MRC Sad That Homophobic, Racist NFL Coach Lost His Job Topic: Media Research Center
When Jon Gruden lost his job as coach for the Las Vegas Raiders after homophobic, racist and misogynistic remarks were revealed in a series of emails he sent several years ago, and the Media Research Center's sports bloggers are very sad about this development. First up was the mysterious Jay Maxson:
Who came off worse in the Jon Gruden controversy – the lightning rod former coach of the Las Vegas Raiders or the egg-faced National Football League? It may come down to a coin toss.
Gruden stepped down Monday after it was revealed, according t The New York Times, that he “used misogynistic and homophobic language for years, a review of his emails shows. He denounced the emergence of women referees, the drafting of a gay player and the tolerance of protests during the national anthem.”
In one email after the then-St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam from Missouri, Gruden said they should not have been pressured into drafting “queers.” The ex-coach also called NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell a “faggot” and “clueless anti football pussy.” In light of cancel culture and the power the LGBT movement has to destroy careers over their word choices, those were reckless things to write down.
Gruden also criticized NFL Players Association President DeMaurice Smith for having lips the size of “Michelin tires.” Smith is black and that was another very stupid thing to say. Gruden tried to excuse it away by claiming he uses the term "rubber lips" when he accuses people of lying.
Note that Maxson apparently doesn't think Gruden came off bad here, aside from the racism. But we know that Maxson is a fellow homophobe. Instead, he (or she) played whataboutism by reciting other scandals involving NFL players or coaches who apparently weren't (yet) treated as harshly, concluding by huffing: It’s just another day, another shameful day for the NFL. Heads or tails on that coin toss?" Again: Maxson doesn't think what Gruden did was shameful, but that his punishment was.
That was followed by John Simmons also complaining about the punishment:
Last night, Jon Gruden saw his tenure as the Las Vegas Raiders head coach come to an end – because of comments he made 10 years ago.
The New York Times published a report that revealed a series of emails containing comments where Gruden used gay slurs and potentially racist comments to voice his frustration at executives, coaches, and things that were happening in the NFL from 2011 onward. One comment that was potentially seen as racist when he said that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, had “lips the size of Michelin tires.”
Let me be clear: Gruden should not have said any of these things. If you read the report, you will see that he did use language that was unwholesome and made comments that a guy who is in a position of authority should not be saying.
But firing him for saying these seven years ago? That’s absolutely absurd. It wasn’t like he was saying these things to the press after each game, completely losing his temper and lashing out irrationally.
The most frustrating part of situations like this is that the person that was accused of saying racist things isn’t given a second chance to better himself. It’s a one-strike policy, with the scary part being they could dig up your past to invent a strike that gets you out.
What’s worse, the NFL has an inconsistent and confusing standard for league personnel when they violate behavior policies.
Note that Simmons only specifically called out the racist, alluding only in passing to Gruden's homophobia and misogyny in passing, bizarrely claiming that hs remarks were "unwholesome." When has the NFL ever been known as wholesome?
Like Maxson, Simmons played whataboutism, then flip=flops on the whole wholesomeness thing: "If saying something crass or inappropriate a decade ago is a fireable offense, then you would not be able to find one player or coach who should have a job today. Football is a rough sport played and coached by rough individuals, so there should be at least a better understanding of what to expect from your personnel when they speak."
Simmons returned two days later to complain that Raiders quarterback Derek Carr "offered a solution to make sure this never happens again: initiate a witch hunt on every NFL coach and general manager and see what dirt they can find on them." Then it was lecture time:
If there is one thing that all of us are good at, it’s messing up. We are bound to at one point or another (even those who think they are pious and righteous, like Carr and the Raiders’ leadership), especially those in the world of football. The players and leaders of teams who make living organizing and playing a brutal and rough game are usually brutal and rough people. As such, it should be expected that you will hear people say things that make you cringe or that cross a line.
Flushing out the people who have said offensive things in the past will not solve this, and it will likely only replace these "offenders" with other offenders. At some point, players and coaches will have to accept that coaches will say hurtful things and that they must learn to move on.
The fact that players can’t understand this has shown the lack of emotional maturity of those in the NFL – especially in Las Vegas. Carr’s call to action seems to stem from someone who can’t even fathom that there is such a thing as negativity or hurtful words in the NFL and that it can be – and must be - eradicated to make a safe space for people before they can continue living.
Simmons then whined that "Defensive end Carl Nassib, the NFL’s first active player to come out as gay, took a 'personal day' after hearing that the emails came out, which apparently contained anti-gay language." The homophobes at the MRC have already taken it badly that an openly gay player exists in the NFL, with Simmons portraying his existence as the opposite of "faith-based, American-loving, conservative values." Which helps explain why he's not terribly bothered by Gruden's homophobia.
WND's Farah Still Believes In Fantasy Of Trump Sneaking Back Into Whtie House Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah's fantasy that Donald Trump will return to the White House before the 2024 election through a convoluted process in which Republicans take control of Congress in thte 2022 midterms, name Trump speaker of the House, then impeach President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, which will then elevate Trump to the presidency. Farah is still clinging to this fantasy in an Oct. 8 column:
I take some degree of pride in first proposing Donald Trump getting essentially six more years as president, by first becoming speaker of the House, leading the impeachment of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and taking over the White House after being cheated out of the 2020 election.
Now it seems more viable than ever.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of Trump's most ardent supporters, has not only heard the call, but has the tentative approval of the president to be nominated for speaker of the House after the midterm elections, assuming all goes well.
Trump would then lead the inevitable impeachments of Biden and Harris and succeed them as president for the next six years (taking into account his reelection in November 2024).
Don't worry, you don't have to be a House member to be speaker of the House! Any American can serve at the pleasure of the House – even temporarily. It's the only way Trump can serve another six years as president. After all he's gone through, it seems like the best way to reward him!
If it looks like a viable path following the midterms next year, he will do it.
Farah does see a hitch in his plan -- which, of course, doesn't involve his own delusions or the fact that Gaetz may not even make it to 2022 given the investigation into him over having sex with a minor among other things:
So what could go wrong?
Well, there's someone else who wants to be speaker – Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. But who in his right mind would see this as an obstacle? To give Trump almost two extra years as president? McCarthy can compete for the speaker's post after the smoke clears and the position is vacant. Shouldn't Trump get the chance to impeach Biden and Harris? This would be historic.
What does Trump say?
"Well, I've heard the talk, and it's getting more and more," Trump told Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody back in June about becoming speaker. "But it's not something that I would've considered, but it is certainly – there's a lot of talk about it. I have a good relationship with Kevin [McCarthy], and hopefully we will do everything traditionally. But the election was a horrible, horrible thing for our country."
