Houck demanded "pedestrian" questions from themedia under McEnany and attacked the reporters who asked the kind of questions that he now portrays as them "doing their jobs."
For the Jan. 22 briefing, Houck complained: "Despite the fact that Donald Trump is no longer the President and the liberal media now have their friends returned to the White House, the White House press corps couldn’t shake their Trump addiction. On Friday alone, Trump and his administration were pertinent to roughly 16 out of the 45 questions to Press Secretary Jen Psaki (including 15 of the first 23), according to a NewsBusters count." Houck seems to have forgotten that Trump had very recently been impeached after inciting an insurrection on the Capitol, making it very much a valid subject for questioning.
He concluded by further complaining: "So in the first three Biden White House briefings, we’ve had roasts of the Trump administration (alongside Dr. Tony Fauci), softballs, and now a Trump obsession. It’s quite the opposite of the Trump briefings, which came off like Swamp versions of UFC matches." But Houck will never admit the role that McEnany and the other Trump press secretaries played in creating that atmosphere.
WND Reacts To The Capitol Riot, Part 2 Topic: WorldNetDaily
The liars and traitors who accuse him of inciting riotous behavior are worthy of scorn and contempt. Antifa and Black Lives Matter joined forces in disguising themselves as participants in the Jan. 6 rally, using a peaceful protest as cover to commit violence and more than likely murder as well.
President Trump has held countless rallies across America that were attended by staggering numbers of people at every venue – and there were no riots or violent behavior. Yet the media in association with pusillanimous Republicans are blaming President Trump for something in which he played no role.
[...]
President Trump will always be my president. I will never again support any insider the Republican Party promotes. I take what they have done to my president as a personal insult. They relieved their bowels on me and on all those who believed it right to support a man who held fast to what we believed.
President Trump is now being savaged with the intent to destroy all that he accomplished and to destroy him as a man.
I implore President Trump not to despair. He served with honor and faithfulness to God, country and American interests. We, the thinking People of America, will always remember and applaud your service, Mr. President. And as long as we have life, we will neither forget nor overlook what Republicans and Democrats did to our president. Because what they did to you they did to us.
The left is trying to get rid of President Trump before the end of his term, saying he incited an insurrection in the speech he gave near the White House on Jan. 6. House Democrats have drafted Articles of Impeachment with over 150 sponsors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared Trump's actions to those of President Nixon's in Watergate. Dozens of Democrats and some Republicans are also calling on Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet to remove Trump through the 25th Amendment, saying he is no longer fit for office.
[...]
They use a lot of vague, lofty language but are short on specifics. They say he "gravely endangered the security of the United States government." They claim he "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government." What do they cite as his dangerous words? Saying he won the election by a landslide. He encouraged "imminent lawless action" that "interfered with the peaceful transition of power." They assert that he will "remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office."
Does this meet the definition of incitement under the criminal code? In the past, Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. The Supreme Court case Clarence Brandenburg v. Ohio established the legal standard for violent speech, which is speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So let's look at what Trump actually said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." This is the opposite of inciting violence. This is speech protected under the First Amendment. In fact it is the heart of free speech, the right to march in political protest.
As for remaining a threat if he stays in office and thwarting the peaceful transition of power, the Democrats failed to mention in their Articles that after the violence started, Trump tweeted twice denouncing it, then followed up with a video denouncing it again. He conceded the election, saying his "focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power."
From here on, under their new relentlessly repeated revisionist narrative, Trump will be the American Hitler and every Deplorable a white supremacist. In their minds, and to the Blue Pill Public, this will justify their every action against conservative speech, thought, symbol, organization and person. The reprehensible rhetoric and tactics of the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hate group will become public policy. BE WARNED: Especially in the early stage, any militant bluster or bravado from Trump supporters will be characterized as hate speech and/or sedition. Marxist Brownshirts will look eagerly for people to make examples of. If you doubt me, just ask Adolfo Martinez who is serving 16 years in prison for the unforgivable crime of burning a "gay pride" flag.
