Joseph Farah's April 8 WorldDNetDaily column began with a wacky rant:

When Joe Biden took the oath of office to become president – or, should we say, presidential pretender – I was morose.

I was one of the million or so cheerleaders for Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C., Jan. 5-7 – for what has become known as "the insurrection." Then it was over.

That was not easy to accept. I believe Trump was the greatest president in the history of the United States. That's right! His achievements in four years exceeded that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. I loved them all. Reagan changed my politics. But Trump was one of a kind.

So, you can understand my disappointment – and to be replaced by Biden!

This was truly an outrage.

While Trump was the greatest president ever, Biden has been the worst – with a sample size of only three months.

Biden is sullen, his voice hurts my ears, he's cognitively challenged, he's incoherent, he falls a lot – and, worst of all, he's mean. He lies on a grand scale and he's hopelessly immoral.

The worst thing he has ever done is to commit a high crime against America by perpetuating election fraud against the greatest country the world as ever known.

He then recounted a January column in which he fantasized that in 2022 Biden and Kamala Harris would be impeached "for high crimes and misdemeanors – not phony ones like they had to manufacture against President Trump, but real, weighty crimes." He's assuming that Republicans will take the House that year, so that would make Kevin McCarthy president (since the House speaker is third in line), and he could then appoint Trump as vice president. McCarthy would then resign, making Trump president.

Farah went on to tout a speech by former Trump adviser and pardoned criminal Steve Bannon, who in a related fantasy of Republicans naming Trump speaker of the House after retaking it in the 2022 elections, after which Biden and Harris would be impeachedf or "his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency." A right-wing mind-meld commenced:

I texted Bannon a message asking if he had read my column.

"I loved it," he said.

Could this be the way this turns out?

[...]

[T]he latest to join the campaign is Ed Martin, president of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.

Martin told "Secrets": "I'm serious. We need the Trump voters. With the possibility of having Donald Trump as speaker, conservative voter turnout would be through the roof nationwide."

Let's make it a wave. Ride the wave. This is a MAGA moment!

Farah willingly believes the lie that the eleciton was stolen -- just as he willingly elieved the lie that Barack Obama's birth certificate wdas faked -- so of course he would think this is a plausible and desirable outcome.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:10 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

As loyal pro-Trump sycophants, the Media Research Center went all in on the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election -- the point was to get Donald Trump re-elected after all, not tell the truth. Meanwhile, to this day the authenticity of the laptop has not been independently confirmed. But Hunter is not a real person to the MRC -- he's a target and a political weapon to use against his father. So when Hunter wrote a memoir, the MRC was predictably triggered. Scott Whitlock whined in a April 2 post:

Hunter Biden has a lucrative new book to promote, So now it’s okay to ask him basic questions about a missing laptop that may implicate his dad, the now-president, in business dealing with China and Ukraine. CBS will have a pair of interviews with Hunter airing on Sunday and Monday morning. CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King on Friday reacted to a preview of one by gushing, “What Hunter just said there I thought was — gave me goosebumps.

After Hunter said he wasn't sure whether the laptop was his, Whitlock huffed: "Perhaps the networks and other outlets should have been following the laptop story more closely last year during the presidential election. Instead they ignored or tried to debunk the story." Again, the story hasyet to be independently confirmed, and given that it was forwarded by Trump allies like Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post, there was (and is) plenty of reason to not accept the story at face value.

Bill D'Agostino similarly complained in an April 4 post:

Hunter Biden’s new book deal landed him a sympathetic interview on this weekend’s CBS News Sunday Morning with correspondent Tracy Smith. While the interview alluded to various political scandals plaguing the younger Biden (namely the Burisma controversy, the laptop scandal, and an ongoing active investigation into his finances), it provided viewers with barely any information about the scandals themselves, while giving him plenty of time to argue his innocence.

[...]

The Friday morning preview of this interview contained an admission from the younger Biden that the laptop “could be” his. Unfortunately, the full interview that aired on Sunday failed to provide anything else of note about the topic. Instead viewers were treated to another insinuation that the whole story was Russian propaganda:  “Last month, a declassified intelligence report said that before the election, the Russians had launched a smear campaign against Joe Biden and his family.”

That same day, P.J. Gladnick raged that a Politco article called Hunter a "noted locomotive expert" in an article because he once served on the Amtrak: "Does that mean that high speed rail conferences around the world are incomplete without the input of Hunter Biden, the "noted locomotive expert?" And how did Hunter gain such expertise on the subject to the extent to be on the board of Amtrak? Well, he did it by riding the choo-choo a lot."

Whitlock returned to huff: "CBS donated 25 minutes of air time to syrupy, softball interviews of Hunter Biden. Despite the massive amount of coverage, the journalists offered little in the way of curiosity about what was actually on the laptop Biden now admits 'certainly' could have been his." He further dismissed this as "Biden propaganda" and complained that Hunter's book was published by a division of the company that owns CBS.

Tim Graham devoted his April 7 column to complaining that Hunter -- and, by extension, Joe Biden -- wasn't being destroyed as a man while promoting his book, bashing one reviewer for saying that the book "humanizes Hunter." We wouldn't want that, would we, Tim? Graham further complained: "The most overlooked fact on the Hunter Biden book-and-sympathy tour is that he was committing many of these financial scams and behavioral debaucheries while his father was in the obscure job of... Vice President of the United States."

Curtis Houck touted pornography in an April 9 post:

Scandal-plagued First Family member Hunter Biden continued his book tour late Thursday with a softball-laden interview with ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who assisted him in not only dismissing the infamous laptop as “a red herring” because it came from Rudy Giuliani, but declare that he was eminently qualified to served on the board of Burisma.

Unsurprisingly, Kimmel and Biden did not address the breaking news from hours earlier when the Daily Mail published more of what they said were contents of Biden's laptop, including naked photos of Biden with prostitutes.