I'll take that as a definite yes.
Time is short, but the payoff is huge.
But it all hinges on a free election next November. It must be a victory that stuns even the Democrats. And with Biden at 39% in his approval rating, it's looking like a landslide for the Republicans.
Mediaite reported on Nov. 5 that Newsmax would institute a vaccine mandate for its employees -- either ger vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. That apparently didn't go over well there, where rage against vaccine mandates -- as mandated by right-wing narratives -- is a staple of Newsmax programming and content. Host Steve Cortes declared he would never comply with such "medical apartheid," and host Eric Bolling denied any such mandate was taking place.
In an effort to tamp down the controversy, Newsmax published an unsigned editorial on Nov. 7, a Sunday morning, in which it insisted that "Newsmax has no vaccine mandate nor do we require it for employment," but noted that it would follow federal law, which includes opt-outs for weekly testing, though they are "not good and probably illegal" as well as "a dangerous overreach of federal power." The editorial tried to find a place to stand on both sides of the issue, straddling a line between being reasonable while not abandoning the anti-vaxxers who make up a notable portion of its audience:
Even with no business mandate in effect today, both COVID cases and deaths are falling dramatically.
The vaccine, which has been demonstrated to be safe and effective, is clearly playing a role.
Newsmax has encouraged citizens, especially those at risk, to get immunized.
As a company we have seen first-hand how those at risk have suffered without the vaccine. In 2020, Newsmax lost its contributor Herman Cain due to the coronavirus.
And radio hosts like Dick Farrel, Phil Valentine, and Marc Bernier have all died as a result of not having taken the vaccine.
While the vaccine works, so does natural immunity.
Several studies show natural immunity provides even more protection than the vaccine.
The major media has berated us to "follow the science," but they ignore the science on natural immunity. Why?
And why are employees, for example, not given an exemption if they have strong antibodies?
At Newsmax we do not ignore the science nor the facts.
President Donald Trump provided the funding for the vaccine and cut through the red tape to see it implemented.
And Trump himself has been vaccinated. Publicly, he has encouraged others to receive the vaccine.
Government provides an opportunity, but an informed citizenry in a free nation should make its own health decisions.
That might sound reasonable if Newsmax hadn't given a platform to various and sundry COVID conspiracy theorists spouting misinformation. Newsmax knew it was playing with fire by publishing them but labeling the writer as a "non-clinician," but that doesn't fully absolve them from responsibility.
The editorial remained on Newsmax's front page for several days afterward, and according to the Washington Post, its TV hosts repeated the same party line on its shows, ultimately morphing the story into a "fake news" attack in which outslde forces were going after the channel.
Meanwhile, Newsmax may be getting around to solving its Emerald Robinson issue. Newsmax had at least temporarily taken her off the air after her COVID misinformation blew up; meanwhile, she continued to push misinformation on Twitter, which earned her a permanent ban from the platform. Mediaite is now reporting that Newsmax is not returning Robinson to her job but may retain her as an independent contractor.
As it often does, CNSNews.com took cues for its editorial agenda from its parent, the Media Research Center -- this time, repeating a lie the MRC aggressivelypushed.
Susan Jones surprisingly started out an Oct. 5 article by sticking to the actual facts:
Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday announced a new effort to "address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel."
Garland pointed to an increase in "harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools."
Many Americans have seen video of emotional parents packing into various school board meetings to protest what the schools are trying to teach their children -- everything from critical race theory (whites are racists) to transgender "rights" (use the preferred pronoun or else), etc. Tempers also have flared over masking policies in the nation's schools.
Threats of violence are one thing -- clearly illegal, as Attorney General Garland noted. But there may be a fine line between "harassment/intimidation" and legitimate protest.
So the Justice Department said it is offering "specialized training and guidance for local school boards and school administrators." According to the news release, "This training will help school board members and other potential victims understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes."
However, Jones quickly started casting doubt on the letter from the National School Boards Association that prompted Garland's effort, then quickly embraced the bogus narrative:
The letter cites more than twenty instances of (alleged) threats, harassment, disruption, and acts of intimidation that have transpired during school board meetings and that are targeted at school officials. "As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes," the NSBA wrote.
The following are various instances of "threats, harassment, disruption and acts of intimidation" cited by the NSBA: (Some sound like legitimate protest, but that will now be up to the Justice Department to determine.)
As part of its crackdown on parents objecting to the leftist political indoctrination of their children, the Justice Department announced it will create a task force "to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes."
As we'vedocumented when the MRC pushed this narrative, at no point did the NSBA letter explicitly portray mere criticism as terrorism, making it a lie for Jones to suggest that it did.Indeed, the MRC has claimed only that the link was "suggested," which leaves lots of room for partisan interpretation.
The next day, however, Jones was fully on board with the false narrative that school boards and the DOJ want to silence any school critic and portray them as "domestic terrorists," uncritically repeating Republicans politicians' bogus claims calling it a crackdown on all "parental speech":
Several Republican lawmakers are condemning what they call a "dangerous overreach" in "going after parents."
"Obviously, every state has laws on the books for criminalizing violence or criminal threats," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told Fox News on Tuesday:
Cotton said parents will now think twice about going before their school boards: "But that's as American as anything -- going to your local elected leaders and voicing your concerns, especially when it comes to educating your kids."
Melanie Arter joined the dishonest pile-onin an Oct. 6 article that began with reciting the actual case made by the NSBA and Garland, then weirdly waited until the ninth paragraph to discuss the issue that was the actual headline, as promoted by the MRC's favorite biased White House reporter, Peter Doocy:
When asked whether the administration considers parents who are upset about their children’s curriculum to be domestic terrorists, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday that threats and violence against public servants, particularly school board members, is illegal.
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked, “A week ago, the National School Boards Association wrote to the president to say that their teachers feel like some parents protesting recently could be the equivalent to the form of domestic terrorism, and then the attorney general put the FBI on the case, so does the administration agree that parents upset about their kids’ curriculums could be considered domestic terrorists?”
Arter lazily left Psaki's answer -- that "threats and violence against public servants is illegal" -- buried in a transcript excerpt, though that statement was also the headline of her piece.
Ater followed up on Oct. 7 with an article uncritically quoting Republican Sen. Marco Rubio complaining that "parents who show up at school board meetings to protest critical race theory or mandatory mask mandates are being demonized while left-wing protesters are encouraged by Democrats and the media to harass members of Congress that they disagree with":
“First of all, it's alarming, and second of all, it’s hypocritical. It’s alarming because this idea that somehow if parents show up at a school board to complain, if somebody there decides, well we don't like his tone of voice, we don't like how loud he’s speaking, we don’t like how often he shows up, you can be reported,” Rubio told “Fox News Primetime.”