How can the MAGA movement not just survive the purge but emerge from it stronger when it finally wanes? Use your 20/20 hindsight and consider what you would do if you were a Russian Christian during the Bolshevik takeover of 1917.
On Jan. 6, 2021, a right-wing mob of a few hundred people broke away from a peaceful right-wing protest involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of American conservatives and forced its way into the U.S. Capitol. One Capitol policeman was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, and one of the right-wing Capitol invaders was shot by a Capitol police officer. (A handful of others who died in the vicinity of the Capitol did so of nonviolent causes.) Aside from smashed windows, the mob seems to have done little damage to the Capitol. Their intent is still not clear. It seems to have been largely catharsis. They hurt no legislators, and if they intended to overthrow the government, they were delusional.
Beginning the next day, the American left used the Capitol mob just as the Nazis used the Reichstag: as an excuse to subjugate its conservative enemies and further squelch civil liberties in America – specifically, freedom of speech.
[...]
Another lie was the immediate labeling of the mob attack on the Capitol as "insurrection." All left-wing media and Democrats now refer to the event as an "insurrection," a term defined by almost every dictionary as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." As morally repulsive as the actions of the mob were, they did not constitute a revolt against civil authority or an established government. Disrupting the work of legislators for a few hours – as wrong as that was – does not constitute a "revolt."
But what proves the left's "insurrection" label is a lie is that Democrats and their media never once labeled the left-wing riots of 2020 – which involved the destruction by fire and/or occupation and vandalizing of police stations, and the establishment of "autonomous zones," which, by definition, revolted against "established governments" – as an "insurrection." The enormous number of businesses burned down, looted or otherwise destroyed was barely covered by the mainstream media, and their violent perpetrators were almost never prosecuted, let alone condemned, as engaging in an insurrection. Dozens of people were killed in these riots, yet there was more outcry and condemnation against the hours-long occupation of the U.S. Capitol than against six months of left-wing violent riots.
Then, like the Nazi regime after the Reichstag fire, the left immediately moved to further curtail civil liberties, specifically conservatives' ability to promote their ideas. Twitter and Amazon made it impossible for the alternative to Twitter, Parler, to exist, all in the name of preventing another right-wing "insurrection."
In the name of the Capitol "insurrection," the Democrats announced they would impeach the president of the United States, though he had only 14 days left in office.
Let me put this bluntly: Those who have not listened personally to Trump's speech on Jan. 6 at the Save America rally, who nevertheless assert as an established fact the narrative put forth by leftist news sources that Trump incited people to riot, are allowing ignorance to set their tongues wagging. We know that news agencies have their own biases and that there is often more to a situation than meets the eye. In a world full of emotional manipulation, lying propaganda and psychological warfare used to stir human passions, how do we look past media hype to arrive at a true picture of particular situations?
[...]
Many of these eyewitnesses testify to how a relatively small group of individuals who did not exhibit the same spirit or, in some cases, even look like the majority of people present, began to cause trouble at the Capitol building. While a small group advanced aggressively on the Capitol and entered it, many others moved away from the building, realizing that something quite evil and wrong was taking place. People were in fact surprised and confused at what they saw happening.
One witness said he heard a troublemaker say to his colleagues, "We need to shake things up so that these people will look bad." A a result of such experiences, many eyewitnesses who were present believe that the small group of rioters was composed – at least, in part – by Antifa members and other violent revolutionary types disguised as Trump supporters. These infiltrated the rally precisely to give the press corps an opportunity to paint Trump supporters as a group of lawless insurrectionists, ready to explode like a stack of dynamite in order to overthrow the government through mob violence. The experience of many eyewitnesses who were present, whose personal testimony contradicts the narrative of the leftist media, needs to be considered.
[...]
The last thing Trump would have wanted, obviously, is for idiots to ruin everything by rioting – which is what some knuckleheads did, either "lunatic fringe" supporters whose contempt for the rule of law finds no support in Trump's speech, or Antifa operatives who disguised themselves as Trump supporters.