Like Graham, Houck groused that Hunter said he wrote the book to "humanize people suffering from addiction," and continued to treat Hunter as the less-than-himan he clearly believes the guy is: "While the interview started on a bizarre note before going to the softball portion, Kimmel ended with a retelling of how quickly Biden married his current wife less than a week after they met. Of course, there was nothing about how Biden dated his late brother Beau’s widow for a period of time."

(Also: The Daily Mail is even less credible than Giuliani and the New York Post, which Houck somehow forgot to mention.)

Graham devoted a podcast the same day to the Kimmel interview, in which he whined that Hunter wouldn't appear on Fox News and the Kimmel's interview was "uber-sympathetic, apologies to Uber." We wouldn't want anyone to think Hunter Biden is a human deserving of even a bit of sympathy, eh, Tim?

Graham whined further that Hunter Biden hasn't been subjected to fact-checking by PolitiFact while the Trump children have been. He forgot to mention that the Trump children, unlike Hunter, have been very politically active in service to their father and, thus, make political statements that are fact-check-worthy.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:55 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Rachel Alexander devoted her April 5 WorldNetDaily column to defending "Christian crowdfunding site" GiveSendGo for serving as a platform for helping accused criminals like Kyle Rittenhouse and the Capitol rioters. Alexander lionized siblings Jacob Wells and Heather Wilson who founded the site, then tried for a tragic story to defend them and their operation:

The site could have ducked taking on fundraisers for controversial people like Rittenhouse, but once the siblings observed "death by deplatforming" they knew they had to take a stand. Jake Gardner was a Nebraska bar owner who committed suicide after being indicted in the fatal shooting of a black protester last year. The tragic series of events began during riots after the death of George Floyd. Gardner's dad pushed a protester who would not leave the area near the bar. The protester pushed back, and so the younger Gardner displayed his handgun. Two protesters jumped on his back, and he fired two warning shots. They left, but James Scurlock, a young black man who had been involved in vandalism earlier, tackled him and put him in a headlock. Gardner begged Scurlock to release him, but he didn't, so he shot him.

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine wasn't even going to press charges at first, believing Gardner had acted in self-defense. But obviously due to public pressure, he asked a grand jury to review his decision. Meanwhile, Gardner was trying to raise money for his defense, but was being deplatformed everywhere. People like Nebraska State Sen. Megan Hunt piled on and incited more hate by calling him a white supremacist. His bar was known for hosting Republican events, which no doubt intensified the vicious reaction. But he wasn't a hateful person. In 2017 he went to the Trump inauguration and was interviewed about the Women's March, and he said they have a right to be out there protesting.

Gardner moved to California to escape the hate. A decorated veteran who had served two tours in Iraq, he suffered two brain injuries. He found out about GiveSendGo due to the publicity surrounding Rittenhouse, but it was too late. Just two days after the fundraiser was started, the jury indicted him for manslaughter and other felonies, and he killed himself. The Jake Gardner family has since set up its own GiveSendGo fundraiser.

Alexander is lying when she calls the charges against Gardner politically motivated. As an actual news outlet reported (as opposed to the right-wing opinion pieces Alexander cited), 60 witnesses were interviewed, and Gardner's claim that he killed Scurlock in self-defense was undermined by statements from Gardner himself. The special prosecutor noted evidence including texts from Gardner’s phone; messages from Gardner’s Facebook account; and Gardner’s interactions with bystanders prior to his contact with Scurlock, as well as surveillance video that showed Gardner and his father inside the bar.

But Alexander is too far in victim mode to care about the truth, declaring that "the left is trying to destroy alternative platforms like GiveSendGo," adding, "We must stay vigilant, shedding light on the situation and supporting those who dare to stand up to the woke crowd like GiveSendGo, because eventually they're coming for the rest of us, too."

Posted by Terry K. at 6:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The coronavirus and subsequent government response to the pandemic has been a disaster for most Americans' economic, mental, and physical well-being.

But the coronavirus has been wonderful for a certain handful of people: The would-be tyrants who derive their meaning in life from controlling people.

This is because they have wielded the pandemic to their own advantage and to grow government power. In doing so, these public "servants"  have inched America towards the kind of communism as seen in China.

Even though most lockdowns utterly failed on any reasonable cost-benefit analysis, that class of bureaucrats, government unions, and HR apparatchiks imposed them anyway.

Why?

Because these mandates fed the illusion that authorities had things under control. It indulged their sense that they were "pro-science." In truth, these tyrants had no other ideas about how to stop the spread. They were simply terrified of doing nothing at all.

But an overlooked reason driving these unthinkable power grabs was that our leaders now take cues from authoritarian China.

[...]

Quite simply, the virus is not nearly dangerous enough to justify coercive measures and stripping freedoms.

But tyrants want them anyway.

In many cases, safety appears irrelevant compared to the sheer glee of forcing the recalcitrant to submit or lose basic rights now recast as privileges.

Just like lockdowns and the coronavirus itself, vaccine passports are another toxic import from China.

Thse passports draw clear inspiration from the CCP’s sinister social credit system.

[...]

The right has a duty to resist these passports utterly. For any Republican seeking office in 2022 or 2024, opposing COVID passports right now is a basic litmus test.

It’s a test that Florida’s Ron DeSantis has passed with flying colors. He issued an executive order banning all vaccine passports late last month. 

Conservatives must monitor their own state and local leaders to make sure they do the same thing. Otherwise, we'll soon move beyond passports for vaccines, and into passports to monitor other areas of society that the left deems unsafe. 

The only thing that will protect America’s remaining freedoms from CCP wannabes who put America Last is perpetual vigilance, and legal action, from America First allies.

-- Catharine O'Neill, April 8 Newsmax column

Posted by Terry K. at 3:10 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Even though CNSNews.com is a right-wing operation that claims to care about the police, it curiously didn't have much to say about the death of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died after trying to defend the center of American democracy in the Jan. 6 Trump-inspired Capitol riot.