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which should be focused on things like organized crime, things like drug traffickers, things like terrorism and others who seek to harm this country, is now going to divert resources to investigate parents because they scream too loudly or maybe even rude at a school board hearing and hypocritical because let me tell you, there is very few of any senators, certainly people on the right, members of Congress, as well who have not been harassed in their private life,” he said.
CNS clearly had its marching orders -- to work with Republican and rightiwing activists to repeat this bogus claim far and wide and as loudly as possible. And so it did:
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman used an Oct. 7 article to serve as stenographer for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who cited Garland "directing the FBI to treat parents who speak out at school board meetings as 'domestic terrorists" as evidence that Democrats are "jackbooted thugs."Chapman uncritically called in other right-wing firepower: "According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, 'The Garland memo looks like an effort to use the FBI to threaten and silence parents who are outspoken opponents of critical race theory in schools. That alone would be a stunning partisan abuse of power. What Garland has done, however, is even more disgraceful.'" But threatening and silencing school boards is apparently perfectly finew ith Heritage and Chapman.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who was accosted by Black Lives Matter protesters while he was with his wife, said Wednesday that the DOJ is criminalizing parents who show up at school board meetings angry over mask mandates and critical race theory curriculum in schools, but protesters on the left who use violence are getting off with a slap on the wrist.
ldquo;Well, I think the problem is it's become so normalized to use government to search out and seek out your opponents. So for example, when FISA warrants, which are supposed to be foreign intelligence surveillance court warrants - they’re supposed to be used on foreigners - were used on Trump campaign and Trump campaign operatives, the left didn't blink an eye,” Paul said.
Chapman returned to bring his favorite hateful evangelical activist to spread the lie:
Noting that communist governments use their power to silence their citizens, Rev. Franklin Graham said the Biden administration is doing exactly that by trying to silence parents who oppose the teaching of Critical Race Theory in their children's schools.
In an Oct. 7 post on Facebook, Rev. Graham said<, "It’s an ominous sign when the government uses its power to try and silence the voice of the people. That’s how communism works. Anyone who speaks against communism or the goals of communism becomes the enemy."
"And we’re seeing this happen right in our own country," said Graham. "The Biden administration, which bows to the radical progressive left, would like to silence parents who voice strong opinions against critical race theory and trans radicalism at school board meetings."
"Unbelievably, the National School Boards Association asked that parent protests at school board meetings be treated as possible acts of 'domestic terrorism,'" said Graham "This tactic of intimidation is meant to silence parents with views the Left doesn’t agree with."
Chapman did no fact-check on Graham, even though his reporters had previously outlined the truth about what Garland and the NSBA are doing. That's because Chapman knows pushing employer-mandated right-wing narratives is more important to keeping his job than reporting the truth.
MRC Lashes Out At Facebook Whistleblower For Getting More Attention Than The MRC Has Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has an issue with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen: She's been much more effective in drawing attention to issues with the company than the MRC has been, despite yearsofspreading its bogus partisan victimhood narrative. (Plus, the fact that the MRC brags about how well its biased conservative content does on Facebook further undermines that argument.) So rather than embrace Haugen, it's attacking her. Autumn Johnson complained about her effectiveness in an Oct. 4 post:
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen has called on the government to regulate social media–and the left is following suit.
In an interview with “60 Minutes,” Haugen, a data scientist and former Facebook employee who worked to combat so-called “misinformation,” said the platform bears some responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot.
“Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety,” Haugen said. She will testify before Congress this week and hopes that her testimony will propel the government to put regulations in place to govern Facebook.
After the interview, some media personalities on the left called on the government to force Facebook to censor more content in the name of “safety” and public health.
"The problem is this is the biggest platform. This is the platform where people get their news across the globe," Kara Swisher, podcast host and social commentator, told MSNBC. "They're the biggest and therefore, they have to be the best at safety. Not 'we tried.'"
The next day, Johnson lashed out at Haugen for not being conservative:
Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, is a far-left activist and AOC donor, The Daily Wire reported.
In an interview with “60 Minutes,” Haugen, a data scientist and former Facebook employee who worked to combat so-called “misinformation,” said the platform bears some responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot.
“Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety,” Haugen said. She said she hopes that her testimony will encourage the government to put more regulations on Facebook.
According to The Daily Wire, Haugen has a record of donating to far-left politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“She is working with Democrat operatives to roll out her complaint and has the same lawyers as the anonymous Ukraine “whistleblower” whose allegations led to Donald Trump’s impeachment, but who reportedly turned out to be then-Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisor on the country.”
She also seems to have a history of accusing her employers of being biased, saying “if we don’t build with an eye towards inclusion, we can end up enshrining bias.”
In 2015, she reportedly accused Google of not being inclusive enough of women in the workplace.
Of course, the MRC prefers its "big tech" whistleblowers to be right-wingnutjobs whose backgrounds actively undermine their claims. By contrast, the MRC hasn't proven Haugen wrong about anything.
Another Oct. 5 post, by Catherine Salgado, complained that Haugen's testimony at a congressional hearing gave "another opportunity for the left to call for online censorship." Salgado also complained that Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar claimed at the hearing "that lack of censorship by Facebook during the 2020 election process facilitated the 'Jan. 6 insurrection' at the Capitol." Note the scare quotes around "insurrection," as if the MRC no longer believes what happened that day was even remotely serious.
Mark Finkelstein contributed yet another Oct. 5 post that sought to get the right-wing Facebook narrative back on track:
An ironic political dynamic surrounds Facebook. On the one hand, the company and its leaders tilt hard to the left. More than 91% of employee contributions during the 2020 cycle went to Democrats. Going back to 2018, CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $100 million to a "pro-immigration" group. And COO Sheryl Sandberg donated $400,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund.
But while conservatives have their beefs with Facebook, by far the fiercest criticism of Facebook comes from the left, which accuses the platform of not having done enough to censor pro-Trump postings and what it sees as right-wing conspiracy theories.
Within the liberal media, Morning Joe has been a leader of the anti-Facebook gang. The show renewed its crusade this morning, prompted by allegations by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen, who testified before a Senate committee Tuesday.
It's so cute how Finkelstein isn't pretending his fellow right-wingers aren't as "anti-Facebook" as "the left."
Tim Graham rehashed those same talking points in his Oct. 6 column, as if trying to demonstrate that right-wingewrs were anti-Facebook before being anti-Facebook was made cool by Haugen:
It does not matter one iota that Facebook employees donated 90 percent of their political money to the Democrats in the last cycle. Or that Zuckerberg donated $400 million to a “civic integrity” group that funded election monitors and health measures at the polls in 2020. It doesn’t matter how many Facebook posts they censored to please the Left before the election. The outcomes weren’t favorable enough to the Democrats
Liberal journalists compared the harm of Facebook to smoking, and Zuckerberg to a tobacco CEO. The team at Morning Joe used the CEO analogy after touting a poll that Zuckerberg now is less popular than Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Both sides are angry. Conservatives don’t like how much they are censored on Facebook. Liberals don’t like how conservatives are never censored enough for their tastes.