Personally, I don't believe for a moment that Trump organized this event to incite acts of violence, vandalism, or insurrection, which makes no sense, if you think about it logically. This is clearly a deceitful narrative created by the left, prior to the facts being fully investigated and known, in order to achieve a political end – to turn public opinion against Trump and his supporters and to provide a pretext for censoring Trump by closing his social media accounts. Their goal is to make Trump look like a dangerous criminal, a lawless insurrectionist, which neither he nor those who support his policies are. That way, Trump's voice and conservative, populist message will be silenced as people feel intimidated to echo that message. Those who rioted were denying everything that the rally and that Trump' s message stood for– which was actually a call for the rule of law to be upheld and to prevail – a goal totally at odds with lawless rioting.
The fallout from last Wednesday will likely continue for a long time. The pitchfork brigade that frightened those in the Capitol for a few hours will likely become the face of "conservatives" on direct mail pieces of the Southern Poverty Law Center and their ilk.
But those inside the Capitol were not typical of the vast majority of conservatives, including those who attended the D.C. rally. Pastor and columnist Larry Tomczak was there.
[...]
One now-repentant participant inside the Capitol is quoted in the New York Post (Jan. 8): "My decision to enter the Capitol was wrong, and I am deeply regretful to have done so. Without qualification and as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, I condemn the violence and destruction that took place in Washington."
But, of course, if he's looking for forgiveness from the left, he will not find it. There is no redemption from the left.
Senators reneged on their promise to object to the Biden electors from Georgia and elsewhere, but senators have no role under the 12th Amendment to interfere with this process. They relied on the disputed Electoral Count Act of 1887, which even liberal scholars have condemned as unconstitutional.
The various senators who sanctimoniously speak out against Trump now have no constitutional authority to pick the next president, or certify electors. The 12th Amendment is clear: The House of Representatives, convening by state delegation, is required to pick the next president when no candidate has a legitimate majority of the Electoral College.
The same 138 Republicans who properly objected to certifying Biden electors could still meet under the Constitution to rectify the election of the next president. While Pelosi and Democrats are grasping for other provisions of the Constitution to try to destroy the Republican Party in the waning days of Trump's first term, the 27-20 GOP majority by state delegation could reelect him.
[...]
Leftists have taken over the narrative of the rally at the Capitol last Wednesday and completely misrepresented what Trump said, and what his supporters did. Far from the liberal portrayal of a "riot," which has a goal of stealing, vandalizing and injuring, the unarmed protesters were akin to anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s, and many similar ones ever since.
When four protesters were shot and killed at Kent State University in 1970, it was considered a national calamity. But the killing at the Capitol of unarmed pro-Trump 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who had honorably served our country during four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, is barely mentioned by liberals.
For those of us who saw it, the scene remains embedded upon our psyche, perhaps rekindled as we witness Donald Trump's final days. We see Trump, like the sea captain, left to ponder how his ship of state came to hit an iceberg – his in the form of the Jan. 6 Capitol building break-in by a group of supposedly all pro-Trump supporters – leading to tragedy.
One who probably enjoyed watching the Titanic captain's demise is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. As Trump faces his few remaining days in office, his nemesis, Pelosi, plots a similar end for him.
While Trump has accepted< responsibility for hitting his iceberg, the fallout from it is fueled by the same political enemies he fought his entire term.
[...]
Pelosi supposedly is Catholic, although she prioritizes politics over religion by supporting abortion. During Catholic services, attendees make a proclamation from John 14:27, "Peace I leave you, my peace I give unto you." To a heartless witch, this proclamation means nothing, perhaps justifying for Pelosi an appropriate replacement – the letter "w" for the letter "b."
CNSNews.com loves quoting black right-wing activist Candace Owens' conservative rantings, no matter how dubious -- even while it censors the controversies she gets into. Since we last documented this in August, the love has continued, mostly from writer Craig Bannister:
In that last one, posted Dec. 11, Bannister uncritically repeated Owens' claim that "I am not afraid of any virus that has over a 99% survival rate" -- a dishonest argument that callously handwaves the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died from it.