CNS did no articles specifically on Sicknick in the weeks after the riot; instead, he received only passing references on Jan. 8, Jan. 11, Feb. 3, Feb. 3 (again), Feb. 8, Feb. 15, and March 2. But as the original narrative of Sicknick's death was questioned in right-wing media and an autopsy wasn't immediately forthcoming, it was time for CNS to suddenly care.

Sicknick's name appeared for the first time in the headline of a CNS article in a March 3 piece by Susan Jones featuring FBI Director Christopher Wray being questioned by Republican senators about Sicknick's death, with Sen. Chuck Grassley citing "conflicting reports about his cause of death" and Sen. Ted Cruz also noting "conflicting reports about the circumstances of his death"; Wray responded that the investigation was ongoing. This was followed on March 5 with a column by Pat Buchanan, who wrote: "Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick died of a stroke the next day. Media reports that he had been hit with a fire extinguisher proved false. In the two months since Jan. 6, no one has been charged in his death."

Sicknick got another passing mention in an April 6 article by the mysterioius "A. Kim" about a Ben Shapiro radio rant. Then, on April 20, the results of Sicknick's autopsy was released, and Sicknick's name appeared in a CNS headlione for the second time, in an article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman pushing the result that it was "natural":

Contrary to the Jan. 8 U.S. Justice Department claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick died because of "the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol, against the violent mob who stormed it on January 6th," the D.C. chief medical examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, announced today that Sicknick's cause of death was "natural." 

[...]

In layman's terms, Officer Sicknick died from strokes on Jan. 7.

[...]

Back on Jan. 7, 2021, one day after Sicknick died, the Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen told the public in a statement,  “Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and fellow officers of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who succumbed last night to the injuries he suffered defending the U.S. Capitol, against the violent mob who stormed it on January 6th.  The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department will jointly investigate the case and the Department of Justice will spare no resources in investigating and holding accountable those responsible.”

Chapman unsurprisingly omitted a couple things: 1) the original account of Sicknick's death came from a Justice Department that was still under control of then-President Trump, and 2) the medical examiner also said that "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in his condition." That can be interpreted as meaning that while no single incident from the riot directly caused Sicknick's death, the riot did contribute.

Nevertheless, an article by Jones the same day declared that the original story of Sicknick's death was a "media/Democrat narrative":

It took more than three months for the American public to learn that U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes -- two strokes, the D.C. medical examiner disclosed in an email to media outlets.

So contrary to earlier reporting and Democrat claims, Sicknick was not killed by Trump supporters during the January 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

Yet the article of impeachment against Donald Trump, dated January 13, 2021, says Trump supporters "incited by President Trump...injured and killed law enforcement personnel..."

But it's not true. And there's no explanation for why it took so long for the D.C. medical examiner to say Sicknick died of natural causes, not as the direct result of a criminal act.

Jones buried the medical examiner's statement that "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in his condition" in the 11th paragraph of her article.

Sicknick got one more passing mention that day, in an anonymously written article huffing that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) is calling again for a federal commission to be created to analyze and report on what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6."

Chapman followed up on April 23 with an article featuring a Republican senator questioning Capitol Police about "why its office claimed in a Jan. 7 press release that Officer Brian Sicknick died 'due to injuries sustained while on-duty' -- during the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol -- when the D.C. Medical Examiner announced on April 19 that Sicknick died of 'natural causes.'" The answer, of course, is in the question -- there was no reason not to believe on Jan. 7 that Sicknick died of injuries sustained in the riot, and the autopsy didn't come out until three months later. Again, Chapman failed to mention that the medical examiner also noted that  "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in [Sicknick's] condition."

This is how in thrall to Trump CNS is -- it refused to exploit the death of a law enfoircement officer in order to protect him.

UPDATE: CNS also published an April 8 article by "A. Kim" bashing the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in D.C.; Kim apparently "specifically asked the OCME if it knows what caused Sicknick’s death," only to be accuratley told the case was still under investigation. Kim immediately went conspiratorial: "Thus, more than two months after Sickick’s body was cremated and buried, the OCME cannot—or will not—state the cause of his death." Kim's article was deleted without explanation at some point after its publication; the link to the story on the website states that it can't be found. But the internet is forever, and so is the Internet Archive.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:10 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center's Gabriel Hays has decided he's now a theologian. Despite no demonstrated expertise of theology, he belives he can lecture Sen. Raphael Warnock -- who, unlike Hays (as far as we know, anyway), is an ordained minister and holds degrees in theology -- over an Easter-related tweet from his account urging people to help each other. From Hays' hate-tinged April 5 sermon:

So a "pro-choice" Christian pastor who's also the radical leftist U.S. Senator from Georgia said something heretical about the Son of God on Easter Sunday of all days, and to be honest we aren’t the least bit surprised.

On Easter Sunday the radical preacher and newly-elected U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) composed an Easter message that actually denigrated the significance of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Warnock’s disturbing and blasphemous tweet insisted that the most important event in the history of creation is cool and all, but it doesn't compare to how every man can save themselves every day through good works. Huh?

Warnock tweeted, “The meaning of Easter is more transcendent than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether you are Christian or not, through a commitment to helping others we are able to save ourselves.”

Wow. Warnock needs to replace the “Reverend” on all his cheap business cards to “False Prophet” because this is a shocking heresy and an extreme insult to Christians everywhere. Man is only redeemed by Christ, and the only reason man’s good works help him is because they’re proof of an earnest cooperation with God’s gift of grace that was given to us through the Passion of His Son.

Remember, we have eternal life and freedom from sin because of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. To say that radical progressive politics or community organizing – of the kind that Warnock and Obama enjoy – gives us something greater than that is so arrogant and wrong.

It’s clear that Warnock believes earthly prosperity is ultimately more meritorious than Christ’s opening the gates of eternal life to us and reconstituting our relationship with God the Father. Warnock’s “faith” seems to have earthly priorities like social justice. It's all about making this world a better place because that’s all there is. 

