COVID misinformer Joel Hirschhorn is stil at it. In his Oct. 28 WorldNetDaily column, he insisted that the official number of deaths from COVID are overblown: "U.S. federal and state agencies have, for the most part, been very liberal in declaring deaths as COVID ones. This has resulted from both financial incentives, political motivations (maintaining public fear and acceptance of authoritarian government actions) and procedural government guidance." He added:

In other words, many people, especially the elderly, could have died with COVID but not from COVID. They may have died from their underlying medical problems and weakened immune system more than effects directly associated with COVID infection. Some die because they have been given the very expensive approved drug remdesivir that causes acute liver and kidney problems and has a death rate of over 25%. Yet their deaths go into the COVID death column.

In fact, remdesivir is not killing people, and patients must undergo kidney and liver tests prior to treatment to make sure it is safe for them. Hirschhorn is simply repeating that false claim to fearmonger about treatment. Later in his column, Hirschhorn wrote:

Receiving major attention on alternative news sites in October 2021 are the views of Dr. Joseph Mercola that will now be summarized. He has been a strong proponent for explaining non-infection deaths on the basis of COVID vaccines.

"The number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate."

Mercola asked the key question: "Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of it?"

[...]

To recap, Mercola's reporting provided different sources to support the range of 82,800 to 207,000 for vaccine deaths to date.

The fact that Hirschhorn is treating anything from a documented quack like Mercola seriously is a reason to never take Hirschhorn seriously. Hirschhorn then wrote:

The September 2021 study "Government's Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in U.S. Following COVID-19 Vaccines," by Jessica Rose and Mathew Crawford, is the most detailed and impressive effort to determine vaccine deaths. It has been criticized by FDA: "Although under reporting is a limitation in VAERS, with regard to COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, there currently is not evidence to suggest it would underestimate the amount of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths to such a large degree." This author disagrees with FDA. Here is the official view of CDC: "'Underreporting' is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events." As you will see below, the 150,000 figure for vaccine deaths is a low, conservative estimate.

This is the summary of its findings: "Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021." This is close to the high end of the range given above.

An actual fact-checker talked to actual government experts, who ruled the study bogus:

An FDA spokesperson told Reuters in an email that it “strongly disagrees” with the analysis put forth in the report.

They added that the claim 150,000 people have died in the United States as a result of COVID-19 vaccines is not accurate and is based on data from VAERS that was not properly interpreted.

The spokesperson said: “Although under reporting is a limitation in VAERS, with regard to COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, there currently is not evidence to suggest it would underestimate the amount of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths to such a large degree.”

The FDA and CDC have multiple systems in place in addition to VAERS to monitor vaccine safety. “A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,” the FDA told Reuters.

Hirschhorn went on to write:

Lastly, it is relevant to note what the eminent medical researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits has said. Her medical science credentials are impeccable, including a long stint at the National Cancer Institute. Her views may seem extreme to some people, but they are based on a deep scientific understanding and are consistent with the highly frightening forecasts of other scientists and physicians.

She said: "I just can't even imagine a recipe for anything other than what I would consider mass murder on a scale where 50 million people will die in America from the vaccine." Time will tell whether this dire prediction will materialize as more people get the shot. The shot that kills.

Actually, Mikovits' medical science credentials are the farthest thing from "impeccable" -- she's the woman behind the discredited COVID conspiracy theory film "Plandemic," and another quack Hirschhorn is in league with that should make people doubt his own claims.

Hirschhorn then fearmongered about booster shots: "Since the start of the third booster shot on July 30, the COVID death rate in Israel has been reported to have jumped from about .15 to 3.5 per million in early September. Is it possible that a similar negative impact will happen in the U.S.?" In fact, severe cases of COVID among vaccinated people declined after they received a booster shot.

Hirschhorn pushed his usual, unsupported claims about how "Public health officials failed to promote early wide use of generics and foolishly pushed mass vaccination that has not proven effective. The former could have prevented over 600,000 infection deaths." Again: Given who Hirschhorn is in league with, there's no reason to believe that.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:04 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center has made it clear that the only allowable depiction of Superman is one of a straight white American (even though he's an illegal alien from Krypton). Gabriel Hays called in his favorite right-wing ex-Superman to help him sling some hate at the idea of a bisexual Superman in an Oct. 12 post:

Take it from a real man of steel, this new bisexual Superman that has generated controversy in recent days is in no way brave or heroic, but conformist. The fact that DC Comics has decided to make a bisexual Superman shows that comic book creators aren’t pushing the envelope but just hopping onto the general cultural “bandwagon.”

That’s former Superman Dean Cain’s assessment of the latest update to the beloved caped crusader. 

The new bisexual Superman, named Jon Kent, is actually the son of the original Superman, or Clark Kent's (Kal-El) son. The first issue involving the son of Superman showing off his bisexual preferences will hit store shelves on November 9 and is titled Superman: Son of Kal-El.

Of course, Cain, who played the comic book legend in the popular nineties TV show Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, was not impressed. In fact, he told the hosts of Fox News Channel’s Fox and Friends: First that this bisexual Superman is lame and most definitely not a “bold and new direction” for the character, as the media hailed the comic. 

“They said it’s a bold new direction, I say they’re bandwagoning,” the 55-year-old actor and Hollywood conservative said on the FNC program.

Yeah, it’s bandwagoning. For the last several years, practically every piece of Hollywood or entertainment media has promoted a non-heterosexual theme. Even DC Comics has broken this ground before, announcing that their current rendition of Batman’s trusty sidekick Robin is bisexual as well.

Yes, Hays freaked out about that too. And Cain is no "real man of steel" -- he's the actual conformist by insisting on viewing the franchise through his biased right-wing lens. If he didn't, he wouldn't be given any more of those Fox News hits that make up the bulk of what's left of his acting career these days.