CNN has gone so fiercely after Facebook in recent days you might think Facebook was somehow like Fox News Channel multiplied by 100. They went live to a hearing on October 5 where Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen ripped her ex-employer as “one of the most urgent threats to the American people,” that they drive children to suicide, stoke division, and weaken democracy.
The Democrats want a dramatic content crackdown.
Graham is lying of course. Nobody is trying to censor "conservative" content -- unless he's claiming that election fraud conspiracy theories and COVID vaccine misinformation are mainstream "conservatrve" values. But the MRC has a narrative to push, however fraudulent, and Salgado did her duty in trying to advance it in an Oct. 6 post:
Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen is being treated by the left and media as a hero. But The Wall Street Journal, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Shapiro, to name a few, have blasted Haugen’s push against free speech online.
Haugen’s critics see this social media scandal as the Democrats’ latest ploy to arrogate more censorship power to themselves. New revelations reported that Haugen donated to multiple leftist groups and was a member of the team that censored the Hunter Biden laptop story while at Facebook.
An opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, the very source of The Facebook Files, and written by The Editorial Board, is titled, “Facebook Needs to Empower Parents, Not Censor Political Speech.” The Journal agreed with Haugen’s critiques, but added, “This is a problem that can’t be solved by government.” The Journaladvocated instead giving users and parents more control. The Journal objected to the Democrat focus on alleged “misinformation.” “They’ve proposed eliminating Section 230 liability protection for algorithms or requiring Facebook to submit its algorithms to regulators for review. Just what we need—a Bureau of Algorithms,” The Journal observed drily.
Glenn Greenwald slammed both Haugen and her leftist, anti-free speech fans in his newsletter. “ Much is revealed by who is bestowed hero status by the corporate media,” Greenwald warned.
Facebook’s civic integrity team, of which Haugen was a part, censored the Hunter Biden laptop reports during the 2020 election. The team was dissolved after Biden was declared president, when Haugen reportedly became discontented with her job. Furthermore, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s PR firm is reportedly representing Haugen. Bill Burton, former Obama deputy press secretary, and his consulting firm are also reportedly giving Haugen “strategic guidance.” Haugen is purportedly a leftist activist and AOC donor whose lawyers also worked with the “whistleblower” who was the catalyst for Donald Trump’s impeachment. The Senate hearing wherein Haugen testified included multiple calls from Democrats for more online censorship.
By the way, the MRC had no problem with Haugen's revelations as reported by the Journal before it was revealed that Haugen was the source. A Sept. 16 post by Salgado, for instance, hyped how the Journal "reviewed Facebook research and documentation and said the social media giant 'knows' Instagram is toxic for teen girls, and a Sept. 20 post by Johnson noted Facebook's response to the Journal's "deep-dive investigation into the platform and some of its practices."
Johnson took another stab at reclaiming the narrative from Haugen in an Oct. 9 post: "While much of the recent media attention regarding Facebook whistleblowers has gone to former employee and liberal donor Frances Haugen, it's worth noting that she wasn't the first former employee who has warned about the company."
Susan Jones was in cleanup stenography mode for an Oct. 5 CNSNews.com article:
Former Vice President Mike Pence says he's focused on the future, while Democrats cling to the past -- specifically, the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which they are using to demonize the 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump.
Pence spoke with Fox News's Sean Hannity about President Biden's "failed agenda" and President Trump's success in making the nation more secure and the economy more prosperous. He explained how the withdrawal from Afghanistan would have worked under President Trump. And he said he "parted amicably" with Trump:
"Look, you can't spend almost five years in the political foxhole with somebody without developing a strong relationship," Pence said:
And, you know, January 6 was a tragic day in history of our Capitol building. But thanks to the efforts of the Capitol Hill police, federal officials, the Capitol was secured. We finished our work.
And the president and I sat down a few days later and talked through all of it. I can tell you that we parted amicably at the end of the administration, and we've talked a number of times since we both left office.
I know the media wants to distract from the Biden administration's failed agenda by focusing on one day in January. They want to use that one day to try to demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believed we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration in 2016 and 2020.
But as Wonkette summarized in a way that Jones won't editorialize about when it comes to prominent conservatives when Hannity does a ridiculously softball interview:
Trump ordered Pence to ignore the Constitution and support his mad plan to remain in office forever. They didn't have a falling out over policy. Trump also directly attacked Pence in front of an angry mob that he wound up and unleashed on the Capitol. Trump and his democracy-shredding Big Lie is the entire reason why January 6 was a “tragic day."
Trump has held rallies attacking the Black Capitol Police officer who fatally shot one of the insurrectionists. Pence, who once promised to “hold the thin blue line," doesn't condemn this. He boasts about how Congress was able to complete the electoral vote count, but he ignores how Trump hoped that the insurrection would delay the process to his own advantage. When he “talked through" the incident, he was probably once again explaining why he couldn't help him steal a presidential election.
OK, One Day In January sounds like some 1990s coming-of-age, angsty teen drama. Peter Gabriel's “In Your Eyes" would play in the trailer. In reality, January 6 was the day Donald Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol, with the intent to stop the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the Electoral College. Cops had their asses beat, and people died. Congressional staff hid in the dark for hours as a deranged mob roamed the building like slasher film villains. They crooned, “Where's Nancy (Pelosi)?" and shouted “Hang Mike Pence!" That last one doesn't give much room for a benign interpretation. If they'd found Pence, they would've killed him. They'd constructed a makeshift gallows outside the Capitol. That wasn't avant-garde sculpture.
Pence was evacuated from the Capitol and even reportedly feared that rogue Secret Service agents would abduct him to help Trump's ongoing coup attempt. Maybe he can walk off the memories of that single day but that's not the case for so many who were left traumatized. This includes members of Congress and cops who are still struggling with PTSD. Four officers on the scene that day who later took their own lives.
But Jones isnt' a reporter -- she's a stenographer who, in this is=nstance, is simply transcribing a softball TV interview and won't lift a finger to tell her readers the truth.
MRC Is Up For A New Season of Hate-Watching 'Supergirl' Topic: Media Research Center
The Medis Rsearch Center loves to hate-watch "Supergirl," whining about its insistence on working the issues of people who aren't white heterosexuals into its superhero plots. It's a new TV season now, and with original hate-watcher Lindsay Kornick having moved on to spread her bias at Fox News, Karen Townsend was stuck hate-watching the show for a Sept. 21 post:
It must be white guilt week for network television shows as the fall season gets underway. Even in the world of superheroes, the white characters are taken to task for not being woke enough for their black counterparts. The struggle is real.