Hays then laughably added, "We’ll try not to assume too much of course, but what else could Warnock mean by this tweet" -- even though he spent the entirety of his post up to that point assuming way too much things about what Warnock said.

ONe has to wonder: What church does Hays belong to, if any? Most Christian denominations make at least  a pretense toward helping people as part of their ministry; does Hays' church? Then again, Hays thinks he's an insult comic masquerading as a right-wing activist, and we can't think of a Christian denomination that tolerates such hate without him running constantly to confession to absolve his hate.

Hays' rant is just a continuation of the MRC's war on Warnock, which began with it serving as the oppo-research division of his Republican opponent in the Georgia Senate runoff. That seems to be crossing the line for what an organization like the MRC is allowed to do under its nonprofit tax status; the MRC has yet to address that issue publicly.

Hays concluded by pretending to be concerned about Warnock "for the sake of his soul and the souls of the ignorant who would listen to him." He might be better off being concerned about the state of his own soul, which has deteriorated significantly throughout his MRC employment.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily's brief period of correcting its false claims of election fraud appears to have ended -- and it's repeating bogus claims with impunity again.

An April 12 article by Bob Unruh highlighted how the Nevada state Republican Partycensured secretary of state Barbara Cegavske, "accusing her of failing to fully investigate the fraud allegations" made by Donald Trump in the 2020 election. He added: "The Gateway Pundit noted that besides the hundreds of ballots cast in the name of dead voters, more than 42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once."

Neither of those things are true. USA Today summarized how they are false:

The claim that 42,000 people voted more than once in Nevada is false. The allegation originates from testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee presented by Trump campaign attorney Jesse Binnall.

The evidence for Binnall's claims was not shown publicly and was partially obtained through Department of Motor Vehicle records, according to 8 News now.

Derek T. Muller, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, analyzed the origins of Binnall's 42,000 figure and found that the claim stemmed from a report by the Republican National Committee's chief data officer, Jesse Kamzol. The report lacked overall methodology and underlying data. 

[...]

Binnall's claim that dead people voted in Nevada's presidential election has been repeatedly debunked by election officials.

The district court said this claim was unfounded based on Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Wayne Thorley’s testimony on the process to “maintain voter rolls, including removing confirmed deceased voters."

In an April 19 article, Unruh touted MyPillow guy Mike Lindell's lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems (without, of course, telling readers how crazy the lawsuit is). Unruh wrote:

Lindell was among the Trump supporters who claimed the results in key battleground states were affected by fraud, based on sworn statements of witnesses and huge dumps of ballots in the middle of the night in Biden's favor.

Nearly every legal case based on that evidence was dismissed not on the merits, but on technical grounds.

What has not been challenged is the fact that election officials in several states change polices and procedures without the permission of state lawmakers, to whom the Constitution assigns that authority.

Unruh offered no supporting evidence for that last claim. The one relevant case we're aware of took place in Pennsylvania, where its secretary of state made changes before the election; election law experts have said that the executive branch has the authority to decide how to implement election law, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the secretary of state's decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

Peddling the Big Lie -- which, by the way, editor Joseph Farah has gone all in on -- is not going to make readers trust WND, whcih seems to have forgotten that its embrace of conspiracy theories is one big reason the operation has been teetering on bankruptcy for the past few years.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:43 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center hates it when late-night host Seth Meyers calls out conservatives. It's been hurling insults at him for years, trying to tag him as "socialist," "nasty" and a "liar" (weird, we thought fact-checking humor was a lame thing to do). But this year, the MRC has gone off on Meyers even more.

On Feb. 11, Alex Christy tried to hang another insult on him -- "unfunny hack" -- and complained that "former comedian turned Democratic hack" Meyers "alleged early Tuesday morning that allowing Bush officials off for their supposed wrongdoing led Trump to believe he could get away with similar wrongdoing. Is this really what anyone would come to at the end of the day before bed? It's certainly not funny."

Christy ranted at Meyers again on Feb. 26: "During his typically humorless monologue early on Thursday, Late Night  host Seth Meyers praised President Biden's vaccine distribution record, contrasting it with that of "President Outbreak Monkey." But, it was not all good news, as he also condemned Biden for not being far enough to the left."

Christy complained yet again on March 3:

Hey, conservatives and independents, you're just imagining all those attacks by the left and woke culture. Late Night host Seth Meyers alleged on Tuesday that conservatives may not be unified on the idea of Trump 2024, but if CPAC proved anything, it is that conservatives are united around stupid culture war issues that nobody cares about.

After discussing the results of CPAC's straw poll where Trump could not "even get above 55% with these wingnuts," Meyers noted that the "only truly unifying thing at CPAC, the beating heart of modern conservatism, were the dumb, invented culture war grievances, as evidenced by their complaints about total nonsense, like The Muppets and Mr. Potato Head."

[...]

If conservatives are detached for merely responding to the left's culture war offensive, what does that make Meyers' fellow leftists, considering they are now also trying to cancel Dr. Seuss?

Of course, the MRC was a loyal combatant in the wars of the Muppets, Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss.

Krstine Marsh took over the insult part fo a March 9 post:

Is Late Night host Seth Meyers trying to win an award for the most obnoxious Democrat sycophant on late night TV? A valid question, considering his “Closer Look” monologue Monday night smearing Republican “sociopaths” for not supporting President Biden’s bloated “relief” bill might as well have been paid for by the Democrat party [sic].

[...]

The comedian had no shame in debasing himself for the Democrat party [sic], harping on how this dream bill was going to rescue Americans from poverty[.]

Nothing says "reliable research" like Marsh's deliberate inability to get the Democratic Party's name right.

Christy returned on March 11 to complain about a sketch featuring a Melania Trump impersonator mocking her post-presidency "Office of Melania Trump," of which he huffed, "None of this routine was funny." The MRC is quite protective of Melania.