Even worse, Superman's tagline is being altered, with "the American way" being switched to "a better tomorrow." Lydia Switzer had the outrage honors in an Oct. 20 post, centered on a CNN conversation between Brian Stelter and John Berman:

The conversation then turned to the new Superman, the son of original Superman Clark Kent. Jon Kent is bisexual and reportedly cares about the climate crisis and refugees. The Superman motto, “Truth, justice, and the American way,” has also received a rewrite: “Truth, justice, and a better tomorrow.”

“That’s days of programming on Fox News,” mocked Berman.

Switzer didn't dispute that characterization of Fox News' handling of the story -- which is, in fact, pretty much what happened. She continued:

According to Stelter, “the American way” as an ideal is ethno-nationalistic – defining America in terms of ethnicity. Even American values are racist. Of course he would prefer something “vague and simple” for the woke reimagining of a superhero “messiah figure.” 

Berman and Stelter then continued to demean those who dislike this change. “Are you against a better tomorrow?...Tonight at 9:00 P.M,” Berman joked. 

The message is clear: the leftist hosts on CNN couldn’t be happier about the liberal takeover of culture, even at the expense of the values of one of America’s most treasured heroes.

But as Wonkette pointed out, Superman's motto in the original comic did not mention "the American way," and even the late 1940s Superman film serial referenced only "Truth, Tolerance and Justice." The "American way" phrase didn't appear until the 1950s TV series.

Hays returned in an Oct. 21 post to parrot the whining of a DC Comics colorist -- not even a writer or story creator, just a colorist --  qutting in manufactured disgust:

Perhaps DC Comics’ woke agenda will be its own kryptonite. One can only hope.

In the latest chapter of the comic book company’s Marxist rehabilitation of Superman, a gentleman who actually works on the comic book illustrations for the Man of Steel is quitting the company. He can’t take the woke BS anymore, in his own words saying the company is “ruining these characters.”

Well, that’s an understatement.

[...]

Anyways, one brave man decided he couldn’t put up with this anymore. DC Comics Colorist Gabe Eltaeb said he will not be renewing his contract with DC Comics.

Eltaeb announced his decision during a YouTube livestream video with comic book creator Ethan Van Sciver, a former DC Comics employee. Eltaeb told his co-host and the audience, “I’m finishing out my contract with DC. I’m tired of this shit, I’m tired of them ruining these characters; they don’t have a right to do this.”

Geez, we’re sorry to hear that. But we’re also grateful that Eltaeb is open about this. It’s nice to hear that some people who work in these pop culture labs aren’t mindless proggies.

[...]

Eltaeb mentioned that the last straw was when they changed the motto. “What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world. F–k that, it was Truth, Justice, and the American way,” he said.

He explained that changing the line was a sign of disrespect and ingratitude towards great Americans, men like his grandfather who served in World War II. “My Grandpa almost died in World War II; we don’t have a right to destroy shit that people died for to give us,” he said. “It’s a bunch of fucking nonsense.”

Hays had to further enshrine Eltaeb's victimhood by transcribing his profane rant:

They call us bigots and racist and shit. I would ask them, find me in the fucking mainstream, not on the fringes, one fucking book, one fucking t-shirt, one movie that says that leftism is bad and conservatism is good, find it for me. They fucking won’t. They’re not letting people have a voice, they’re the fucking bigots.

Yep, Eltaeb is definitely not a writer. But he is the kind of self-made victim that the MRC loves.

Hays then signed off: "Geez, clearly that's a man who’s extremely frustrated with today’s media landscape. Hopefully, there are more like him who will push back before they start cancelling things that are even more important to Americans than Superman."

Apparently, Eltaeb and Hays believe that right-wing self-victimhood is "the American way" too. 

Posted by Terry K. at 8:48 PM EST

Updated: Friday, February 18, 2022 10:14 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center isn't the only ConWeb component to  be upset that NFL coach Jon Gruden lost his job for racist and homophobic remarks in old emails. Wayne Allyn Root underwent much wailing and gnashing of teeth in his Oct. 18 WorldNetDaily column:

The NFL has betrayed us again, this time with the God-awful firing and public lynching of Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden.

But why should the way the NFL treated Gruden surprise anyone? After all, the NFL is always wrong about everything.

Actually, it's clear the NFL's whole goal in life is to throw their own customers under the bus while courting people who have never watched NFL football and never will.

Remember the recent TV ads reporting that "(t)he NFL is gay … lesbian … bisexual … transgender." Really? Is that who sits in the stands? Is that who lives and dies with NFL football? Is that who bets on games?

The people who love football, who live and die with NFL football, are overwhelmingly just like me. And we're just like Gruden. We're rough, tough, macho, disciplined, take-no-crap, patriotic, primarily white, male, middle-class Trump voters. There, I said it. Like it or not, that's the raw truth.

The NFL's main customer base is Trump voters.

Root somehow worked Hillary Clinton into his weird outrage:

Hey, NFL, want to know what your own customers think? We don't care what Gruden said in private emails from 10 years ago. This was a witch hunt. This was a shameful public lynching of a Super Bowl-winning coach. Somebody had it out for Gruden. They wanted to ruin his life. They wanted to end his career.

I'm guessing the guilty party is the pathetic, bleeding-heart, liberal NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell who was filled with rage when he found out Gruden called him a "pu–y."

Gruden made a big mistake. He should have sat down with his team's owner and said, "Hell no, I won't resign over words, in a private email, from a decade ago. I'm coming out of the closet. I self-identify as Hillary Clinton."

Those should have been your magic words, Jon. "I am Hillary Clinton. I am woman, hear me roar." End of witch hunt. You'd have been celebrated the next day for being the first openly transgender coach. They'd have thrown you a ticker-tape parade down the Vegas Strip. ESPN would have awarded you an ESPY Award for courage. The Raiders would have built you your own bathroom.