Bannister let Owens get away with more dishonesty in a Jan. 7 item:
The rise and fall of any nation always follows the same path, Blexit leader and conservative commentator Candace Owens said Wednesday.
Owens tweeted that the progression of a country takes nations through a common sequence of nine stages, the first and last of which are always the same – bondage:
Bondage,
Faith,
Courage,
Liberty,
Abundance,
Selfishness,
Complacency,
Dependence,
Bondage
Attaining abundance is, ironically, the very thing that ultimately proves to be a nation's undoing, Owens appears to suggest in her tweet:
“Nations always progress through the following sequence: From bondage to great faith; From faith to great courage; courage to liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency; complacency to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
Owens’ Blexit movement seeks to introduce conservative values to the nation’s urban communities.
Bannister presents this as an original thought from Owens -- in fact, it's something that's been bouncing around the internet for years. We first wrote about it back in 2004 when a slightly longer verison of that list of stages had already been bouncing around right-wing email lists since 2000. The words were being attributed to 18th-century Scottish history professor (though there's no actual evidence it originates with him), which evolved somewhere along the line to "Alexander Tyler."
That dishonesty, of course, hasn't stopped Bannister from promoting Owens' alleged pearls of wisdom since then:
NEW ARTICLE: WND Finally Gets Serious About Saving Itself Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's taken nearly two years of begging for money and giving away scammy cybercurrency, but WorldNetDaily has at last done a couple things to try and secure its future. But its business model of publishing fake news and conspiracy theories remains unchanged. Read more >>
MRC's Double Standard On TV Weatherfolks With An Agenda, Continued Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center has promoted Fox News weatherperson Janice Dean's rage against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, vindictively blaming him for the deaths of relatives residing at a long-term-care facility in the state early in the coronavirus pandemic purportedly because of a policy under Cuomo in which COVID-19 patients were discharged from hospitals to nursing homes -- while dismissing NBC weather guy Al Roker for talking about climate change.
Since then, though, fact-checkers have ruled Dean's claim to be mostly false, since experts believe that the spread of coronavirus in nursing homes was more likely caused by visitors and employees rather than from patients transferred there in an effort to open up hospital space for other victims of the virus. Nevertheless, since we last checked in, the MRC has continued to push Dean's emotional greviances as authoritative.
In August, Curtis Houck wrote that Dean "was set to address a committee of New York legislators investigating the state’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and specifically Governor Andrew Cuomo’s nursing home policy, but she was never given a chance to speak due to fears that her presence would be uncomfortable," going on to tout how "FNC shows have given Dean over 17 minutes of airtime since she was axed from the hearing."
Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean bluntly spoke out on America's Newsroom Monday morning on the International Emmys granting an award to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for being a Democrat -- er, for his wonderful COVID briefings. Both of Dean's in-laws died in New York nursing homes from COVID-19 after Cuomo pushed COVID patients into nursing homes to recover.
Fox host Sandra Smith asked Dean for reaction, noting this would be the first Thanksgiving without her in-laws.
[...]
The Washington Examiner reported that in October, Dean joined a throng of protesters who filled a casket placed outside of a Brooklyn nursing home with about 6,500 copies of Cuomo’s new book on the coronavirus.
Graham clearly has no problem with blatant political activism by a supposedly objective news person -- at least, if that person works for Fox News.
Houck returned Jan. 4 to cheer another bout of Dean's activism:
On Monday morning, Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean continued her unrelenting fight against Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), penning a lengthy, 3,500-word-plus FoxNews.com item recapping Cuomo’s arrogance, failure to lead, and refusal to admit wrongdoing with his reckless coronavirus nursing home order.
Following an appearance on Fox & Friends, Dean revealed that an attempt to seek comment from Cuomo’s office was met with more bullying and stonewalling instead of admission for why coronavirus patients were placed in nursing homes.
[...]