IN a March 16 post, Scott Whitlock called Meyers a "FRAUD" and a "far-left hack host," grousing that Meyers refused to buy into the right-wing attack narrative against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo but "finally, belated" got with the program.Three days later, Kyle Drennen declared Meyers to be "UNHINGED" in complaining that "radical leftist host Seth Meyers spewed Democratic Party propaganda for 15 minutes straight during one of his notoriously hackish Closer Look segments, this time preaching the brazen effort by left-wing lawmakers to undermine election integrity. The unfunny shill, who abandoned comedy long ago, desperately argued that 'nuking' the filibuster in the Senate was a “moral necessity” in order to help Democrats rig future elections in their favor." He unironically complained that "In the mind of left-wing hacks like Meyers, a 'level playing field' is one in which the rules are always changed to make sure that Democrats never lose another election" -- even though Republicans are in the midst of changing state laws to make sure they never lose another election.

Christy returned once more on March 26 to huff that Meyers, "trying to compensate for his lack of comedic talent, spent his late Thursday show parading around his potty mouth, instead" by noting that "The modern conservative movement seems concerned above all else with preserving their solemn right to be dicks to everyone else around them." Has he forgotten all the insults he and his fellow MRCers have been hurling at Meyers? That's dickishness personified.

Whitlock huffed on April 15: "Late Night hack Seth Meyers pretends to be a comedian, but he’s really just a shill for the left, shifting his nightly harangues to whatever his Democratic bosses would like. So it’s no surprise that he’s suddenly excited about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, but wasn’t when Donald Trump was president." Whitlock didn't mention whether he did any research to see if conservatives who supported withdrawal with Trump proposed it now oppose it under Biden.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:02 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

CNSNews.com reporter Patrick Goodenough has been a longtime defender of Donald Trump, particularly championing his administration's moves in getting minor countries to sign normalization deals with Israel. He's also been doing nitpicking fact-checks of Presient Biden, something he never did of Trump. Even though Trump is out of office, Goodenough has continued serving as his champion and defender.

Despite the fact that he's ostensibly CNS' international correspondent, Goodenough is the one who wrote a Feb. 24 article on Trump appealing the suspension of his Facebook account, lamenting that "Thirty-three million Facebook followers have been denied access to Trump's views for more than six weeks." But it was not until the 18th paragraph that Goodenough noted the reason why Trump's account was suspended, and that occurred only because he was quoting an organization that note Trump's incitement to violence and that he "spread lies and false information on Facebook."

Goodenough gushed again over Trump's Middle East policy in a March 15 article:

A Trump administration vision moved ahead on Sunday when Kosovo became the first majority-Muslim country to open an embassy in Jerusalem, the city which President Trump in 2017 formally recognized as Israel capital despite broad international opposition.

[...]

The opening of Kosovo’s embassy came six months after the White House announced a U.S.-brokered deal whose main focus was a process of economic normalization between Kosovo and Serbia, the country from which Kosovo was carved in a bloody ethnic conflict late last century.

In an unconventional bit of diplomatic maneuvering overseen by Trump’s special envoy for the region, Richard Grenell, Kosovo agreed as part of the deal to recognize Israel – which reciprocated – and to open an embassy in Jerusalem. Serbia, meanwhile, agreed to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step yet to be taken.

“Huge. Historic. Beautiful,” Grenell tweeted on Sunday of the embassy opening. “I can’t wait to see it in person.”

Goodenough served up even more Trmp-gushing in a Marcb 22 article:

Watch your back, @Jack?

Former President Donald Trump is exploring launching his own social media platform, months after censors at Twitter and Facebook/Instagram suspended his accounts, leaving his tens of millions of followers in the dark.

Jason Miller, a spokesman and former Trump presidential campaign senior advisor, told Fox News’ “Media Buzz” on Sunday that the former president’s new venture would be “the hottest ticket in social media,” and “completely redefine the game.”

Goodenough completely failed to tell readers why Trump was suspended from Twitter, complaining only that it came following "sparring with Trump for many months over posts relating to unrest in American cities, the coronavirus pandemic, and election results." No mention of the false claims and misinformation he spread.

Goodenough came to the defense of the Trump again in a March 31 article:

As the State Department released its annual report on human rights on Tuesday, a senior official was unable to say whether the Trump administration’s decision – now reversed – to drop a subsection on “reproductive rights” in recent years’ reports had any impact on reproductive health globally.

[...]

The Trump State Department said it had stopped including the subsection because the term “reproductive rights” has been interpreted and used by some activists around the world to encompass a “right” to abortion.

In an April 7 article, Goodenough got upset at the reversal of another Trump policy:

How many of the more than five million Palestinians who benefit from international funding to a controversial U.N. agency are actually refugees?

The decades-old issue remains a matter of dispute as the Biden administration confirmed Wednesday that it was restoring funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), two-and-a-half years after the Trump administration defunded the agency, describing it as “irredeemably flawed.”

[...]

Shortly before the end of the Trump administration, however, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued on Twitter that “most Palestinians under UNRWA’s jurisdiction aren’t refugees.”

Goodenough is a bit obsessed with the idea of refugees.

There was more defense in an April 15 article noting that "the Biden administration on Thursday conceded that the intelligence community has only 'low to moderate confidence' regarding one of the issues that has been under review – claims that Russia offered terrorists bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan," adding that "White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday dodged a question on whether the president now regrets that."Goodenough went on to complain that Biden called Trump "Putin's puppy" and highlighted that the claims were "denied by both Moscow and the Taliban." But as others have pointed out, "low to moderate confidence" in the story does not necessarily mean it was false, and paying bounties to kill U.S. soldiers is not exactly out of character for Putin.

Goodenough seems more interested in pushing a political agenda than doing straight reporting -- but that's not a surprise given that he works for CNS.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

It appears that Media Matters (disclosure: our former employer) is living rent-free inside the head of Media Research Center executive Tim Graham.