As a bonus, the NFL would have erased your emails. Clinton erased 33,000 emails upon getting a subpoena from Congress. Not a word was ever leaked from Clinton's 33,000 emails. The media blacked out the story. Gruden just needed to become a liberal woman.

Root concluded by ranting: "This was a shameful public lynching of Gruden. It's time to look at the emails and texts of everyone in the NFL. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But if that is taken to its logical extreme, there are no longer any standards, and people will do whatever with impunity. Root never addresses that.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:31 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

An Oct. 19 Newsmax article by John Gizzi seized on an obscure anniversary to go off on a tangent about a conservative opinion publication:

Last week was the 35th anniversary of the storied summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, between then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, then-General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

In what initially was considered a failure when both men left without an arms agreement, Reykjavik soon became a synonym for the beginning of the end of the Cold War. 

Three years later, the USSR split like a giant amoeba and Gorbachev became the last leader of the Communist colossus.

Little known is the role that Human Events, the nation’s oldest conservative news weekly played in the events of the summit of Oct. 11-12, 1986. 

Founded in 1944, Human Events was the nation’s oldest conservative publication — and Reagan’s favorite, something on which biographers of the 40th president universally agree.

"I’m addicted to it," then-former President Reagan told me during a visit to his Los Angeles office in June of 1992.

It's not until the very endof his article the Gizzi finally hinted at the reason for his piece: "John Gizzi was a correspondent and later political editor of Human Events from 1979-2013."

The print version of Human Events ceased publication in 2013, moving to a limited online schedule. The website was purchased by new owners in 2019 with the goal of pushing it farther right. CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey is a former Human Events editor.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:37 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

As part of its efforts to get a Republican elected Virginia governor, CNSNews.com tried to play gotcha in an Oct. 19 article by Megan Williams:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley questioned whether Vice President Kamala Harris deliberately tried to violate the law by creating a video played to black Virginia churchgoers, urging them to vote for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. 

"The Biden Administration has to enforce our tax laws, including rules governing 501(c)3 organizations, including churches," Turley told Laura Ingraham on Monday's "The Ingraham Angle." "Now part of those regulations include what’s called the Johnson Amendment, and that prohibits direct politicking in churches in order to be tax-exempt."

Williams added a Turley quote in a transcriopt: "So, if churches play this video, they would be in violation of federal law. If the White House participated in this plan to have direct politicking, they would have assisted in that violation. Now that puts them in a rather awkward position since their administration has to enforce this very rule."

But Williams left buried in the transcript another statement by Turley:

What’s interesting, Laura, is President Trump really did not like the Johnson Amendment, insisted that he was going to get rid of it. 

“And when he did, many Democrats, many legal experts cried foul, and they said this is destroying the separation of church and state, this is encouraging the violation of federal law. And yet, after this video played, there was nothing but crickets from many of those areas.”

But if Trump got rid of the Johnson Amendment, why is Turley accusing Harris of violating something that doesn't exist? That's because Trump didn't actually get rid of it; he just issued an executive order that basically didn't do anything and left the statute on the books.

This was followed by an Oct. 27 column by Star Parker, who declared: "According to some opinions, Harris' politicking for McAuliffe in churches violates either or both the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt entities such as churches from electioneering, and the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal government officials from using their position to influence the outcome of an election."

But like it was with the Logan Act, CNS is being hypocritical about the Johnson Amendment: the desire to see it enforced depends on which party is controlling the White House. Indeed, it aggressively cheered efforts by Trump and its fellow conservative to blunt to repeal the amendment. Let's look at how that was done:

• An August 2016 article by Susan Jones touted then-candidate Trump telling evangelicalpastors that "we're going to get your voice back" because, he said, "he told his people to add repeal of the Johnson amendment into the Republican Party Platform."
• A column the next day by Alliance Defending Freedom's Erik Stanley declared that "Pulpit freedom won’t truly exist in America until something is done about the Johnson Amendment."
• An October 2016 column by Family Research Ceouncil president Tony Perkins huffed: "Today, many pastors and churches have been intimidated into silence by guidance from the Internal Revenue Service that relies on the Johnson Amendment to repress speech from the pulpit. This is not right, and it must change."
• A November 2016 column by John Stonestreet gushed that in a meeting with Trump and his aides, it was clear that one of the definitions of "religious liberty" they had was "=repealing the Johnson Amendment."
• A February 2017 article by Melanie Arter touted how then-Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said he endorses "Trump’s plan to get rid of the Johnson amendment, which bars pastors from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit." Another article that month highlighted Trump's claimed desire to, in the words of Vice President Mike Pence, "take action on the Johnson amendment."
• A column that month by Bill Donohue lamented that Trump was being "criticized for his desire to repeal the Johnson Amendment" and attacked one critic's claim that it might open a "dark money loophole for political donations."

In May 2017, Craig Bannister hyped Trump's executive order that "directs the IRS to exercise maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment" and how "Priests, nuns, the largest women’s public policy group in the U.S., and the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. all gave thanks" for the order -- though, as noted above, it didn't really do anything.

That was followed by Arter gushing over Trump's signing of the order, which she falsely claimed repealed the amendment:

President Donald Trump marked the National Day of Prayer on Thursday by signing an executive order repealing the Johnson Amendment, which targets religious leaders who engage in political speech by threatening their tax-exempt status.

“For too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith - bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs,” the president said.

A column by Stonestreet, however, surprisingly admitted that Trump's executive order was largely for show: "the Johnson Amendment is bad law, but it’s rarely, if ever, enforced. So the order effectively tells the IRS to continue doing what it is already doing." A column by Ryan T. Andersaon a few days later similarly conceded that "legislation is required to actually address the Johnson Amendment—which isn’t the prime priority on religious liberty."