In the episode of The CW’s Supergirl titled “Blind Spots,” which aired on September 21, the newest superhero, Guardian, realizes it is time to step up and protect victims who "look like" her. Kelly Olsen (Azie Tesfai) is overwhelmed when a low-income housing development suffers from an explosion and collapses to the ground. Many residents suffer injuries and breathing difficulties from the dust and debris, including a young boy she has taken under her wing.
Kelly finds it difficult to get Supergirl and the others interested in her fight on behalf of the residents as they are hospitalized. The white city councilwoman who represents the housing project is also injured at the scene but she is able to use extortion to obtain a very expensive experimental drug to heal quickly. She threatens to pull the grants the hospital is in line to receive if she isn’t given the drug. She’s an evil character as she considers the building collapse to be a gift. Now she doesn’t have to be bothered by low-income housing and she can provide high-tech companies with more office space when the area is rebuilt. She is gentrifying the neighborhood.
Kelly confronts her superhero friends and they quickly apologize for their lack of awareness of the plight of black Americans.
At the end of the show, there is a scene where Kelly is relaxing at home after her very long day fighting racial injustice. She is wearing a t-shirt with the text “Say her name” on the front. On the back is the word “Justice”. This is something that Black Lives Matter activists say at rallies. On her coffee table are two books. One is Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” and the other is Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “Between the World and Me”.
Supergirl has a long liberal history. With each season the stories have become more so. The addition of Guardian, a black lesbian female superhero, is the latest character in charge of virtual-signaling the audience. She is coming on strong this season.
Being a right-wing "media researcher" who gets paid to hate-watch TV shows means never having to apologize for anything, apparenty.
NEW ARTICLE: Fluffing The MyPillow Guy At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has not only uncritically promoted Mike Lindell's outlandish -- and false -- claims about election fraud, it stealth-edited an article to tone down praise for a conference he held after it proved to be a failure. Read more >>
MRC Still Pushing Big Lie That Trump Was Kicked Off Social Media For Calling For 'Peace' Topic: Media Research Center
We'vedocumented how the Media Research Center has tried to falsely impugn social media platforms with its wildly dishonest claim that Donald Trump was banned from those platforms because he called for "peace" during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, while ignoring the fact that Trump helped to incite that riot. Believe it or not, the MRC has never stopped making that claim since we last reported on it in June.
Kayla Sargent wrote in a June 2 post that "Trump was banned from at least 10 platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Stripe, Snapchat, Reddit, TikTok and even Shopify, after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in which the former president called for 'peace.'" That slippery wording doesn't come out and directly make the false claim, but it's heavily implied there's a linkage that doesn't actually exist.A June 3 post by Casey Ryan, however, actually said the lie: "Before his ban, Trump had the biggest megaphone calling out Big Tech’s hypocrisy, and Facebook suspended him after he called for peace following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot."
Sargent compounded the lie in a June 4 post written with Michael Morris attacking Facebook VP Nick Clegg for keeping its ban on Trump: "The platform, in continuing to censor Trump, absurdly concluded that it is still convinced Trump’s calls for 'peace' during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol constituted a “risk to public safety.” Clegg said in the Facebook statement: “Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols.” In fact, nowhere in Clegg's statement does he reference Trump calling for "peace" as the reason he was suspended.
A June 5 post by Autumn Johnson declared that "At the beginning of the year, Twitter suspended then-President Trump after he called for peace in the wake of the deadly riots at the Capitol. Sargent repeated her bogus boilerplace in a June 8 post, claiming that "Donald Trump was suspended from at least 10 platforms following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after he called for 'peace.'" Sargent made a similar claim on June 11: "Twitter removed former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after he called for 'peace.'" Sargent returned to her full boilerplate in a June 15 post: "Former President Donald Trump was banned from 10 platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Stripe, Snapchat, Reddit, TikTok and even Shopify, following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after he called for 'peace.'"
Alexander Hall similarly wrote on July 7: "Trump was banned from at least nine other platforms after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, during which the former President called for 'peace,'" which was copied nearly word-for-word in a post by Sargent the same day, as well as a post on July 8. On July 12, Sargent stated that "YouTube, along with at least nine other platforms, banned Trump after he called for 'peace' following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. She declared on July 14 that "Former President Donald Trump was also banned from at least 10 platforms after he called for 'peace' following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol," repeating the statement in a July 15 post.
Ryan returned in a Sept. 3 post to take the lie further:
Twitter banned Trump after he called for peace following the Capitol riot in January. In a tweet, Twitter Safety appeared to falsely accuse Trump of inciting violence: “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” The platform has not allowed him back on since.
In fact, it's been amply demonstrated that Trump played a major role in inciting the riot.
Hall tried to forward the bogus narrative again in an Oct. 29 post complaining that Facebook has a history of sabotaging conservative politicians.
Facebook suspended then-President Trump indefinitely, even as he called for peace amidst the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Trump assured his supporters, “I know your pain. I know your hurt,” but told them “you have to go home now. We have to have peace.” President Trump also said he agreed the election was “fraudulent,” but warned, “we can’t play into the hands of these people.” Zuckerberg declared on Jan. 7 that blocking Trump’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram would be extended indefinitely, as “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”
That's a highly selective reading of Trump's words, ignoring the part where he incited the riot and also encouraged the rioters by saying, "We love you. You're very special," and falsely claimed that "We had an election that was stolen from us."
Another MRC writer, Catherine Salgado, pushed the bogus boilerplate in a Nov. 2 post, stating that "Trump was also banned from at least 10 platforms after he called for “peace” following the Capitol 'riot.'" She didn't explain why she put scare quote around "riot," though elsewhere in her post she referred to the riot only as "the events of January 6th."
CNS Keeps Pushing Narrative That Biden Is Going Senile Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com lovestotake incidents out of context to make President Biden look senile and out of touch -- "four second mental meltdown," anyone? -- and it hasn't really stopped, even though that right-wing-driven narrative isn't really going anywhere and despite its own objections to anyone questioning Donald Trump's mental faculties even though his continued insistence against all legitimate evidence that he won the election and everyone else cheated can been seen as evidence of a mental disorder of some kind. By contrast, every verbal misstep by Biden -- no matter how minor -- is copiously documented and presented as implicit evidence of Biden's purported "cognitive decline."
Here's what CNS has been doing in recent months to push this narrative:
We don't recall CNS publishing article after article about Trump's manyverbalgaffes, let alone portray them as evidence of his failing mental health.