And with outlets ranging from ABC to CNN continuing to play footsie with Cuomo instead of holding him accountable, it’s left to Dean and hurting families (plus a few outlets committed to real journalism) to continue the fight.
In a Jan. 14 post, Houck got huffy when someone pointed out that Dean's job is supposed to be a weather person, not a political activist:
In a Wednesday story for the Daily Mail, New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration sunk to a new low, lashing out like a grade-school Mean Girl at Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean, dismissing her fervent push for answers on behalf of deceased elderly New Yorkers (such as her late in-laws) because she’s no more than a weather lady.
Cuomo spokesperson Richard Azzopardi told the Daily Mail: “Last I checked she's not a credible source on anything except maybe the weather.”
So you shouldn’t trust someone using platform to a voice for families across the state and country who lost elderly family members to the coronavirus (and whom most were never able to say goodbye to) because she’s just the weather person? Would Azzopardi and Cuomo say the same about victims of gun violence?
[...]
Just last week, Dean penned a lengthy FoxNews.com column containing a deep dive into Cuomo’s actions, why they led to the deaths of untold numbers of seniors, how he has yet to answer for what happened (other than to blame others), and what this all means. So perhaps that helped set them over the edge.
Perhaps its another case of liberals believing that speaking truth to power doesn’t apply to them.
And nothing against the good men and women at ABC and NBC, but if this were something, say, a Ron DeSantis spokesperson said about a meteorologist on Good Morning America or Today, you can bet your life everyone from the CNN media team to late comics to MSNBC’s Never Trumpers to even entertainment blogs would be calling for their firing.
What Houck won't tell you: He's mad that other people are treating Dean the way the MRC treats Roker.While the MRC has come to Dean's defense, it has repeatedly bashed Roker for talking about climate change or doing anything other than weather.
In June, Kyle Drennen sneered that "former Vice President Al Gore hailed weatherman Al Roker for his “consistent advocacy” pushing the liberal climate change agenda. Co-host Craig Melvin then asked Gore how people could maintain the supposed environmental “progress” caused by the devastating coronavirus pandemic, adding that "Friday was not the first time Gore showed up on the morning show to praise Roker’s climate activism. Back in 2018, he appeared on 3rd Hour Today cheer the longtime NBC weatherman for his “long-time attention to the climate crisis.”
(In a 2018 post on that appearance, Drennen unironically complained, "It’s remarkable how unabashed the media can be when it comes to promoting the pet issues of liberal politicians.")
Drennen -- who is apparently the MRC's designated Roker-basher -- complained in September: "On Wednesday, NBC’s resident climate crusader Al Roker was in awe of actor and far-left radical Jane Fonda as he hailed the 'Hollywood icon' for 'her dedication to the climate crisis.' The Today show weatherman cheered Fonda’s extreme calls for an end to fossil fuels and implementation of economically destructive Green New Deal." Drennen dismissed Fonda as a "left-wing loon" and, by association, Roker. A coule days later, Drennen appeared on MRC executive Tim Graham's podcast to bash "the climate crusades of NBC weatherman Al Roker."
On Jan. 20, Drennen whined that "On NBC’s Today show Wednesday morning, just hours before Joe Biden’s inauguration, weatherman Al Roker hoped to be able repeat an embarrassing display during the 2013 inauguration when he yelled at then-Vice President Biden like an adoring groupie during the inaugural parade. That moment sparked a long-running 'bromance' between Roker and Biden that clearly continues to this day."
On Wednesday, NBC’s Today show weatherman and adoring Joe Biden groupie Al Roker could barely contain his excitement over the President planning to issue executive orders that would force through radical climate change policies. Roker gushed over Biden preparing to declare climate change a “national security priority” and treated a top White House environmental advisor to a softball chat to promote the left-wing agenda.
[...]
The longtime climate crusader seized on recent natural disasters to boost the Biden agenda in his first question to [Biden climate adviser Gina] McCarthy: “Well, according to NOAA, nearly 10.3 million acres of land destroyed by wildfires last year, record-setting 30 storms named during the Atlantic hurricane season. Globally, the second hottest year on record....Why is climate change a matter of national security?”