Back in February, Graham called Media Matters a "creepy censorship group" because it has pointed out the far-right extremity of Fox News' content to advertisers, which tends to make companies not want to advertise there. Never mind, of course, that Graham's MRC has its own (less effective) clone of that operation and tags every post with the advertisers of the segment they're attacking with links for readers to contact them and, well, do what Media Matters does.

Graham devoted an entire March 30 column to complaining that the New York Times used Media Matters research on a story about anti-transgender content in right-wing media: "Suddenly, the Times is outsourcing its research on conservatives to a hard-left organization – one of the most toxic character assassins of the cancel culture -- and boasting about it. The Times is swimming in revenue, but somehow it needs help discovering that 'targeting transgendered people' is a hot conservative topic." Graham didn't explain what, exactly, Media Matters did to be smeared as a "character assassin" -- never mind, of course, that the MRC engages in character assassination pretty much all the time; indeed, it pays Gabriel Hays specifically to assassinate the character of people he doesn't like.

There's also the unspoken impliction that Media Matters' research is such good quality that outside organizations consider it reliable -- not something that can be said for the "research" of the MRC, which is so biased and opaque as to be nearly worthless outside of its use as a partisan weapon, and certainly no sentient person treats as an objective measure of anything.

And in an April 12 podcast devoted to bashing an episode of CNN's "Reliable Sources" for talking about Fox News, Graham groused that host Brian Stelter "turned to Matt Gertz from Media Matters because we had to conclude the whole half-hour ripping into Fox." Perhaps that's because, again, Media Matters does its Fox-monitoring job better than the MRC does in going after the so-called "liberal media."

Yep, rent-free.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:17 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is still trying to spin the Capitol riot into something benign and its perpetrators as victims. In his April 19 column, he complained that the officer who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbitt not only wouldn't be charged, his name wouldn't be make public:

Even more oddly, we may never know who fired the one and only shot during the so-called "Insurrection." The only thing we know is she was shot in the chest by an unnamed federal officer.

Once again, it's proof that there are two standards of justice in America. One is the kind of justice that's for Ashli Babbitt – someone who was unarmed, not posing a danger to anyone, an Air Force veteran, who was killed in cold blood without a warning shot, without warning words expressed by the federal officer, surrounded by other heavily armed cops without apparently a concern about Babbitt.

That she was summarily shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol defied explanation.

Does it, Joe? She had broken into the U.S. Capitol with hundreds of other insurrectionists who were vandalizing the building, and Babbitt was trying to crawl through a broken window on the door of the Speaker's Lobby outside the House chamber -- a place she had no business being -- when she was shot.

Farah then lamented: "I remember another unexplained death by the hands of Capitol Police and Secret Service – a young black woman by the name of Miriam Carey who made a wrong turn near the White House. How many shots were fired is still a mystery. How her child in the back seat survived is a miracle." As we noted at the time, Farah cared nothing about Carey beyond the fact that her death occurred when a Democrat, Barack Obama, was president, so he could concern-troll her death as a cudgel against him.

Farah went on to hint that he concern-troll the Capitol riot and Babbitt's death as a cudgel for Biden-bashing: 'There are still people who remain in jail for this so-called "Insurrection." They were arrested weeks ago, months ago. They are in solitary confinement. Nobody talks about this in Joe Biden's America. And nobody talks about Ashli Babbitt's killer."

The next day, Farah worked up outrage over another storyline from the riot:

Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes, the medical examiner says.

Period. End of story.

The D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner says another desperate theory to blame Donald J. Trump and his "insurrection" at the Capitol Jan. 6 did not play any role in this death. First it was alleged that Sicknick was killed by being bashed in the head with a fire extinguisher. When that was proved to be false, fake and phony, a second cause of death was a "chemical irritant." That, too, was eventually ruled out.

Officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering from two strokes, said Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Francisco J. Diaz. In other words, he said, "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis" – strokes caused by blockages in the arteries in his brain and brainstem.

Except it's not "end of story" -- Farah omitted the fact that the medical examiner also said that "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in his condition." That can be interpreted as meaning that while no single incident from the riot directly caused Sicknick's death, the riot did contribute.

Farah then complained that two people who have been charged with spraying bear spray at Sicknick, Julian Kater and George Tanios, are in jail becaus of it:

Khater and Tanios were the two guys originally fingered in the "bear spray" story. They are lifelong friends who have been in jail since January charged with the above offenses.

Even though the bear spray played no discernable role in Sicknick's death, and even though exposure to it has not been known for causing any human deaths, it may be the only "weapon" the speaker has.

Note that Khater and Tanios are not charged with Sicknick's death. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty.

Most defendants initially plead not guilty, and onetime newspaper guy Farah very well knows that, so that's irrelevant at this point. Farah closed out with some whining:

The Justice Department has charged more than 100 defendants for assaulting officers during the protests – not "insurrection." It is unknown how many remain under arrest. By February, the investigation had stalled because of lack of evidence of any fatal injury, any firearms or any explosive devices connected to protestors.

The death of Ashli Babbitt, the only real victim among the inflated death toll of the protest, was attributed to a shooting by an unnamed federal officer. She was unarmed and received no warnings.

Some "insurrection," huh?

If that mob of insurrectionsts had been targeting Trump instead of working on his behalf, Farah would almost certainly have a different take.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:21 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Professional Jen Psaki-hater Curtis Houck knows what his job is, and so raged in an April 1 post:

For White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, it must be quite a life knowing you’re never going to be sternly fact-checked (or fact-checked at all) by the liberal media. Thursday’s briefing displayed her refusal to live in world of facts and straightforward answers as she deflected questions from Fox News’s Peter Doocy about the Biden team’s infrastructure plan and border policies and repeatedly lied to Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence about Georgia’s voter law.

By contrast, Kayleigh McEnany had quite a life knowing that right-wing sycophants like Houck would give her only the highest praise and never have to worry about being fact-checked, even though she aggressively refused to live in world of facts and straightforward answers. The rest of Houck's post once again displayed his man-crush on Fox News' Peter Doocy and other right-wing reporters lobbing hostile questions at Psaki.