CNS got help from across the hall at Media Research Center headquarters in pushing this narrative. Tim Graham wrote a March column:
At a March 8 White House event to announce the nomination of two female generals to lead U.S. military combatant commands, President Joe Biden seemed to forget the name of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and where Austin works. Since the theme of the president's mental acuity is still associated with memes of former President Donald Trump, the media desperately wanted to forget this happened.
Just like CNS and the MRC desperately wants you to forget about all those Trump gaffes and his continued cloudcuckooland insistence that he won the election (a delusion the MRC has helped Trump maintain)?
CNS also gives uncritical free reign to Republican politicians to smear Biden and his purported "cognitive decline":
In February, Jones touted Rep. Matt Gaetz saing that "Biden is "not in a position to really make decisions day in and day out" and adding, "You look at a growing number of Democrats who are now concerned about giving Joe Biden the codes for the nuclear system. I'd be concerned about giving Joe Biden a code to my garage door opener."
A June 18 article by Jones uncritically quoted Rep. Tommy Tuberville saying of Trump that "he's got his handlers running this country. He can't do anything on his own. And people are losing confidence in him every day," adding that "Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), the former White House physician, sent a letter to President Biden, Biden's physician, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, urging a cognitive test for Biden, the results to be shared with the American people."
A July 14 article by Jones quoted Newt Gingrich saying, ""A lot of people worry about President Biden and his cognitive abilities."
On Aug. 9, Melanie Arter uncritically quoted former Trump director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe saying, "There's that other elephant in the room, in terms of cognitive difficulties from the leader of the free world. What does that tell our adversaries across the world?”
On Aug. 24, Arter wrote that Republican Rep. Mark Green "questioned Biden’s cognitive abilities and his ability to lead as commander-in-chief because of his handling of Afghanistan," uncritically quoting him as saying, "The way the president is thinking, it calls to mind where his cognitive abilities really are."
Another article the same day by Arter uncritically quoted Republican Rep. Michael Waltz ranting, "He cannot handle it. He is not prepared for this. He is not cognitively fit to be our commander-in-chief right now."
That would seem to demonstrate all one needs to know about CNS' partisan motivation.
CNS tried to push questions about Biden's supposedly failing physical health as well. Melanie Arter leaned hard into that in a Sept. 16 article:
President Joe Biden’s frequent coughing during public speeches recently, including Thursday during a speech about his economic proposals, prompted NBC News White House Correspondent Kelly O’Donnell to ask about the president’s health.
“Many of us were in the East Room watching the president. We’ve seen him on many occasions where he has a repeated cough. What is the situation with that cough, and is that a concern?” O’Donnell asked.
“It’s not a concern. He has a doctor that travels with him obviously who checks in if it is ever warranted, and certainly, that continues to be the case as it has been since the beginning of his presidency,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.
“Is there an explanation for why he coughs so frequently in situations like that? I’m sure you saw it,” O’Donnell said.
By contrast, CNS touted Trump's purported manliness and perfect health, his cavalierness in associating with people know to be infected with COVID and uncrirtically repeating his lackeys' insistence that Trump was wonderfully healthy even as he because infected with COVID himself (which we now know was not the case, though CNS has yet to tell its readers).
MRC Promotes Anti-LGBT Right-Winger's Stunt To Attack School Board Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to complain about softball interviews in the media -- but the MRC has conducted its own softball interviews. Take, for example, this Sept. 30 piece of sycophancy from MRC writer Gabriel Hays, who is interview right-wing columnist and anti-LGBT activist Matt Walsh. Hays doesn't call Walsh that, of course -- that would be too honest. Instead, he gushes that Walsh is a "Loudoun County resident and Daily Wire blogger" who is in the county to rage against the idea that Loudoun County schools might dare treat LGBT people with respect.
The sycophancy started early, as Hays wrote in the post accompanying the video: "The popular conservative columnist explained why it was important to stand up against this child abuse, which is not only destroying our young children in public school and destroying their parents’ right to a say in what their kids are being taught, it’s also denying the truth about biology." In the video, Hays' first sycophatic question was "Why is it important that you're here today, in this fight?" Hays then teed up various softballs for Walsh talk smack about LGBT people.
Surprisingly, Hays inserted a clip of a Walsh screed that showed his true hatred: He irrationally ranted that school board members were "child abusers" who "indoctrinate" children into a "insane, ideological cult" of transgenderism, going on to screech, "You are poison. You are predators." Hays followed up, however, by letting Walsh spout further on his extreme claim that letting transgender people be who they are is "child abuse" and never questioning him on it -- perhaps because Hays hates transgender people as much as Walsh does. Hays remained a passive interviewer even when Walsh insisted the way to handle transgender teens is "to lovingly correct them, to affirm them in the truth," even though nothing Walsh has shown thus far shows he is capable of love toward anyone, let alone transgender people.
Hays also gave Walsh space to reframe his stunt of leasing space in Loudoun County for the sole purpose of being able to harangue school board members after the board made the commonsense decision to limit speakers at meetings to county residents. As Hays sycophantically summed it up in the post accompanying his video:
In a hilarious work-around, Walsh signed a lease and rental agreement for Loudoun County property just days prior to the meeting so he could speak. In jest we asked if his new Loudoun County residency was a “coincidence” and he played along. “Just like they changed the rules before I showed up was a ‘coincidence,’ they said … coincidentally I just happened to decide to fulfill my lifelong dream of becoming a Loudoun County resident,” he quipped.
Well we’re honored to welcome Matt as a new Virginian. Hopefully he can move up here anytime there’s another LCPS board meeting looking to take advantage of our kids.
"Our kids"? We were not aware that Hays 1) had any kids, and 2) has meaningful residence in Loudoun County to send them to county schools. While Walsh did claim to have a kid, it's highly unlikely he uprooted her from his actual home in Tennessee to enroll her in a school just to pursue a hateful tranphobic vendetta -- which means he has abandoned his family to pull this stunt. Indeed, he simply paid a friend $1 to claim he was a Virginia resident, a tactic that probably wouldn't hold up for tax purposes. Hays didn't ask for proof of his residency, of course.
Further, as Wonkette points out: Pretending to be a resident of another state for the sole purposes of denigrating LGBT people and insulting school boards is not the mark of a healthy, well-adjusted man. Wonkette added: "Walsh isn't interested in honestly engaging on this topic nor even attempting to empathize with the people, including vulnerable children, he actively demonizes. This is all a sick game to him."
Walsh has no personal stake here -- no actual residency, no kids in public school (here or anywhere). He just wants a platform to spew hate. And Hays was just the hateful sycophant to eagerly provide that to him.