The MRC would never take such a dismissive tone with Dean, who's steering much further out of her lane than Roker is.
Is Newsmax's Hirsen Regretting Promoting Those Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories? Topic: Newsmax
We'vedocumented how smirky Newsmax columnist James Hirsen promoted bogus right-wing election fraud conspiracy theories. Is he regretting that now in the wake of the Capitol riot?
IN his Jan. 4 article -- two days before the riot -- Hirsen wrote a column embracing another conspiracy theory, the "Great Reset" (already pushed by conspiracy theorists like WorldNetDaily). He invoked Aldous Huxley and ranted, "The list of infringement upon our freedoms at the hands of modern day autocrats goes on forever. I think in order to avoid our own "Brave New World," we need to counter The Great Reset with The Great Return."
But is his first column after the riot, on Jan. 11, Hirsen was rather abruptly singing a different tune. While not referencing Trump or the riot, Hirsen went all existential on us:
It’s a strange world in which we find ourselves.
The start of the New Year confirmed to many of us that some individuals we thought we knew so well weren’t the same folks we thought they were.
Many of them appeared to have transformed into a newn persona literally overnight, leaving people, who had supported, admired, and trusted them, in a state of disbelief, distress, and overwhelming sadness.
The depth of duplicity to which they had sunk shocked us to the core.
But it did something else too.
It set us on a path to find out how human beings can cause so much hurt, do so much damage, and care so little about what they'd done.
I would like to offer one explanation, which is based upon my academic background and application of sociological, cultural, and media psychology principles.
There is an insatiable human need to be loved.
[...]
In my assessment, this would explain why so many people, the likes of which I described above in my opening, caved so easily to other influential individuals and groups, whom they most longed to please, and whose continuous acceptance they still desperately desire.
It is a hollow choice that these people made.
And they may soon come to know that fame is fleeting, but misfortune oftentimes lingers.
In his next column, on Jan. 25, Hirsen expounded on the dangerous nature of cults. Is he talking about QAnon? Is he talking about fanatical Trump supporters like himself? Again, he doesn't say. But his message echoes his earlier column:
I contend that the word "cult" has actually crept into our common vernacular and is creating a significant problem. Because societal members think they are talking to one another, when they are really talking past one another.
They are operating on distinctly different denotations and connotations of the word, which will inevitably result in confusion and friction between parties.
Sadly, some people are simply unaware of what is taking place. Other people are being deliberately provocative and are actually desirous of the negative outcomes that are flowing.
If Hirsen has had some kind of post-riot awakening toward Trump, his supporters and his own behavior, it would be nice if he wasn't being so oblique about it. Come right out and admit it, Jim! Tell us why the riot disillusioned you about Trump and made you question your own beliefs. Explain to us why you no longer stand by the election fraud conspiracy theories you promoted.
In short, tell us how you screwed up and say you're sorry. You can do that, can't you?
It was embarrassing that anyone would continue to shill for Donald Trump after the Capitol riot he instigated. But Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro is clearly not afraid to embarrass himself.
The lead story at WorldNetDailiy on Jan. 21 was an 
Craig Bannister manufactured some victimization for retired baseball pitcher Curt Schilling in a Jan. 27 CNSNews.com 
The ConWeb has had trouble accepting that their fellow Trump supporters committed the Jan. 6 Capityol Riot (witness WorldNetDaily's attempts to 
CNSNews.com found its two great hatreds of late -- 
The 
Newsmax pundit Dick Morris has had to back off somewhat from the election fraud conspiracy theories he's been spouting 
Chuck Norris' Jan. 11 WorldNetDaily 
In sharp contrast to the 
The liars and traitors who accuse him of inciting riotous behavior are worthy of scorn and contempt. Antifa and Black Lives Matter joined forces in disguising themselves as participants in the Jan. 6 rally, using a peaceful protest as cover to commit violence and more than likely murder as well.
CNSNews.com 
We've 
We've