The next day, Houck found a different right-wing reporter to crush on for hostile querstioning and using to White House briefing room to push conservative talking points:

Capping off another week of repeated non-answers and outright lies, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was caught in another liberal double standard. Thanks to Real Clear Politics's Philip Wegmann, Psaki made clear the administration was opposed to the MLB All Star Game being in Atlanta, Georgia due to the state's voting law (which the MLB has since said it will comply) but will refuse to offer support for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, China due to the country's putrid human rights record.

Weird, we don't recall Houck ever getting mad at McEnany for spouting "repeated non-answers and outright lies."

Houck was in full Doocy man-crush mode on April 5:

Monday’s White House press briefing picked up on many of Friday’s themes, including the Biden administration’s lies about Georgia’s voter law and their pressuring of MLB to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta. Fox News’s Peter Doocy repeatedly hammered Press Secretary Jen Psaki with questions about Georgia, Biden’s falsehoods, and The Masters plus the separate issue of illegal immigration.

[...]

In round two, Doocy led off with the latest moving of the goal posts by teachers unions, citing demands in Los Angeles for free childcare for teachers. Of course, Psaki said it’s a state matter and didn’t comment.

The Washington Post fact-check of Biden’s lies about voting hours in the Peach State to ask whether Biden will “change the way that he talks about” it.

Houck concluded by huffing that "Psaki cowardly ended the briefing so she could bring in the White House Easter bunny and say that reporters should be receiving a commemorative Easter egg to share with their families." Yes, Houck is mad that the White House secretary celebrated Easter. He would be cheering if his beloved McEnany had done it.

Houck was still man-crushing the next day:

Marking another day in the White House Briefing Room rotation, Fox News’s Peter Doocy had quite a Tuesday as he was able to both question Press Secretary Jen Psaki on the federal government’s border crisis and their voting disinformation campaign and President Joe Biden on China’s culpability in the coronavirus pandemic and Georgia’s voting law.

Doocy experienced a once-in-a-blue-moon moment when Biden acknowledged him after a speech about the coronavirus, so Doocy asked him about this week’s golf major in August, Georgia: “Mr. President, do you think The Master's golf tournament should be moved out of Georgia?”

[...]

A few hours earlier, Doocy was the second reporter called on during the briefing and began with immigration. He used his first two questions to press Psaki on the dangerous reality that terrorists could take advantage of our porous southern border and the other on the administration resuming construction of former President Trump’s border wall.

Proving that he's all about attacking Psaki at every opprtunity, Houck cheered another right-wing reporter who pushed those hostile questions he so loves on April 7:

Without Peter Doocy and Kristin Fisher in the White House Briefing Room rotation, it fell to other reporters to offer tough questions to Press Secretary Jen Psaki and the New York Post’s Steven Nelson delivered by getting under Psaki’s skin over Vice President Harris’s travel schedule in light of her supposed role in helping to tame the border crisis.

Nelson noted that she’s “been put in charge of addressing the root causes of the border crisis” and spoke last week with the Guatemalan president, “but she hasn’t visited the border or Central America or spoken to the leaders of El Salvador or Honduras.”

Instead, Nelson pointed out that she’s earlier this week, so he wanted to know if she’s “still working on this and can you address the perception that she’s kind of quietly backing off while the Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing some Trump-era policies, such as potentially building new border barriers and potentially prosecuting people who illegally cross multiple times.”

To put a finer point on Harris’s schedule, we would add the fact that she spent last weekend in Brentwood, California which, as Tiana Lowe noted, was a short drive from a convention center where migrant children are being housed.

Of course, Houck is just repeating a right-wing narrative that's nothing but a lame gotcha; if Harris actually went to the border as right-wingers demanded, they would still attack her for merely being a photo-op even though that visual is what they demand of her.Whe Psaki pointed out that Harris can do more than one thing at a time, Houck dismissed as her making a "personal jab." Again, McEnany did a lot of those and Houck never complained once.

Houck went back to gushing over Wegmann for the April 8 briefing:

Moments after President Joe Biden gave a lie-filled speech about gun control, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki held Thursday’s briefing with a room dominated by journalists supportive of the administration’s desire to harm millions of law-abiding gun owners. 

In contrast, Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann repeatedly pressed Psaki on one of Biden’s key claims, the reasoning beyond Thursday’s orders, and whether they considered the impact a limit on stabilizing braces would affect those that already own them.

We don't recall Houck ever objecting to the "lie-filled briefings" that Donald Trump issued.

Houck closed out that week with even more man-crushing over Doocy on April 9: "Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy joined the Briefing Room rotation on Friday to cap off another whirlwind week and, as the fourth reporter called on during Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s Q&A, he brought up President Biden’s past opposition to court-packing (as he seems to be moving toward doing just that) and the latest headlines from the Biden border crisis."

So predictable. So ridiculously biased and hateful.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:26 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 9:51 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Kristi Noem wasn't the only Republican governor CNSNews.com for hesitating about hating transgender people as much as CNS does.

After an instance in February in which he dared to suggest that Donald Trump shouldn't define the future of the Republican Party, things were going swimmingly for Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson in pushing the hot-button right-wing agenda: In March, CNS published fawning articles about Hutchinson signing bils that effectively banned all abortion in the state and that "prohibits transgender 'females' (biological males) from joining real girls' sports teams at the high school and collegiate level." But when Hutchinson declined to sign a bill banning transgender treatments in the state because it was a :"vast government overreach," managing editor Michael W. Chapman lashed out in an April 6 article:

Arkansas's Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson, whose election was endorsed by the American Conservative Union and who holds an ACU rating of 84, vetoed legislation overwhelmingly passed by the State Legislature, which would have prohibited the use of transgender medical treatments, including sex-change surgery, on children under the age of 18.

The Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, HB 1570, passed the Arkansas House 70-22 and the Senate 28-7. Hutchinson vetoed the bill on Monday, April 5, much to the disappointment of conservatives.  

[...]

The Family Research Council (FRC), which strongly supports the SAFE Act, issued a statement on Monday that said, "Asa Hutchinson appeared to yield to the sirens of the Left."

"The Arkansas legislature has demonstrated leadership and courage in the face of the Left's campaign of deception combined with spineless woke-ism of Corporate America," said FRC President Tony Perkins. "The legislature cannot stop now and deprive Arkansas's children of this much needed protection. Under the leadership of Rep. Robin Lundstrum and Sen. Alan Clark, the Arkansas legislature courageously passed the first-of-its-kind protection for minors from experimental gender transition procedures."

Interestingly, Chapman did not quote any right-wqing activist from the FRC or anywhere responding to Hutchinson's concerns about government overreach. He was, however, happy to add an editor's note to his article the same day noting that "The Arkansas Legislature voted to override Gov. Hutchinson's veto on Apr. 6, turning the SAFE Act into law."

But that wasn't the end of it. Two days later, an article by the mysterious "A. Kim" touted how Fox News' Tucker Carlson harangued Hutchinson, asking "why child chemical castration was a conservative value" and "They're not old enough to have sex, but they're old enough to be chemically castrated? How does that work exactly?"

That same day -- which, again, is two days after Hutchinson's veto was overridden, making it decidedly moot -- editor Terry Jeffrey devoted an article to Hutchinson's argument that the bill was a "vast government overreach." Jeffrey refrained from explicit editorializing, but one doesn't have to be a mind-reader, given CNS' rabidly anti-trans editorial agenda, that he didn't like how "Hutchinson claimed that vetoing this bill that would have prohibited transition procedures for minors was consistent with 'conservative philosophy'" and said that despite all the anti-trans legislation his state generated and he signed, "I want people in Arkansas and across the country to understand that whether they’re transgender or otherwise, that they’re loved, they’re appreciated and they make a part of our state and we want to send a message of tolerance and diversity."

This was followed by an April 9 column in which the FRC's Tony Perkins lashed out at "Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R-Ark. ) cowardly veto of Arkansas' SAFE Act." Then came an April 14 column by Star Parker complaining that Hutchinson "raised ire from conservatives for vetoing legislation passed by the Arkansas state legislature that would have banned "gender-affirming" medical treatment for transgender minors," and that he "used former President Reagan to justify his thinking"; Parker insisted "It is hard to believe that, as Gov. Hutchinson suggests, Reagan's idea of limited government means standing aside as a tyrannical secularism sweeps through our nation and wipes out any remaining remnant of those traditional biblical truths."

It's clear that even the slightest deviation from the far-right anti-trans agenda will make even loyal Republicans like Hutchinson and Noem the target of hate not unlike they have unleashed at transgender people.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:28 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:36 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Media Research Center executive Tim Graham was all about context when it came to fact-checking Donald Trump. But he gets mad when fact-checks of non-conservatives add context. Thus, Graham whined in an April 2 post:

On Thursday, National Review posted a blog by Zachary Evans headlined “NBC’s Lester Holt Urges Journalists to Ditch Objectivity: ‘Fairness Is Overrated.'” This offended the "independent fact-checkers" at Snopes.com, who flagged the headline -- not the article -- as "False." Once again, they're complaining about a lack of context. They're arguing about spin.

As is Graham -- he's mad that Snopes applied context and pointed out that National Review took Holt out of context. He then demanded that Snopes put Holt's speech in MRC-approved context:

"Fact checkers" should read Kyle Drennen's evidence about how Holt has abandoned objectivity on his program before they pronounce he's against "ditching objectivity." He insisted "holding those in power accountable is at the core of our function and responsibility," but didn't live up to that in interviews with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and even the foreign minister of Iran -- an actual enemy of the people.

Drennen's "evidence," of course, is the usual MRC ranting that journalists not employed by Fox News don't serve up Fox News-style right-wing bias.

Graham concluded by huffing: "Many Americans can't see much of a difference in "lanes" between Holt's show and say, Brian Williams on MSNBC. If NBC had great reverence for the truth, why does Williams still have a show?" Graham will never admit that there's no effective lane difference between Fox News "news" and Fox News opinion.

Graham had another "context" meltdown in an April 12 post:

Just like PolitiFact and other “fact check” outfits, the Reuters Fact Check team tried to take apart conservative arguments against H.R. 1, the so-called “For the People Act.” A Facebook post by Freedom Works made claims Reuters insisted were “partly false” – by finding liberal professors to quibble the fine points. Facebook posted "Missing Context" over the post. 

Graham presented right-wing activist Hans von Spakovsky as a credible expert on the issue of election fraud, but omitted relevant context that von Spakovsky was busted in a Kansas courtroom for presenting miseading and cherry-picked evidence on the issue that was "largely based on his preconceived beliefs about this issue, which has led to his aggressive public advocacy of stricter proof of citizenship laws."

Nevertheless, Graham whined: "Liberal media outlets quibble with conservative social media posts -- and Big Tech slaps "missing context" or "mostly false" warnings on them. This is how 'fair elections' are going to work." This from the guy who insisted that Trump's description of Meghan Markle as "nasty" omitted alleged contenxt showing he was calling her "nasty" in a good way.

Of course, Graham was totally cool with context when it came to defending his favorite conservatives. In a March 16 post, he was upset with CNN's John Berman calling out Tucker Carlson's fearmongering about coronavirus vaccines: "Unsurprisingly, CNN was taking Carlson dramatically out of context. He was mostly talking about European countries suspending their approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine, not yet approved in the United States. This does sound sympathetic to vaccine skepticism, but it's a larger message about how Team Biden needs to do more vaccine explaining, and how our public health experts are too politicized."

So: Only conservatives get context, while fact-checkers can't. Got it, Tim.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:18 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink