Muslim-Hating WND Columnist: Islam Is A 'Comorbidity' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The best way, then, to vet immigrants is by the faith they practice. As the data show, young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out against their hosts across the West. Second-generation Muslim-Americans are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.
Omar Saddiqui Mateen shot up a Florida gay nightclub, in 2016. He was a second-generation Afghan-American. Although Mateen's father was an admirer of the Taliban, the moron media concluded that junior was no jihadist, only a latent, self-hating homosexual, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.
The reason for second-generation terrorism is no mystery. More so than girls, boys need strong men in their lives – men who'll affirm their masculinity. Young men crave manly mentors with a strong moral message. But in contemporary American culture, men are sissified and feminized, and biological boundaries blurred. American boys, K-12, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.
When a Muslim male, moreover, hears American preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country's Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors – he quickly learns to reject his adopted country's heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe at Muhammad and his acolytes.
The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn't mean there is a moderate Islam – or that these moderates won't sire sons who'll embrace the unreformed Islam.
As painful as it is to say, being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion.
By "risk factor," I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system counseling conquest, not co-existence. "Islam's borders are bloody," cautioned famed historian Samuel Huntington. The data support his prescient and profound analysis.
It is a distraction to claim, as the moderates do, that jihadis are misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or unicorns. Fact: A Muslim's actions, be they in accordance with the "real Islam" or not – sanctioned theologically or not – could be deadly to Americans.
Afghans are as tough as teak. America, however, is a soft, feminized, sentimental and self-hating society. It is dangerous to import men from such a militant manly culture into a country that teaches its immigrants to hate American history and heroes, and to despise and dominate our naive, eager-to-please people and their customs.
More so than countries-of-origin, religion is The Risk Factor in vetting Afghan immigrants. In the popular parlance, we might say that their Muslim faith puts Afghan Muslims in a security risk group and that Islam is a religious comorbidity.
CNS Weirdly Rushes To Defend Pat Buchanan, Censors Conflict of Interest Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones kicked off a Sept. 8 CNSNews.com "news" article with her usual biased editorializing:
Speaking about the Democrats' $3.5-trillion entitlement package on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a news conference, "I'm so excited as to how transformative it is," especially for mothers of young children who want to go back to work "to reach their fulfillment."
Pelosi said building back better means sending more moms to work and more children to federally subsidized daycare:
Jones then got weirdly defensive when Pelosi referenced President Nixon's veto of subsidized child care in 1971 in a statement written by his then-aide, Pat Buchanan:
Pelosi reached back fifty years to criticize President Nixon -- and his speechwriter Patrick J. Buchanan -- for vetoing a publicly funded child care bill in 1971.
‘So, again, just for your information, I remember -- now, some of you weren't born then,” Pelosi said:
I remember that we were on the brink of this when I was having my small little babies, my five children in six years. We saw that in the Congress of the United States when Richard Nixon was president.
In a bipartisan way, the Congress passed the child care bill. Look, in the history books, everybody thought the president would sign it. It was cause for great excitement and would make a big difference.
Somebody named Patrick Buchanan intervened, making it a cultural issue, like we're sending our children to a Soviet-style situation by having child care, and the president vetoed the bill 50 years ago, 1971.
So, it's long, long, long overdue that we recognize the importance of our children and their care, the value of women in the workplace, and the only way that we can truly Build Back Better is with women in the workplace.
So that's why this is my theme all along, with our members has been Build Back Better with women, remarkable, remarkable transformational initiatives in this legislation.
Nixon's 1971 veto message, written by Buchanan, criticized "communal approaches to child rearing" versus "the family-centered approach."
Jones followed that by declared, "Here, verbatim, are Nixon's nine objections to the 1971 attempt at having the federal government directly involved in child care," followed by, yes, a lengthy reproduction of said objections.
There was no mention, however of the reason Jones rushed to defend (or was ordered to rush to defend) the honor of Nixon and Buchanan: Her boss, Terry Jeffrey, worked for Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign and managed his 1996 presidential run. It says so right on his CNS bio.
Consider this yet another reminder that CNS isn't really about news, it's about advancing political narratives -- which is exactly what you should expect for an organization run by a political operative who won't disclose his conflicts of interest.
Alex Berenson Becomes A Useful Tool For The MRC's 'Censorship' Victimhood Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves misinformation about COVID and its vaccines, so it's no surprise that it has embraced longtime COVID misinformer Alex Berenson -- even invoking his status as a former New York Times reporter in a bizarre attempt to build his credibility (even though the MRC has a blogger devoted almost exclusively to trying to discredit the Times). So it was inevitable that he would be folded into the MRC's "censorship" victimization narrative -- despite the fact that the Atlantic has documented how Berenson has been wrong about much of the pandemic, going so far as to call him "the Secretariat of being wrong."
In June 2020, Alexander Hall hyped that Amazon briefly banned sale of a book Berenson wrote on the pandemic, making sure to call him a "former New York Times reporter." In December, Kayla Sargent gave Berenson full entry in the MRC's victimhood pantheon:
Conservatives have long bemoaned the lack of viewpoint diversity in the discussion surrounding COVID-19, but for one Wall Street Journalcolumnist, the issue is personal.
Former New York Times reporter and author Alex Berenson claimed in a recent article for The Wall Street Journal that Amazon “has twice tried to suppress” several booklets that he wrote about COVID-19.
“Like the scientists who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, I simply believe many measures to control the coronavirus have been damaging, counterproductive and unsupported by science,” wrote Berenson.
As we've noted, the Great Barrington Declaration pushed "herd immunity" to COVID -- something most virus experts disagreed with -- and it was so poorly vetted that the declaration includes fake names.
Joseph Vazquez touted Berenson echoing the MRC's victimhood narrative on Fox Business in a March post:
Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson joined Fox Business to sound the alarm on the amount of power that Big Tech wields over the flow of information.
Berenson slammed Big Tech companies like Facebook for wanting it “both ways.” Specifically, if Big Tech companies were utilities, they would not be held liable for “every bit of speech” across their platforms, but at the same time that would mean they “can’t censor anything,” Berenson said. Regarding opinions and factually inaccurate information, Berenson asked on the March 25 edition of Mornings with Maria: “Do we want these companies in the business of deciding what’s factually accurate, what isn’t? Do we want them fact-checking, which Facebook increasingly does?” He continued: “Do we want [Big Tech] — you know — destroying large groups that come together for causes that some people may not like, or many people may not like? I think that’s a really bad idea.”
Berenson said that the Big Tech behemoths needed to decide: “Are they publishers, where they’re responsible for everything, or are they utilities where essentially they’re not responsible for anything, unless it’s clearly illegal?”
It sounds like Berenson simply wants to get away with pushing misinformation -- not that Vazquez will tell his readers that misinformation is what he's known for.
When Twitter banned Berenson for his repeated COVID misinformation, Gabriela Periseau devoted an Aug. 30 post to inducting him into the "censorship" hall of fame, while also taking the MRC dodge by admitting only that he served up "alleged misinformation":
Former New York Times journalist and author, Alex Berenson, said in a recent statement that he “expected this day was coming.” Twitter “suspended” his account for alleged misinformation.
Fox News reported that Twitter “permanently suspended” Berenson, for his alleged “repeated violations of [Twitter’s] COVID-19 misinformation rules.” Twitter has temporarily restricted Berenson’s account on multiple occasions for his outspoken criticism of how the COVID-19 pandemic has been handled. In “the tweet that did it,” as Berenson described it, he claimed that the controversial COVID-19 vaccines should not be thought of as vaccines but rather as “therapeutic[s].”
Berenson posted a purported picture of his final tweet in his online Substack newsletter, Unreported Truths. “[The COVID-19 vaccine] doesn’t stop infection or transmission,” read the tweet. He added, “[d]on’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it?”
Pariseau did not mention Berenson's long history of pushing COVID misinformation.]
The next day, Hall returned to promote Fox News' Tucker Carlson encouraging Berenson to sue Twitter over his suspension (for, yes, "alleged misinformation"), adding that "Berenson has good reason to criticize Big Tech for being too quick to censor when stories are still developing." Like Pariseau, Hall didn't mention that much of what Berenson wrote in this "developing" story has been wrong; instead, Hall dishonestly framed the issue by claiming that "Twitter has temporarily restricted Berenson’s account on multiple occasions for his outspoken criticism of how the COVID-19 pandemic has been handled." Hall also oddly failed to mention that Carlson offered to fund a possible Berenson lawsuit against Twitter.
Needless to say, Berenson's suspension is such an alleged coup for the MRC's victimhood narrative that it made the list of August's "WORST Censorship," Like his MRC co-workers, author Casey Ryan made sure to identify Berenson as a "former New York Times journalist" and declined to mention Berenson's long history of misinformation.
CNS Thinks A Michael Moore Fat Joke Is 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael Moore hasn't been a major player in American politics for years, but that doesn't keep conservatives from invoking him as a bogeyman of all things liberal or maklng jokes at his expense -- or CNSNews.com from promoting them.
Thus, we have a Sept. 3 article by Melanie Arter with the headline "Huckabee: Outsourcing Americans’ Protection to the Taliban Is Like ‘Outsourcing Your Diet Plan to Michael Moore’." It's about an appearance by Mike Huckabee on Fox News, where he mainly fretted that "the Biden administration might be able to change the focus from the Americans left behind in Afghanistan if the media doesn’t 'keep pressing the story'" -- basically a demand that Fox News continue to obsess about Afghanistan. t wasn't until the fourth paragraph that Arter brought up the headline money quote:
“It might,” Huckabee said, “because the press lacks the curiosity and the natural cynicism that we need in the press in order to keep pressing the story. The fact is, they let Joe just turn his back and walk away, but outsourcing the future of Americans stranded and held hostage in Afghanistan as Bill aptly said, but to outsource their protection to the Taliban is like outsourcing your diet plan to Michael Moore.
Huckabee and Arter wasn't the only one at CNS who continues to be triggered by Moore after all these years. A Sept. 10 column by Bill Donohue complained that Moore "said that upon the evacuation of Americans from Afghanistan, it was time to defend our nation "against our own domestic Taliban." The left-wing activist previously identified them as Christians." He went on to grouse: "We at the Catholic League have also been called the Taliban, even though, to my knowledge, no one who has worked here has ever walked the streets with a machete or thrown a homosexual off a building."
Of course, given what we know about Donohue's hatred of the LGBTQ community, throwing homosexuals off buildings has likely crossed his mind if he thought he could get away with it.
WND's Brown Again Pretending He's Not Attacking Trangender People Topic: WorldNetDaily
When Michael Brown began his Sept. 6 WorldNetDaily column by declaring, "This article is not meant to attack young people struggling with deep-seated gender confusion," that was a warning sign -- attacking transgender people, and the rest of the LGBTQ community, is his job. So he has decided to pretend those "young people struggling with deep-seated gender confusion" are the resl victims -- "To the contrary, it is meant to expose the attack on these young people" -- and anyone who helps them affirm their gender identify is the real evil ones. He went on to rant:
I have been warning against the trajectory of LGBTQ activism since 2004, and over these years, I have talked with countless parents and spouses and siblings, many of them weeping as they shared their stories. But recently, after speaking to several thousand Christians in Franklin, Tennessee, the accumulation of stories I heard was overwhelming.
A father came to me in tears, asking what to do for his 17-year-old daughter. Just two years ago, she was a committed Christian, telling her pastor that she stood with him in the fight for biblical sexuality.
One year later, she was identifying as male and threatening suicide if her father refused to authorize her treatments. Not only so, but her older sister had cut off communication with him because he had not capitulated.
A grandmother asked for advice for her grandson, who lived with her and her husband. His best friend, another little boy in the same building, was now wearing a dress. Should they still play together?
A mother broke down crying as she asked how she should relate to her daughter, now in her 20s. A few years ago, she came out as lesbian, then got "married" to her partner, but now has announced she is male and is in the process of transitioning. The daughter also professes to be a devoted Christian who never misses a church service and who opposes LGBTQ activism.
How on earth did this happen? How have so many people, especially young people, suddenly become so convinced that they are not what their biology and chromosomes say they are? (Again, I do not write this to criticize but to understand, not to hurt but to help.)
And how is it that, according to President Biden and others, "transgender equality" is the civil rights issue of our time?
Rather than consider the possibility that transgender people deserve respect as they try to figure out who they are and that they perhaps they deserve some dignity, Brown plays the "demon" card:
It's as if a horde of demons has been unleashed and our society has fallen into deep deception and delusion. And the ultimate victims, targeted for indoctrination from their earliest years, are the children. (If you think I'm exaggerating, take a minute to watch this "queer, non-binary" pre-school teacher celebrating her accomplishments or this toddler reading through a gay ABC book.)
Whatever the cause of this societal madness, the question that remains is simple: What are we going to do about it?
Nope, definitely not an attack on transgender people. No sirree.
NEW ARTICLE: Fluffing The MyPillow Guy Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had no problem inserting businessman-turned-Trump obsessive and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell into its right-wing social media "victimization" narrative. But why did it stop? Read more >>
CNS Falsely Puts Words Into Mouths Of Biden, Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is deeply committed to putting words in the mouths of people it doesn't like. Editor in chief Terry Jeffrey wrote in a Sept. 1 article:
Biden: ‘Deeply Committed to the Constitutional Right’ to Kill an Unborn Baby With a Heartbeat
President Joe Biden put out a statement on Wednesday stating his opposition to a Texas law—SB8--that bans the abortion of an unborn baby who already has a detectable heartbeat.
The law went into effect today.
In his statement on Wednesday, President Biden said: “This extreme Texas law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade and upheld as precedent for nearly half a century.”
“My administration is deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago and will protect and defend that right,” Biden said in his statement.
President Biden Claims Killing an Unborn Baby Who Has a Beating Heart is a ‘Private and Personal’ Decision
President Joe Biden put out a statement today condemning the Supreme Court’s decision not to issue an injunction to immediately stop a Texas law (SB 8) that seeks to prevent the abortion of babies who have a detectable heartbeat--which generally occurs at six weeks into pregnancy.
The Texas law, which took effect Wednesday, allows individuals to sue abortionists and those who aid a woman in obtaining the abortion of an unborn baby with a beating heart.
President Biden's statement, published Thursday, characterized the abortion of a baby with a beating heart as a "private and personal" health decision.
“Complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in the most private and personal health decisions faced by women,” Biden said in his statement.
Note that in both articles, Jeffrey portrayed Biden has having specifically endorsed "killing an unborn baby who has a beating heart." But at no point did Jeffrey quote Biden saying those exact words are anything similar.By forcing right-wing anti-abortion activist framing around Biden's statements, Jeffrey is injecting bias into what is suppsoed to be "news" -- which is something that CNS' owner, the Media Research Center, purports to oppose.
Perhaps sensing that deliberately injecting bias into "news" stories was a bad look for the editor in chief of the "news" operation to be doing, a Sept. 3 article that did the exact same word-stuffing into Nancy Pelosi's mouth -- but did so anonymously, with the article credited only to "CNSNews.com Staff":
Pelosi: It’s ‘Cowardly’ for Supreme Court Not to Uphold the Right to Kill an Unborn Baby With a Heartbeat
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) on Thursday put out a statement Supreme Court “cowardly” for not issuing an injunction to stop enforcement of a Texas law, which went into effect on Wednesday, that prohibits aborting babies who have a detectable heartbeat.
“The Supreme Court’s cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering,” said Pelosi. “That this radically partisan Court chose to do so without a full briefing, oral arguments or providing a full, signed opinion is shameful.
Again, nowhere does the article quote Pelosi saying shse ensorses "killing an unborn baby with a heartbeat." Again, just because the article lacks a byline doesn't make it any less biased -- only that a CNS reporter refused to put his or her name on said bias.
MRC Promotes Conspiracy Theory Over 'The Office' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Gabriel Hays was acting quite conspiratorial in an Aug. 31 post:
Corporate media companies are yet again deeming what’s appropriate for American viewers to watch. This time Comedy Central has subtly removed an entire episode of NBC’s hit show The Office from its library for not being woke enough.
Ironically, the episode is about the annoying boss Michael Scot botching his way through a company diversity seminar.
According to a recent Newsweek article, the famous sitcom about wacky antics in a mid-level paper distribution company felt a bit of the cancel culture heat. During a Sunday marathon on the cable news channel Comedy Central, viewers noticed that one of the episodes was missing. Apparently, it wasn’t an accident, it was just the media telling us adults that it’s not appropriate for our viewing.
Hays went on to admit that Newsweek merely "surmises" -- with no actual proof -- that the episode's alleged failure to be "woke" is the reason the show didn't air. He's just guessing as well, though at least Newsweek did what Hays didn't and tried to contact Comedy Central for comment. Nevertheless, Hays went on to cite "people on Twitter" pushing the conspiracy theory.
Of course, it's just as likely -- if not more so -- than the reason the episode didn't air is completely benign. Snopes did the research Hays wouldn't and noted that Comedy Central skipped other episodes during that marathon that would have otherwise appeared if it stuck to a strict in-order schedule. Snopes also noted there is no known pressure campaign demanding that Comedy Central or anyone else stop airing the episode.
Hays did admit that "The episode is still available on NBC's streaming service, Peacock. For now. Peacock does not list episodes of 30 Rock that were pulled for having characters in black face." Hays didn't explain why that's a bad thing.
But hey, why research what you're writing about when you can wildly speculate in order to advance a political narrative? Hays concludes:
Who knows why Comedy Central felt compelled to do this? Maybe there is a good reason, but knowing the woke universe we inhabit, it’s most likely a stupid reason. The funny thing is that The Office wasn’t mocking corporate diversity training, it was mocking Michael Scott for being the bumbling racially insensitive one in the mix. The show has always been about contextualizing Scott’s social faux pas with the horror splashed over his co-workers’ faces.
Essentially, the episode is about making borderline racist people look pretty stupid. If anything, this is just proof that whoever is making decisions as to what airs on the network doesn’t get the joke. Then, why the hell are they in charge of running content on something called Comedy Central?
And why portray yourself as a "media researcher" when you can't be bothered to do any actual research?
UPDATE: Right-wing film critic Christian Toto forwarded the bogus conspiracy theory as well in a Sept. 4 post:
Newsweek contacted various Comedy Central officials for comment. Silence. The suits couldn’t muster up the courage to send out a canned statement, let alone a brief phoner to explain their stance. The same goes for Wilmore.
Why? They’re afraid. Afraid of defending their art, of angering the woke mob, of hinting they aren’t as progressive as they should be.
Carell has said in the past his character couldn’t survive today’s woke culture, but that’s as far as he went in condemning the cultural shift.
So “Diversity Day” is gone, at least from Comedy Central. It’s currently available for purchase on YouTube, but for how long? What other “Office” episodes are next? Or will the mob sic another classic TV series for an encore?
Cancel Culture grows in strength and ferocity with every so-called victory.
Like Hays, Toto offered no actual evidence of a conspiracy against the episode by Comedy Central or any member of the "cancel culture" police. The narrative is simply just too good for Hays or Toto to fact-check.
Joseph Farah's Biden Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joe Biden is not the moderate he pretended to be during the 2020 election.
He's not perceived as "honest and trustworthy."
A new poll shows the American people are not confident in his "ability to deal wisely with an international crisis."
Only 38% think he says what he believes and 44% think he's saying what people want to hear.
He's not honest and empathic.
Only 21% think he can bring the country together.
What does this tell you?
It tells you that at best Americans believe they were sold a bill of goods. At worst, Donald Trump was right: They were the victims of the Big Steal, voter fraud – the worst in the nation's history.
This is sensational news for you know who.
It's almost too good to be true, in fact, assuming Republicans will get their act together and stop cooperating in any fashion with this fascist pretender. Republicans also must support in every conceivable way VOTER INTEGRITY as a top priority before the midterms.
Because we have too many Republicans still currying up to Joe Biden! And not enough believing that Trump was highway robbed of the election!
Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Biden received 81,268,024 votes, the most by far of anyone ever elected president? He received more than Barack Obama, who was the best thing that ever happened to Joe.
Do you think that is possible? Biden didn't even campaign in 2020. He rarely left Delaware. Trump was getting adoration at every turn. Anyone who believes these results needs to have his head examined.
And that includes most of the personalities at Fox News.
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."
– Isaiah 6:8
Joe Biden is not the first to choose the words of Isaiah in times of trouble.
But that's what he chose to do after keeping people waiting for consoling words after the latest tragedy in Afghanistan Thursday.
I don't know who advised him. Maybe he thought it was the right time for a Bible verse.
This time, they were words that, shall we say, ring hollow.
Isaiah was not on a recruiting mission for soldiers. He was not on a mission for politicians. He was rather telling the Lord he was volunteering to be the one to give the word of the Lord to His people. After all, that was what Isaiah did – he prophesied. He was looking for marching orders.
Joe Biden doesn't prophesy. He doesn't even follow intelligence reports. And he sure isn't a Bible scholar.
Biden is a fool. We all know that. We can see it for ourselves. We're not dumb, blind and stupid. But he's not alone. He's got accomplices – many of them. And now Peggy Grande has affirmed it.
Now we can all see with our own eyes the real Joe Biden – a feckless, old-beyond-his-years, cognitively challenged codger, a French fry short of a happy meal. We may not know who the "real" president is or if there is one – but we know who's calling the shots for him. We know who's telling him what to say, what to do and when to do it. DEMOCRATS.
Joe Biden is senile. That should be obvious to any rational person. He commits an embarrassing faux pas at least every day. His cognitive ability is a joke. He's ravaged by even MSNBC and CNN, which have been his biggest champions. His Afghanistan screw-up is the latest in eight months of malfeasance and scandals that bring on righteous calls for 25th Amendment challenges, impeachment charges and pleas for resignation. He's been roasted by his former champions abroad among U.S. allies.
But the Democrats never talk about any of this. They neither see nor admit none of it.
And the person who would take over in each removal scenario is the cackling shrew Kamala Harris. It's enough to make you queasy.
Our country has never been in more trouble, not even when Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo were at their peak of vanquishing freedom around the world. To have Franklin Roosevelt at the helm would be more acceptable than a fool who cannot construct a coherent sentence, or, for that matter, read a teleprompter.
I used to call Joe Biden an embarrassment. It was cute when he would do certain things … like plagiarize. If that's all he did, he could be forgiven, sort of. But Joe was a SERIAL plagiarist.
That's because he was never that bright.
Today, Joe Biden is still a fool. He's a disgrace. He's proved that by leaving Americans behind the lines in Afghanistan. I didn't think it was possible that he could do that surrounded by advisers – even Democrats.
But Joe is acting like he has a diseased mind, right now. It's no longer satisfactory calling him confused or cognitively challenged. He has a disordered brain. His mind is sick. It's dark!
And they don't let him talk to anyone without a teleprompter.
Why? He gets confused, confounded, disoriented, bewildered, perplexed, confounded, addled, flustered, dumbfounded, befuddled and even baffled.
Advertisement - story continues below
That's why he knows he'll "get in trouble," as he has admitted, if he doesn't stick to the script.
But he can't. So he keeps getting warned he'll "get in trouble."
Yet, I'm getting at something worse than that. He's gotten very mean in his old age. What do I mean by mean? Unkind with a dose of contemptible pettiness. He's been dishonorable for a long time, putting his own interests ahead of his obligations – like the fate of his constituents, real Americans.
But he can hardly be called an American. He's a coward, he's greedy, he's sordid, he's vile.
I once felt sorry for Joe Biden – I really did. But he has ruined America, brought it to its lowest point ever. That's something that is beyond contempt. I didn't think anyone could be worse than Obama. I now miss that time.
Is Joe humiliating? Yes, he's humiliating America.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Throughout 2020, Media Research Center writer Curits Houck repeatedly whined that reporters asked tough questions of his beloved White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Now, with Jen Psaki at the helm, he's cheering every tough and biased question that gets tossed her way, particularly on the Afghanistan withdrawal. Houck kept up the cheering in his take on the Sept. 1 briefing:
The continued decline of substantive Afghanistan questions continued on Wednesday’s edition of The Psaki Show with a shift towards the coronavirus and Texas’s abortion law, but ABC’s Stephanie Ramos and Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich kept up the heat with questions for Press Secretary Jen Psaki on the embarrassing collapse of the country following a two-decade war.
Along with other solid Afghanistan, questions from CBS’s Ed O’Keefe, Heinrich and Ramos honed in on a Reuters bombshell detailing a July 23 phone call in which President Biden pressured Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to “project a different picture” about the country’s state of affairs.
Since it's Houck's jjob as an MRC employee to portray anything the non-right-wing media does as some secret lockstep conspiracy, he went on to whine that the hearing wasn't all Afghanistan all the time: "It’s safe to say that, with this Texas abortion law, the liberal media may have found their opening to ditch Afghanistan."
For the Sept. 2 hearing, Houck came to the defense of a biased right-wing reporter who, surprisingly, wasn't named Peter Doocy:
Along with the decline of Afghanistan questions continuing into Thursday’s White House press briefing with only 13 being asked, the Texas abortion law gave the liberal media an off-ramp to drop that humanitarian and security disaster as they dedicated roughly 29 questions to defending the left’s rabid support for murder. But when it came to EWTN White House correspondent Owen Jensen standing up for life, Press Secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t stand that.
Jensen interjected roughly 10 minutes into Psaki’s Q&A with the fact Biden’s abortion views go against his Catholic faith:“Following up on the Texas law, why does the President support abortion when his own Catholic faith teaches abortion is morally wrong?”
Psaki has long exhibited testiness toward Jensen, so it wasn’t a surprise when she hit back: “Well, he believes that it’s a woman’s right, it’s a woman’s body, and it’s her choice.”
Jensen stayed tough as he fired off an excellent follow-up: “Who does he believe then should look out for the unborn child?”
By this point, Psaki couldn’t contain her annoyance:
He believes that it’s up to a woman to make those decisions and up to women to make those decisions with her doctor. I know you’ve never faced those choices nor have you ever been pregnant, but for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing. President believes their right should be respected.
How offensive! Psaki needs to be cancelled for (a) not using the term “birthing people” or “pregnant people”; (b) not realizing that, according to her side of the aisle, men could become pregnant; and (c) assuming Jensen’s gender. What a mess!
Weird, we don't remember Houck ever saying that his beloved McEnany "exhibited testiness" or "annoyance" with the non-right-wing media -- he cheered her for being "passionate" and treated her inmmature insult-fests as "smacking down" the media.
(This was followed by a post from Kristine Marsh calling anti-Trump Repubican talking head Matthew Dowd "huffy" and "wildly illogical" for cfriticizing Jensen's biased question.)
Houck returned to the Doocy-fluffing beat after the Labor Day holiday for the Sept. 8 briefing, gushing that Doocy was being conservatively correct in continuing to hound Psaki about Afghanistan:
With a week off from the briefing room (having switched off with colleague Jacqui Heinrich) and the Labor Day weekend, Fox’s Peter Doocy returned Wednesday with plenty of questions for Jen Psaki about the Americans stranded in Afghanistan, the Taliban government having more people on the FBI’s Most Wanted List than women, and if engaging with them means they’ll be granted global legitimacy.
And Doocy wasn’t the only reporter on the case as he had plenty of help from CNN’s Phil Mattingly and Voice of America’s Patsy Widakuswara.
Doocy’s next question was fair and spicy: “There are now more terrorists wanted by the FBI in the new Afghan government than there are women. Does the President think that is a foreign policy success?”
Does Houck think that Doocy ever asked an "unfair" question? Doubtful -- the MRC is not paying him to criticize his man-crush.
This is madness. Forced vaccination with an experimental "for emergency use only" shot has precipitated death or injury for over 500,000 Americans. Is this really happening? Are you sure this isn't 1938 Nazi Germany, or a communist country that provides no civil or human rights to its citizens? Because this can't be America.
That figure of over 500,000 total deaths, serious injuries and adverse effects linked to the COVID-19 vaccines is not from me … it's not from some wild, unreliable internet rumor … it comes from the vaccine adverse event reporting system called VAERS that's connected to the U.S. government and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It's more deaths and injuries than all the vaccines in the past three decades combined, by a mile. By the way, throughout history, VAERS has always underreported deaths and injuries by a wide margin.
Root is lying about VAERS. As we're repeatedlypointedout, reports of adverse effects to VAERS are not verified and are not designed to be comprehensive.
Root went on to claim that "In the European Union, the same vaccine reporting system reports over 20,000 dead and over 2 million injured by the vaccines" -- though the European system works the same way as VAERS in that reported effects have not been verified.
Root continued to fearmonger: "In Massachusetts, there are 9,969 "breakthrough cases" of vaccinated people with COVID-19, and over 100 vaccinated people are dead of COVID-19. That's reported by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health." But that 9,969 number is a mere 0.23 percent of all people fully vaccinated in the state.
Root then ranted:
If Trump were president, the media would be reporting those numbers in gigantic headlines and calling "Trump's vaccine" a "Frankenstein's monster." They'd be accusing Trump of murder. They'd be calling him "Hitler."
Not one Democrat in America would be taking these vaccines.
There would be Black Lives Matter riots as black Americans accused Trump of racism and genocide. The American Civil Liberties Union would be filing lawsuits in every city, county and state in America. They'd call forced vaccinations under Trump "the civil rights issue of our lifetime."
And the children? Are you aware Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (the most respected in the world) just did a study of 45,000 American kids with COVID-19 and found zero deaths among healthy children? Zero as in 0. Only a handful of children in all of America died from COVID-19, and Johns Hopkins reports all of them had childhood cancer.
So, if Trump were president and the government demanded every schoolchild be masked and vaccinated with a dangerous and sometimes deadly experimental vaccine, even though there was zero risk of death from this flu bug, what would liberals say? How about feminist mothers?
You don't have to guess. I know. Liberal mothers across America would say, "Trump wants to murder our children."
Root's unspoken implication is that if Trump were still president, he'd be first in line to get the vaccine and would be downplayiong or dismissing the purported side effects he's now fearmongering about. After all, he has been nothing if not a major Trump suck-up over the past four-plus years.
Root's argument here is hollow and cynical. We wouldn't expect anything else.
How Is CNS Freaking Out About LGBT People These Days? Topic: CNSNews.com
When you have anaggressivehomophobe like Michael W. Chapman as your managing editor, anti-LGBT freakouts are to be expected at CNSNews.com. And indeed, Chapman and other writers continue to deliver. Chapman huffed in an Aug. 23 article:
Although Georgetown University is the nation's oldest Catholic institution of higher learning, founded by Bishop John Carroll in 1789, it has named transgender "female" Charlotte Clymer, a biological male and transgender activist, to be one of its fall 2021 "Fellows."
The Georgetown Fellows "lead weekly discussion groups," "hold office hours for students" and "mentor students," according to the Fellows' webpage. They also receive a stipend, may use campus resources, and may audit any class at the McCourt School of Public Policy, "one of the top public policy schools in the nation."
Chapman went on to complain that Clymer's talks to Fellows will touch on things like bigotry in America and climate change -- then went on to recite anti-LGBT aspects of Catholic Church canon.
In an Aug. 24 column, Bill Donohue freaked out that Biden appointed a gay man as ambassador to a very tiny European country:
Personnel is policy. The people a president appoints to any job reveal his priorities. Even ambassadors, who are usually just major campaign donors, can tell a lot about what a president wants to accomplish. From President Biden's appointment of Scott Miller to serve as the United States Ambassador to the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, we can see once again that Biden has clearly prioritized LGBT issues over Christians.
Scott Miller comes into his ambassadorship after serving as the co-chairman of the Gill Foundation, one of the largest militant and anti-Christian LGBT organizations in the country. The Foundation has long worked to trample the rights of anyone who morally objects to same-sex marriage. Miller, along with his "husband" Tim Gill, the founder and co-chair of the foundation, have not sought to find a compromise in which homosexuals and people of faith can coexist; rather, they have treated the relationship as a zero-sum game.
Members of the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) protested outside the U.S. Embassy in Jamaica this month against the flying of an LGBT Pride flag, denouncing the action as an "insult to our country."
The Biden administration has made flying the LGBT flag a top priority of its diplomatic mission, to condone and promote the homosexual lifestyle.
Chapman offered no evidence that flying the LGBT flag is a "top priority" for the Biden administration, or that being LGBT is merely a "lifestyle."
Jared Polis, the openly gay Democratic governor of Colorado, "married" his long-time partner, Marlon Reis, in a small Jewish ceremony on Sept. 15. Traditional, orthodox Judaism teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“Mawage. Mawage is what brings us together today," tweeted Polis, a former member of Congress, on Sept. 15.
Chapman is so homophobic, he couldn't even find humor in the "Princess Bride" reference in Polis' tweet.
After noting that the ceremony was performed by "a Jungian psychotherapist and a leader in the international Jewish Renewal Movement,"Chcpman called on his favorite right-wing (and borderline racist) Jewish group, the Coalition for Jewish Values, to denounce the "marraiges" (his scare quotes, not ours):
Asked for comment about the "marriage," Rabbi Yaakov Menken, managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), told CNS News that his organization opposes such arrangements because marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
"Marriage is described in Genesis as directly connected to having children," said Rabbi Menken. "So even without reference to clear prohibitions in Leviticus, it is obvious that a same-sex union is foreign to Judaism."
The CJV represents 1,500-plus traditional, orthodox rabbis nationwide.
Chapman concluded by whining, "Polis has a long history of supporting liberal/left causes and voting (in Congress) for their advancement.
MRC Still Trying To Blame High Gas Prices On Biden Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted the desperate attempts by the Media Research Center's Joseph Vazquez to blame higher gas prices on President Biden, despite a lack of evidence to support the claim. He's still at it. He huffed in an Aug. 11 post:
The Associated Press (AP) found a way to make President Joe Biden look like an American prophet warning about rising energy prices, without mentioning how his anti-oil agenda is contributing to the growing crisis.
AP ran a puff story headlined, “Biden administration sounds alarm on rising energy prices.” The lede paragraph was just as ridiculous: “President Joe Biden’s administration is raising alarms at home and abroad about rising energy prices slowing the nation’s recovery from the pandemic-induced recession.” GasBuddy Head of Petroleum Analysis Patrick De Haan argued in April that Biden’s energy plan was contributing to rising gas prices.
As we pointed out, De Haan cited no specific policy that was solely responsible for the rise in gas prices, which less biased obnservers have argued is more accurately blamed on a reduction in crude oil production during the pandemic and global demand generated by world economies come back to life.
On Aug. 13, Vazquez gushed once more over his favorite accused sexual assaulter, Fox Business' Charles Payne, touting how he "placed the blame for spiking energy prices right at the feet of President Joe Biden's fossil fuel 'war.'" Again, no specific policy was cited; instead, Payne was allowed to uncritically rant that "West Texas Intermediate oil, 'a week ago, was $75 a barre[l]' compared to '$35 a barrel' on Nov. 2, 2020" -- completely and dishonestly omitting the pandemic's effect on the economy that drove down oil prices last year.
In an Aug. 17 post, Vazquez played the correlation-equals-causation fallacy:
The terrible effects of President Joe Biden’s war on fossil fuels are taking a serious toll on the nation as the left-wing media have consistently attempted to defend him from bad press.
U.S. Energy Information Administration data revealed that gas prices per gallon were at about $2.42 when former President Donald Trump left office. Under Biden, prices have increased every single month to a discomforting $3.23, a 33.47 percent increase. The gas data follow a hot Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI), both key inflation indicators released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The New York Post reported in a recent story on the CPI data that gasoline prices had risen “2.4 percent from May and is now up almost 42 percent from a year ago."
The media have consistently played the role of lapdogs for Biden’s agenda by gaslighting and hoodwinking viewers and readers on Biden’s culpability concerning rising prices.
Vazquez again invoked De Haan's dubious reasoning. And like DeHaan, Vazquez identified no specific policy that is directly linked to rising prices.
Vazquez ranted in an Aug. 19 post otherwise attacking New York Times economist Paul Krugman :
Biden’s actions enabled an economic crisis by allowing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to gain “more leverage over U.S. gas prices, especially Saudi Arabia.” Biden all but begged OPEC to produce more oil while U.S. production remains stagnant. A climate agenda that hamstrings the U.S. economy by subjecting it to foreign oil cartel manipulation was clearly lost on Krugman.
This time, though, Vazquez actually cites someone who could be a credible expert to back him up: "Transversal Consulting President Ellen Wald Ph.D. reportedly told Axios that President Joe Biden’s climate agenda has kept 'American [oil] production down.'" You know Vazquez is desperate to pump up someone's credibilty by adding Wald's doctorate degree to her name.
But Wald has also cited another reason gas prices are high, one that has nothing to do with Biden. Marketplace reported in June:
But Ellen R. Wald at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center said oil prices are up because of what’s going on in the U.S.
“The really big story, I think, about what’s helping keep prices rising is that American production hasn’t come back to the same levels that it was in 2020,” Wald said.
Shareholders are demanding a return on investment, Wald said, which has led U.S. producers to reduce spending and keep output flat.
That's an explanation Vazquez will never report to his readers.
WND's Cashill Somehow Blames Hillary For Cuomo's Resignation Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed some of the conspiracy theories WorldNetDaily columnists have promoted about the resignation of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a sexual harassment scandal. Well, conspiracy-monger extraordinaire Jack Cashill worked up his own in an Aug. 4 column, and you will be totally not surprised who he thinks is behind it.
Cashill starts by blaming the New York Times for having "found the story of Cuomo's vaguely inappropriate comments more newsworthy than the story of Joe Biden's sexual assault of intern Tara Reade, let alone the newest tale of Hunter Biden's depravity," then set up his conspiracy:
The word was out. Cuomo was expendable. Coumosexuals turned Cuomophobes overnight. As new accusers came forward, Hillary Clinton responded in a March 1, 2021 statement, "These stories are difficult to read, and the allegations brought forth raise serious questions that the women who have come forward and all New Yorkers deserve answers to."
Ah yes, Hillary. Top cop on the sexual harassment beat, the New Yorker's Ronan Farrow smelled blood. In a lengthy profile of Boylan, Farrow wrote: "Since childhood, Boylan had idolized Hillary Clinton. She once waited in line for hours to have a photo taken with her, an experience that she said 'changed my life.'"
In that same article, however, Boylan expressed dismay at Hillary's tempered response to the accusations against Cuomo, who had served as HUD secretary in Bill Clinton's second term.
"There's no way you don't know who this man is if you've worked with, or around, him for decades," Boylan told Farrow.
The politically savvy Boylan was 14 when Clinton was impeached for his role in the Monica Lewinsky affair. As Trump made clear throughout the 2016 election, Hillary served as Bill's enabler in chief for his sexual misadventures up to and including rape.
Boylan had to know this. And now she was publicly disowning Hillary for her entirely appropriate response to the Cuomo accusations?
This somehow leads to Cashill asserting that Hillary got Cuomo out of the way so she could become president when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are supposedly inevitably removed from office:
If either Biden or Harris steps down or is forced out before January 2023, a Democrat-controlled Congress will be able to dictate the replacement.
That replacement will, in turn, dictate terms to either the feeble Biden or the feckless Harris and prepare to run for 2024.
Before December 2020 there would have been no stopping rock star Andrew Cuomo. During four election cycles and 10 years in office, the media noticed nothing awry in the governor's office. Even during the hysteria post-Weinstein, Cuomo's star still shone brightly.
Now, he's a monster. Now, that VP opening will be up for grabs. My suspicion is that Hillary and her feminist friends are already measuring the Oval Office for drapes.
The only surprise here is that Cashill couldn't find a way to work Barack Obama -- with whom heremainsobsessed -- into his conspiracy.