We knew our country had been stolen, almost immediately. Trump was the clear winner and then, in the dark hours, he wasn't. In the "battleground states," where it mattered, the counting was stopped … except it wasn't. The stoppages occurred almost simultaneously. All of this occurred after the poll watchers had been sent home. And suddenly, Trump's massive victory was flipped.
In singular strokes Biden's numbers suddenly spiked impossibly, just where needed, while Trump's numbers either ceased their steady increase or miraculously diminished.
The senators and congressmen that had proudly proclaimed their support for his values and accomplishments were swept to victory, almost universally, but the shirttails that had carried them all to victory showed up the next morning without the shirt itself. Their numbers had continued to rise in an even trajectory, through the long night of counting, while Trump's ascending path supposedly fell off a precipitous cliff, just as Biden's vote stopped spiraling toward the bottom of history and began to rise in the same sharp angle that Trump's had first climbed.
We all knew there would be every manner of theft, but we clung to what we felt was a certitude, that it could not be accomplished on such a scale as to overcome the thronging popularity of the one who had stood, in a manner unprecedented, against all our enemies, to succeed in valuing America first and in making her great again.
But whoever wishes to live in a world that is mainly "nice," and where men can be credited as being generally "good," that person cannot and does not perceive the depths or the proximity of the evil that godless men will do.
After the election, we were sure that the theft could never stand. But it stood and stood in a clearly outlined profile – so well did every improbable aspect work in concert that nothing in any logical world could attribute it all to anything less than a plan, long in the making and unconscionably executed. Every legal objection was bumped to the next level, and we took heart that the truth was emerging and would come to the full light of day before the Supreme Court. In the justices' final and voiceless dismissal, we were mocked. Our nation and all it had ever stood for was mocked and condemned to the calamity we now watch, unfolding each day, as our ultimate destruction nears, by measures taken with blinding speed and actions heretofore unimaginable.
Most of the gathered Patriots kept themselves at a distance, listening as Trump spoke. But some of those righteously angered went to the steps of the Capitol, where many were invited to come in, by the very guards whose numbers there were so strangely limited. Among those gathered there, outside, a few fools were hectored, almost exclusively, by the FBI's agents provocateurs, there to repeat, in essence, the advantages to be gained by this new Reichstag fire. As the news of the "Insurrection" reached the floors of Congress, the cowards inside all breathed a sigh of relief, that they might therefore be able to justify their betrayal. And they certified the various states' electoral votes, knowing, each one, that it was wrong, and thereby gave us Biden and his puppet masters.
What has happened since can lead to only one good result. It must be in 2022, not in 2024 – or this country will be lost, and the world will be lost, to the Oligarchs and to those they let breathe, only as buying units, utterly controlled servants and human pets.
I pray as follows. Please join me.
That every effort, surely planned to cheat the midterms, will be foiled, or, at least, prove insufficient. That the American people, We the People, will vote in such great and sacred numbers that those who would see this country die will shrivel and shrink in abject defeat, like venomous spiders before a holy flame. That the party of would-be communist tyrants will be so crushed as to never rise again. That then, with an unstoppable majority, and on the first day they are sworn in to defend our Constitution, the Congress will, with a singular and incontestable will, replace the old speaker of the House with a new speaker, who need not, by law, come from among their ranks, and then, immediately, that day, impeach and convict both the criminal usurper and his cohort in crime and replace them, by order of succession, with the new House speaker, Donald J Trump.
I also pray, that in accepting this affirmation of the great and profound love these American people have offered to our bravest and most determined president, that he would be found so humbled as to be freed, to not only boast of his successes, both past and promised to come, but to admit and ask forgiveness for his one greatest failure and misjudgment, promising to right that as well by ending our Wuhan-COVID-19 insanity and punishing those who chose to mislead us all. We pray that a man so beloved of his people would know that his and our greatest safety is beyond prideful vanities and found assuredly in the whole truth.
The vaccines will fall soon enough to cheap and proven early treatments, now being proved around the world. May they then be realized as the ashes from which we all rise again.
Tim Graham Fact-Check Fail, Biden Booster Shot Edition Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center executive Tim Graham is so desperate to attack fact-checkers for calling out right-wing lies -- and so unconcerned about how dumb he looks in the process -- that he simply lashes out without thinking. He spent an entire Oct. 8 column whining in a picayune argument that fact-checkers busted right-wingers for asserting that President Biden got his COVID booster shot on a "fake White House" set:
When is a fake setting not a fake setting? When Joe Biden sits in front of it.
The “independent fact checkers” – a phrase that in itself strains credulity – leaped to defend President Biden after he received a COVID booster shot in the Old Executive Office Building on September 27. For political rookies, the “OEOB” is not the White House, but sits next to the White House.
Jokers on Facebook showed a photograph of Biden getting his booster vaccination in the South Court Auditorium in front of a set that resembled the Oval Office. One said "Joe Biden using a fake White House backdrop is so on brand for him." Another Facebook post said "They created a fake set for Biden to get his booster shot. The entire Biden presidency is one giant charade."
PolitiFact characterized the second post as “False” and announced these posts “were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.” This led Facebook to suppress the Biden mockery. The Facebook post at the page “Real Cloyd Rivers” quoted here as “False” was simply taken down. It can no longer be found.
What was “misinformation”? PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson set the Biden scene: “Behind him was a backdrop featuring white walls and columns, along with ‘windows’ seemingly looking out toward the White House itself.”
Dear Louis: If you’re putting the word “windows” in quote marks, it can be mocked as a fake set.
Jacobson also tried these lame arguments: “There’s no indication that anyone in the Biden administration tried to pass this off event as being held inside the White House itself.” Claiming great intentions isn’t “fact checking.” It appeared to be like the Oval Office, and it wasn’t.
And: “The backdrop behind Biden as he was getting his booster shot wasn’t ‘created’ for that event — it had been used five days earlier for a global coronavirus summit.” So if the fake setting is not new, it’s not fake?
What Graham doesn't do, however, is offer any evidence that anyone in the Biden White House ever falsely portrayed the event as taking place inside the White House, as PolitiFact pointed out. Indeed, the White House transcript of the event specifically states that it took place at the "South Court Auditorium, Eisenhower Executive Office Building" (the official name for the Old Executive Office Building). It was a set; everyone in attendance knew it was a set. The only people trying to deceive were the right-wing Biden-haters, who Graham wants you to think are merely "jokers on Facebook" though he offered no evidence the claim was being made as a "joke."
Further, Graham's complaining about the stage being a "fake set" are nonsensical. It's a stage set, which by definition is fake. But nobody ever claimed it wasn't a set, which Graham doesn't seem to understand.
Graham went on to whine: "PolitiFact wasn’t alone. The website Lead Stories – heavily used to suppress Facebook content – ran an article, too. It warned of the claim 'Joe Biden Took His Booster Shot On A ‘Set’ Of A Fake ‘White House’.' But it was a set, and the set was technically not in the White House." Again, nobody was claiming it was in the White House or that it wasn't a set.
Unable to stop digging -- and still insisting without evidence that the right-wingers crying "fake!" were merely making fun of Biden -- Graham tried to invent a conspiracy theory:
The obvious question one might ask: Why not get the booster shot inside the actual Oval Office? Why create a set for “The President Biden Show”? On Fox News, Ari Fleischer suggested they wanted to give Biden a teleprompter inside the camera lens he's looking into, so he doesn't go off script.
If Donald Trump had created a set, there’s no way “fact checkers” would check anyone making fun of him on Facebook. Anti-Trump mockery was the most accurate mockery, no matter how inaccurate it might be.
Perhaps Biden didn't do it inside the Oval Office because the White House wanted a sizable audience for this, and you can only fit so many people inside the Oval Office.
P.S.: Graham somehow managed to avoid any mention of the wacky claim from the MRC's favorite (misinforming) podcaster, Joe Rogan, asserting that the booster shot itself was a fake. That's the protection one gets in exchange for being an MRC fave.
WND Columnist Unironically Complains About Lies While Being Published By WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Craige McMillan wrote in his Oct. 15 WorldNetDaily column:
Interesting, isn't it, the relative importance placed upon lying by God? Notice He is not only talking about election whoppers, but also "little white lies," the kind we concoct to save those we supposedly care about from pain.
Perhaps it never occurs to liars that in fact they care only about themselves. Thus media empires today live by lies that cause the nation pain, but preserve their own position and power in the political structure. Their lies lead the nation into godless choices, all of which pay dividends of the worst kind, including rivers of blood that have polluted our land. Perhaps when the time comes God will delay judgment on one of these lying media empires, so they can report the fate of their fellow liars who arrive first at the Lake of Fire.
What do you think? Would God assign the reporting task to the least or most guilty? I think the most guilty, because they would know all the while in their reporting that their impending fate would be worse than anything they had reported.
Lying is above all an offense against God. For Christians it is forgiven with confession and repentance. I sometimes wonder if the Catholics aren't ahead of the Protestants in requiring confession to a priest. It's pretty easy for all of us to fall into the trap of believing the lies we have told are tiny and insignificant, perhaps so insignificant that we need not trouble God with such trifles. The guidance from another human being might save us from such self-delusion, which only grows worse with the years.
Lying is fundamentally about gaining power over other people. By that definition pretty much our entire government, media, entertainment and education industries are full to overflowing with liars. Their goal is advantage to themselves while they steal from the rest of us. Eventually there are so many of them that they end up lying to themselves, too. Liars, I would guess, are no respecters of persons.
The headline of McMillan's co;lumn is "Liars doing the backstroke in the Lake of Fire" -- which seems to be what WND is doing. But McMilian would never call out WND for its lies; who else would publish him?
MRC Still Helping Babylon Bee Play Victim Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Rsearch Center loves to help right-wing satire site the Babylon Bee play victim for purportedly being "censored," when all that's actually happening is that it's getting fact-checked because its fellow right-winger have a bad habit of treating its satire as reality. Christine Salgao did her part to push the misleading narrative in an Oct. 7 post:
Big Tech just can’t seem to get off the censorship train — especially when it comes to content that runs counter to the left’s accepted narrative. “You know, tyrants don’t like [satire]. It’s the thing that they hate more than anything else,” said satire site Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon.
Dillonbappeared on Tucker Carlson’s show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Wednesday to discuss how Big Tech censorship is harming humor. Tucker called Babylon Bee “one of the few remaining amusing sites on the internet.” He added, “[O]f course Big Tech hates it and is trying to censor it.” Dillon told Tucker, “We’ve been fact-checked to death,” specifically citing a 2018 piece which jokingly described an “industrial-sized washing machine” CNN bought “to help its journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication.”
Dillon said social networks use “fact-checkers” under a pretense of controlling “misinformation.” “It’s politically motivated, has been the whole time,” Dillon stated. Big Tech censorship, starting with the 2020 election, created “a drastic drop in [Babylon Bee] traffic,” explained Dillon. “We used to derive most of our traffic through Facebook,” Dillon said, but no longer. Babylon Bee articles, formerly “crazy viral,” are now barely shared. The satire outlet CEO said one recent piece reached only 11 people. “We could have reached more people if we’d printed it out and nailed it to like, a telephone pole in a small town,” Dillon expressed his frustration.
Dillon is deliberately misleading about the 2018 CNN piece. Snopes pointed out in its fact-check that "Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media “bias” and “fake news,” some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally. Again: Babylon Bee isn't being fact-checked because it's right-wing, it's being fact-checked because its readers believe its satire to be real life. Salgado added to the dishonesty by noting only that "Snopes admitted it 'should have been obvious' The Babylon Bee piece 'was just a spoof'" and censoring the part about Bee readers treating the spoof as real.
Kristine Marsh did her part to advance thte Bee's victimhood in an Oct. 15 item:
Lefty magazine The Atlantic published an interview with massively popular Christian satire site The Babylon Bee on Thursday, which turned out to be hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Religion writer Emma Green tried to guilt-trip Bee editor-in-chief Kyle Mann for mocking leftists (though she seemingly had no problem with the satire site’s self-deprecating jokes about the evangelical church.)
Green was so uptight about jokes aimed at the left, that Mann was actually forced to explain what self-evident jokes about Trump-deranged Democrats meant.
Green tried to railroad him for the Bee's scathing joke about Democrats being so crazed by Donald Trump, that they went into mourning when his orders took out a terrorist:
Like Salgado, Marsh censors the context that the piece was fact-checked because "some social media users mistook this piece of fiction as if it were a genuine news item."
But Marsh wasn't done complaining about tyhe interview:
After repeatedly trying and failing to shame the Bee, Green ended the interview lecturing the Christian website for being...un-Christian. (Funny how the media doesn’t ever lecture progressive Christians for not following the Bible on social issues.)
“Do you feel like your work at The Babylon Bee helps you live out what you see as the image of Jesus in the Bible?” she asked, following up with, “Jesus certainly calls out those who are powerful and strong, like in the Sermon on the Mount, but that doesn’t feel the same as taking a swipe at people who are weak and vulnerable.”
To The Atlantic, the Bee mocking the woke media, progressive Democrats and literally every major institution in the country that leans left is attacking the “weak and vulnerable.”
Only at the MRC is it a bad for a right-wing Christian site to be asked how what it does fulfill the Christian prinicples it professes to follow.