Nevertheless, Arter returned to gushing in a June 2017 article that in a speech, Trump "talked about how he repealed the Johnson Amendment, which made prohibited nonprofits - including churches - from endorsing political candidates and participating in political campaigns or risk losing their nonprofit status." A separate article the following uncritically quoted Trump saying, "I just signed an executive order following -- and this is something that makes me very happy and very proud -- following through on my campaign pledge to stop the Johnson Amendment from interfering with your First Amendment rights."

The confusion over what exactly Trump did, and CNS' failure to consistently report the facts, continued:

• An October 2017 article by Arter uncritically quoted Trump claiming that his executive order "followed through on one of my most important campaign promises to so many of you - to prevent the horrendous Johnson Amendment from interfering with your 1st Amendment rights."
• A February 2018 article by Craig Bannister quoted Pence saying that " we’ll continue to free up the pulpits of this country by repealing the Johnson Amendment, because freedom shouldn’t stop at the doors of our churches, synagogues, or places of worship.”
• A May 2018 article by Arter uncritically quoted Trump: "Last year on this day, I took executive action to prevent the Johnson Amendment - a disaster- from interfering with our First Amendment rights. I was so proud of that."
• Patrick Goodenough similarly quoted Trump saying in August 2018, “We have stopped the Johnson Amendment from interfering with your First Amendment rights,” though he did parenthetically add: "(Trump signed an executive order in May 2017 instructing the Treasury Department not to enforce the provision against religious organizations. Initiatives are underway in Congress to repeal it.)"
• That same month, a column by Alveda King listed "Rescind the Johnson Amendment" among Trump's campaign promises, misleadingly suggesting he has fulfilled it.
• In a May 2019 article, Arter uncritically wrote that "Trump said he’s most proud of repealing the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates," adding Trump's false claim that "we got rid of the Johnson Amendment. That’s a big thing."

Why would CNS want a Democrat prosecuted under a law it and its allies want repealed? Because they're a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:18 AM EST

Updated: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 1:31 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Alec Schemmel puts every bit of the Media Research Center's "big tech" victim narrative he could muster into a Sept. 21 post:

Big Tech overwhelmingly censors Republican members of Congress by a rate of 53-to-1 compared to congressional Democrats.

That censorship has hit Republican Senators Rand Paul (KY) and Ron Johnson (WI), Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) and other Republicans in Congress. Facebook and Twitter have used their censorship mechanisms at least 30 separate times against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), including five Twitter suspensions and the flagging of at least 24 tweets with some type of warning label. Democrats have had just one member from the last two U.S. congressional delegations censored.

YouTube has deleted content posted by Senators Rand Paul (KY) and Ron Johnson (KY) and suspended both their accounts.

But besides censoring those Republicans already in Congress, Big Tech has also reportedly taken measures that impact new Republicans attempting to join the legislative body. Republican candidates running for U.S. Congress have been censored at least 15 times since November of 2019. Free Speech America could not find a single example of Democrat candidates facing censorship.

As is usual for the MRC, Schemmel is being deliberately dishonest. Social media did not "censor" these people; they simply enforced their pre-existing rules, polices and terms of service on their users. (The MRC, normally a supporter of private property rights, has tried hard to avoid acknowledging that these are private companies that have the right to set policies and enforce them.)  Schemmel offers no evidence to support his assertion mainstream conservatives are exclusively being "censored" for expressing mainstream conservative views. While he claims that "Free Speech America could not find a single example of Democrat candidates facing censorship," he provides no documentation to prove that FSA made any actual effort to find those examples. After all, the MRC has no interest in demonstrating ideological parity on this issue. It may very well be that, unlike Republicans, Democrats care about following the terms of service of social media operations -- something Schemmel has apparently not considered.

Further, Schemmel portraying Greene has a prolific "victim" of "censorship" is particularly dishonest. The MRC loves to do that while, ironically, censoring the extremist views and offensive behavior that repeatedly get her in trouble with social media. Again, it serves the MRC's narrative better to not to tell the full truth about her.

Schemmel went on to complain:

Facebook is aiding incumbent candidates, according to a Sept. 13, article. The Wall Street Journal uncovered internal Facebook files indicating the platform was keeping a so-called “whitelist” of powerful figures that it was “shielding” from its typical censorship procedures. “While the program included most government officials, it didn’t include all candidates for public office,” The WSJ reported, “at times effectively granting incumbents in elections an advantage over challengers.”

Schemmel didn't mention that one of the chief beneficiaries of that Facebook policy was Donald Trump, who was repeatedly given a pass to violate the platform's rules until the Jan. 6 insurrection demonstrated his violaions could no longer be ignored -- something the MRC censored in a separate post on it. Also, it was later revealed that the Journal's source for this and other claims made about Facebook is Frances Haugen, whom the MRC is trying to denigrate for not being a right-winger.

And it wouldn't be the MRC if Schemmel didn't portray Donald Trump as the ultimate victim:

Big Tech began labeling virtually everything being posted by former President Trump and his campaign around the 2020 election. Platforms dispensed one of several censorship labels used to challenge and suppress information. The former president was eventually universally deplatformed by Big Tech and is still fighting to return.

Note that Schemmel is completely silent on the nature of the Trtump content that was "censored" -- because he knows that Trump was spreading lies and conspiracy theories about election fraud. Schemmel -- as MRC writers are wont to do -- conflates merely labeling a Trump post as false as "censorship," even though in most cases the original post could still be read.

A slight amount of comfort can be taken in that Schemmel didn't repeat the MRC-promulgated lie that Trump was removed from social media because he called for "peace" after the Jan. 6 riot (which he helped incite).

Posted by Terry K. at 9:16 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Leading up to Columbus Day, CNSNews.com published a three-part series by dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue on why Americans should celebrate Columbus Day enthusiastically and without guilt.

In his Oct. 6 column, Donohue complained about Howard Zinn and other professors who stray from the narrative that Columbus was a univerally good person:

The fact is that many professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, hate Western civilization; they have a particular animus against the United States. That this is happening at a time when many poor people from Latin America are crashing our borders is perverse. Yet the  pampered professors still keep railing against the U.S. They just don't get it.

[...]

To top things off, those who are bashing Columbus are simultaneously lauding the legacy of Indigenous peoples. Yet a closer, and independent, examination of their historical record raises serious questions about their assigned "oppressed" status. But given the Manichean dualism that is operative—the good guys are non-whites and the bad guys are white—the outcome is predictable.

On Oct. 7, Donohue railed at the National Education Association for favoring changing Columbus Day to Indigtenous People's Day:

This is not a healthy situation. A country that cannot agree on whom to honor is in trouble. Worse, a country whose public officials take no action against those who destroy statues on public land of those who have made significant contributions to American society are sending the wrong message. When a nation's historically renowned figures become part of our throw-away culture, it does not bode well for instilling patriotism in young people.

Judging past historical figures through today's lens will likely mean that some of those in favor of excising tributes to legendary persons will themselves be erased from history. So be it.

We at the Catholic League are taking off Monday, in honor of Christopher Columbus. Sorry NEA, you carry no weight with us.

Donoue used his Oct. 8 column to serve up what he promised two days earlier would be "a politically incorrect look at Indigenous Americans," which started off this way:

Just as bad, some promote the idea that virtually all the Indians were kindly souls who respected the land and treated each other with dignity. This is a romantic fairy tale having no basis in history. The truth is that some were gentle while others were brutal. 

It is also part of the conventional wisdom that almost all the Indians were massacred by the white man. Wrong.

He then disproved his own point by citing a researcher who admitted that nearly all Indians died after "the coming of the white man," and that it "occurred through such factors as the importation of virulent diseases previously unknown in the Americas, the destruction of settled life-styles, enslavement, and the psychological effects of conquest rather than through overt murders and slaughters, although plenty of these took place." Just because a large number weren't outright massacred doesn't mean that the "white man" didn't kill them.

Donohue then denigrated the idea that Native Americans were "indigenous":

Before detailing the dark side of Indigenous peoples, as a corrective to the prevailing notion that only the white man acted unjustly, it is important to note that the term "Indigenous" is misleading. The Indians were immigrants who came here from Asia. In "prehistoric times," they "crossed the land bridge across the Bering Strait to the lands of the Western Hemisphere." 

Donohue followed that with a list of alleged Native American atrocities; while some were between tribes, others were against British and American settlers. He didn't explain why Native Americans should not have fought to defend their lands and livelihood. In his final example on the series of U.S.-Indian wars, Donohue seemed to be blaming Native Americans for their demise because defeating Custer at Little Big Horn led to the U.S. increasing its military activity, which "culminated in the Wounded Knee Massacre on December 29, 1890," which he frames as at least somewhat justified because U.S. troops feared "a repeat of Little Big Horn" so they fired on a tribe of disarmed Lakota tribe, killing 250 Lakota men, women, and children.

And that, Donohue wants you to believe, is why Americans should celebrate Columbus Day.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:55 PM EST

Updated: Monday, December 6, 2021 11:21 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Media Research Center writer Joseph Vazquez has been lashing out of late against James Murdoch, son of Fox News chief Rupert Murdoch, for ceasing to be as right-wing as his father and other siblings and donating money to -- gasp! -- environmental causes and non-Fox media ventures. Vazquez tried to serve up a lame "non-conservative media ignored thing that advances right-wing narratives" gotcha in an Oct. 13 post:

CNN’s cable shows have salivated at least seven times over climate activist James Murdoch’s virtue-signaling against Fox News in the past year, all while ignoring any mention of an atrocious media scandal that nearly nuked his career.

News blew up in 2011 on how the now-defunct U.K. newspaper News of the World< was set to publish its last issue following a massive phone-hacking scandal that occurred in the mid-2000s, which ultimately led to its demise. News Corporation Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch’s estranged son James was executive chairman for News International — then-parent company of News of the World — at the time. James Murdoch would later resign. The newspaper “presided over a large-scale policy of hacking cell phones and computers belonging to celebrities, politicians, and private citizens,” according to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. The scandal even involved hacking the communications of Prince Harry.

But CNN has all but ignored the phone-hacking scandal while propping up Murdoch’s attacks against Fox News. A Nexis search of CNN transcripts mentioning James Murdoch between September 30, 2020, and September 30, 2021, found that none of the CNN cable shows mentioned the phone-hacking scandal whenever they cited Murdoch’s anti-Fox News stances.

But as we reported at the time, the MRC did its best to downplay the News of the World scandal in order to protect Fox News. When the scandal first broke, MRC executive Tim Graham dismissed a British paper that reported on it as "socialist" and NPR's reporting as suspect because of alleged ties to George Soros. When the scandal exploded later that year, the MRC spent days ignoring it, then tried to deflect from it.

First, it tried to play whataboutism by arguing that far lesser actions in the so-called "liberal media" were just as bad as hacking cell phones. Then, it insisted that the investigation into the scandal was being driven by "politics ... not rational detective work." Graham later got himself quoted by the Washington Post claiming that  "It’s blatantly obvious that this pile-on . . . is all about Murdoch and his perceived noxious effect on American politics and media."

From there, the MRC went into full protect-Fox News mode, defending Fox News' paltry, late-to-the-game coverage of the scandal -- it averaged three segments a day, actually not a lot for a 24-hour "news" channel -- even though Fox's then-Sunday morning media watch program explicitly stated it would not cover the story when it broke (though it eventually did).The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, weighed in as well, complaining the scandal was being used to target Fox News, which "is pegged as a conservative news outlet (perhaps because it is, in fact, a conservatrive news outlet?).

Rather than admit that his employer once labored to downplay the scandal he's now trying to exploit because it can be used to bash a new MRC enemy, Vazquez spent the rest of his post grumbling about "pro-James Murdoch fanboying" on CNN over him ceasing to be rabid right-winger. But it's the MRC's job to protect Fox News at all costs -- even when it involves flip-flopping on a major story.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:25 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center was quick to embrace the case of an alleged sexual assault of a girl in a Virginia high school -- not because it cares about the girl, of course, but because the alleged perpetrator was "a boy in a skirt," which fits the MRC's anti-LGBT narrative, and because it could help get Republican Glenn Youngkin elected Virginia governor. In doing so, the MRC all but censored the full story of the case -- namely, that the students had a history of consensual sex before the assault occurred and that the encounter in question began as consensual sex before the girl withdrew consent -- that complicates the story and blows up the simplistic narrative of a depraved transsexual that the MRC wanted the story to be about.

As the Virginia gubernatorial election drew closer, the MRC tried to stay laser-focused on putting the narrative before facts. Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in an Oct. 28 post:

Thursday was a rough one of the liberal media’s blackout of the heinous and criminal behavior allowed to happen in schools by the liberal Loudoun County School Board. There were more alleged sexual assaults at a middle school involving groping and there was new evidence that Critical Race Theory was being peddled in by the Virginia Department of Education, plus reports of the law enforcement assets the school board wanted to bear against parents. All of it went ignored by the broadcast networks.

In his Oct. 29 column, Tim Graham hyped "actual sexual assaults in the high schools of Loudoun County" and that "a Loudoun County judge ruled the assault occurred," going on to play whataboutism to attack the Associated Press for an early story calling the story around the assault "murky":

A quick search of AP archives in 2018 shows their reporters never used the word “murky” to describe Christine Blasey Ford’s completely unproven charges of sexual assault by a teenaged Brett Kavanaugh. They did report “the conservative jurist's prospects of Senate confirmation remained murky.”

Peoples and his AP team added “Youngkin’s final-days focus on sexual predators in schools, hardly a widespread issue, will test the limits of his suburban outreach,” and “Youngkin’s dark message represents a new front in his monthslong push to repair the Republican Party’s standing in the suburbs” after Trump.

You can guess the AP didn’t describe the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearings claiming rape was a “dark message” or “hardly a widespread issue.”

You can guess that Graham didn't tell his readers the full story of the assault.

The same day, Geoffrey Dickens cranked out a summary item:

On October 11, The Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak dropped a bombshell report that exposed how the Loudoun County, Virginia School Board covered up the rape of a 15-year-old girl in the girls’ bathroom at the hands of a boy in a skirt just so they could pass a transgender bathroom policy. It was a horrific case of an out-of-control liberal school board putting their leftist agenda ahead of the safety of students.

Since the story broke, the boy was found guilty by a judge, there have been protests and student walkouts and it’s become a key issue in the closely watched Virginia governor’s race. So how much of their primetime programming has CNN and MSNBC spent on this explosive story?

Just 3 minutes, 8 seconds.

[...]

While Fox News aired 1 hour, 44 minutes, 38 seconds on the Loudoun sex assault case, CNN spent zero seconds on it. MSNBC primetime viewers saw just 3 minutes, 8 seconds total on the topic.

Dickens didn't explain why the story justified the nearly two hours of coverage on Fox News, or why he's using that as the benchmark for what other news channels should have done on the story.

Kristine Marsh huffed in a Nov. 1 post:

The media are desperately trying to salvage Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s chances in Virginia’s governor's race, after his alarming comments about parents and education have cost him in the very tight election. 

This week, MSNBC went so far as to call Loudoun County Public Schools in VA covering up a sexual assault as a “manufactured” and “made up” controversy.

[...]

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe the next morning, it wasn’t much better. Co-host Joe Scarborough and New York Times’ columnist Michelle Goldberg mocked the Loudoun County rape case as a “big lie”:

Scarborough complained that the first sexual assault by a boy wearing a skirt in the girls’ room happened before the transgender policy was in place, so any anger over it was inconsequential:

“This was a guy that went in and sexually assaulted a girl. There is no controversial bathroom policy regarding trans students. This is just a controversy that you and your column point out that's just been made-up,” he sneered.

Scarborough insisted again that the school’s transgender policy had nothing to do with the rape. (Does he think that allowing boys into girl’s locker rooms and bathrooms will diminish sexual assaults?)

Marsh didn't tell her readers that the encounter began as consensual, with the boy and girl agreeing to meet in the bathroom -- making it completely irrelevant to any transgender policy the school district is contemplating.

Having achieved its goal with Youngkin's election on Nov. 2, the MRC largely stopped caring about the assualt case, except to cite it in criticizing non-Fox coverage. A Nov. 4 item by Scott Whitlock complained that ABC pointed out the right-wing button-pushing that helped Youngkin win:

The media blame game for Tuesday’s Democratic election losses intensified on Thursday as ABC’s Jon Karl pinned the losses in Virginia on Republicans “exploiting parents's fears” when it came to issues like crime. What, specifically, could Karl be referring to? Perhaps the rape of a young teen by a boy in the girl’s bathroom? Karl didn’t explain and the networks have been hiding the Loudoun, Virginia rape story that galvanized the governor’s race in Virginia. 

Like his colleagues, Whitlock hid the full story of the assault from readers.

Graham used his Nov. 10 column to complain that CNN's Brian Stelter pointed out Fox News' obsession with the case and Loudoun County school politics in particular:

Stelter complained about all the “propaganda and grifting” from the right about local school-board issues in Loudoun County, Virginia. He claimed there were more than 400 references to the county on Fox News in 2021. But he never mentioned the sexual assaults in high schools there as an issue. Was that “grifting” to mention? This misses the fact that the left makes national news out of local crimes and controversies all the time. See George Floyd in Minneapolis, or Michael Brown in Ferguson.

There are worlds of difference between those stories, and Graham does not explain why the deaths of George Floyd and Michael Brown should not have received national notice. Nor did Graham admit that Fox and right-wing media glommed onto the Loudoun assault story to exploit their own agendas and get Youngkin elected.

Fondacaro whined the same day:

On Wednesday afternoon, Loudoun County parents, via the organization Fight for Schools, filed their petition to recall their corrupt, radical leftist school board after the members and the superintendent tried to cover up a rape in a girl’s bathroom by a “gender-fluid” boy wearing a skirt. It was the latest development in a county that has garnered national attention; but yet again, the broadcast networks skipped it during their flagship evening newscasts.

[...]

NBC can claim the outrage wasn’t genuine all they wanted but clearly, it was as Fox News noted the parents were sticking it to the school board.

Because crowing about how well Fox News is exploiting the tragedy is more important than the tragedy itself.

We've already noted that Kyle Drennen used a Nov. 18 post to complain that NBC essentially did what Fox News did by focusing on issues in a school district in Texas while "it willfully ignored multiple scandals – including two student sexual assaults – rocking the entire Loudoun County, Virginia school system, which had a major impact on the commonwealth’s closely-watched governor’s race." Of course, Drenne would never admit that Fox was exploiting the Loudon situation for political purposes the way he claims NBC was "relentlessly attacking" the Texas school district.

It appears the MRC has little further use for the female victim in the assault as a victim -- only as a partisan tool. Its agenda not only comes before the truth, it comes before basic human decency.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:57 PM EST

Updated: Sunday, December 5, 2021 9:02 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

We documented how CNSNews.com wasn't enthusiastic about Glenn Youngkin's candidacy for Virginia governor and even attempted a horribly botched hit job on him early in his candidacy. CNS did, however, push storylines that were designed to boost Youngkin's campaign regarding threats against school boards and a sexual assault at a Virginia school. As the Nov. 2 election approached, CNS did ramp up enthusiasm for the race. In a Nov. 1 article, Craig Bannister touted how Youngkin praised a rally-goer's T-shirt stating "I do not co-parent with government" and pushed his right-wing narratives:

“Terry McAuliffe wants to put government between parents and their children,” Republican Glenn Youngkin said at a campaign rally Sunday, warning of his Democrat [sic] opponent in Virginia’s race for governor ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Youngkin issued the warning as Virginia school boards, such as that in Loudoun County, seek to silence parents who object to the imposition of liberal ideologies – such as transgender school bathrooms and the teaching of Critical Race Theory – upon their children.

The same day, Megan Williams echoed the talking point, transcribing a Youngkin appearnce on the Fox News show of CNS' favorite right-wing radio host, Mark Levin, invoking Martin Luther King Jr. and declaring that he will "ban" critical race theory on his first day as governor.

Another Nov. 1 article, by Melanie Arter, pushed an anti-McAuliffe, anti-Democratic narrative: "Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher predicted Sunday that if former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, (D) loses the governor’s race to Republican Youngkin, it will be 'catastrophic' for Democrats, because the last time a Democrat lost Virginia, they lose 60 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives."

The only article CNS published the day of the election was a piece by Patrick Goodenough quoting President Biden stating that the race wasn't a referendum on his policies. When Youngkin ended up winning, however, CNS was absolutely effusive in its praise (and its bashing of McAuliffe), devoting more articles to reaction to the results over the next couple of days than it did before the election itself:

• Youngkin Wins: 'We Will Change the Trajectory of This Commonwealth'
• Trump: I Didn't Need to Rally for Youngkin 'Because McAuliffe Did It For Me'
• Youngkin Win ‘a Vote of Confidence in Free People and Free Enterprise Running Their Own Lives,’ Fmr. Va. Gov. Allen Says
• McCarthy: Glenn Youngkin’s Win Tells You ‘Policy Matters’
• Youngkin Beat McAuliffe 51% to 49% Among Parents Who Have Children Under 18
• Youngkin Beat McAuliffe 56% to 44% Among Male Voters
• Scalise: If Democrats Keep Voting for ‘Big Government Socialism, They’re Going the Same Way as Terry McAuliffe’
• Biden’s Takeaway from Dem Loss in Virginia Gubernatorial Race: Pass My Economic Agenda
• Pelosi Repeats Her 2012 Election Response: ‘The People Have Spoken’ – But, That Won’t Stop Us
• Sen. Rick Scott: Americans Are Fed Up with Inflation, Defunding the Police, and Democrats Trying to Indoctrinate Their Kids

An anonymous CNS writer took yet another Biden-is-senile shot in a Nov. 4 article:

When President Joe Biden was asked at a press conference on Wednesday “how much responsibility” he took for the bad results the Democratic Party saw in Tuesday’s election, Biden responded that he had called Virginia’s defeated Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe “to congratulate him.”

The article later appended an editor's note to rub that talking point in further: "This story has been updated to note that President Biden's claim that "no governor in Virginia has ever won when he is of the...same party as the sitting president" is incorrect. When McAuliffe was elected governor of Virginia in 2013, Democrat Barack Obama was the sitting president."

A Nov. 11 article by Williams featured former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard calling McAuliffe's loss a “win for all Americans” because Democrats are purportedly trying to divide the country. We've noted CNS' flip-flop on Gabbard, suddenly embracing her because of her newfound support for Donald Trump and hatred of Hillary Clinton, while ignoring her coziness with murderous dictatorial regimes in Russia and Syria.

Youngkin's running mate for lieutenant governor, Winsome Sears, got some after-the-fact CNS love too. A Nov. 3 article by Susan Jones touted how "Winsome Sears will become Virginia's first black Republican lieutenant governor" and how she parroted right-wing talking points on Fox News, while an article by Bannister later that day was even gushier:

“I love this country so much, I’m willing to die protecting it,” Republican Virginia Lt. Gov.-Elect Winsome Sears, a Jamaican-born Marine Corps veteran, said Wednesday, introducing a Twitter video, in which she declares her love for America and leads a crowd in chanting “U-S-A!”

CNS helped Sears even less than it did Youngkin, but now it wants on her bandwagon too now that she won.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:28 PM EST

Updated: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:43 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Conservatives normally love criminals who rehabilitate themselves -- but only if they become conservatives. If not, well, that crime is an irreversible scar that will be held over your head for the rest of your life. And that's what mystierious Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson does in an Oct. 19 post trying to manufacturing outrage that the longtime manager of the Michael Jordan brand at Nike served prison time as a youth for killing another teen:

The inconsistencies in what's acceptable in sports are beyond bizarre. Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden just watched his career fizzle away over 10-year-old text messages on race and gender. Meanwhile, NBA and NHL players are being punished for not getting coronavirus vaccinations. Also, the man who’s led Nike’s Jordan brand for 40 years has been hiding a murder secret for 56 years, and he is “beloved.”

In 1965, Larry Miller shot and killed Edward White in Philadelphia. Now 72, Miller has guarded this secret from Jordan, Nike founder Phil Knight and NBA executives. The black executive is spilling his guts in the book Jump: My Secret Journey From the Streets to the Boardroom, co-written with his daughter Laila Lacy. It will be published by William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins, next year.

Now living a life of luxury, Miller told Sports Illustrated writer Howard Beck he wants to share his secret on his own terms. How convenient for him! He says the book release “will free him to discuss his experiences with at-risk youth and people in prison, and perhaps help steer others away from violence and toward a productive life.” Not to mention the advice he can give to young people convicted of crimes to dishonestly hide their secrets for half a century.

Maxson gives Miller no credit whatsoever for rehabilitating himself to become a successful businessman. Instead, he (or she) whines that "celebrating criminals is now normal for the NBA, whose players boycotted games last year in support of criminals like Jacob Blake who clashed with police," then once again runs to the defense of former NFL coach Jon Gruden, fired for bigoted and racist emails:

Then there’s Gruden, whose NFL coaching career was quickly over because of remarks he made about people’s lips and gender in 2011. Of the objects of Gruden’s criticism, one is the president of the United States, one is the head of the NFL players union (DeMaurice Smith) and others are working as NFL game officials. Gruden’s choice of words was careless, but he didn’t murder anyone and then deceive anyone about it for half a century. The wild inconsistencies of sports punishments are utterly absurd.

Note that Maxson describes Gruden as merely "careless" and not hateful. Also note, since Maxson didn't that Miller paid his debt to society a long time ago, while Gruden's debt-paying has just started. Maxson clearly doesn't believe that Gruden should face any consequences at all for his hateful words.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:12 AM EST

Updated: Saturday, December 4, 2021 9:57 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Michael Brown reminds us that he still hates LGBT people in his Oct. 20 WorldNetDaily column:

In their landmark 1990 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's," gay strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen laid out a brilliant plan for changing American attitudes toward homosexuality. They stated that "to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."

Looking back from the vantage point of 2021, we can now say that this was not a matter of shutting off a shower and thereby getting wet. It was a matter of not shutting off a continual downpour, thereby getting soaked. And the soaking continues by the hour, with transgender taking the place of gay in the bombardment.

That's why it is imperative that we refuse to get used to this new normal.

It is not normal. It will never be normal. And we must not accept it as normal.

It violates natural law, and it violates God's design for humanity. Surely, He has a better way.

Brown then followed WND in attacking transgender health official Rachel Levine:

What about the latest news concerning Richard "Rachel" Levine? He has now been promoted to four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, earning praise from outlets like the Washington Post, which celebrated the "organization's first-ever female four-star admiral."

Except that Levine is a biological male who identifies as female. Yet this is somehow a breakthrough for women? Isn't it really a slap in the face of other women, since the first "female" to reach this rank is not a female at all?

Sorry, but I refuse to accept this as the new normal, let alone celebrate this as some kind of big moment for women. Not a chance.

His screed concluded:

The world has gone mad, which is why I continue to use scare quotes when referring to gay "marriage," not to insult gay couples, but to refuse to accept this as "marriage."

And that's why, as much as there were other things I would rather write about, yet again, I needed to raise my voice.

I urge you, my friend. Do not accept this as normal.

In his Oct. 30 column, Brown raged against a candy bar commercial because it featured a boy wearing a dress on Halloween:

There is nothing covert about the message, nothing sublime, nothing cryptic. Quite the contrary, the message is clear and in your face. If you have a problem with a little boy wearing a princess dress and believe that people who dress like witches with spiked collars look weird, you will be blown away – meaning, literally blown away. As in swept away by a gust of wind produced by a dark, angry witch. And this is a Twix commercial for Halloween?

The ad itself is slow moving and hardly compelling, not the kind of commercial that would make you want to eat a candy bar.

It features a boy in a princess dress with his new nanny, dressed all in witch-like black, as they go to a park for the boy to play.

But the pace picks up when another boy says to the boy in the dress, "You look like a girl" (which he does). The boy then asks, "Why are you wearing that?"

The boy in the dress replies, "Dressing like this makes me feel good," which apparently is supposed to be a powerful line in defense of trans identity.

Yes, as any parent knows, if your child feels good doing something, then by all means, you should encourage them to do it, regardless of what lines are crossed and what boundaries are transgressed. After all, isn't that the key to effective parenting, namely, determining if your values and rules and guidelines make your children feel good? If not, well, we know the old adage: children know best! (Apologies for the sarcasm.)

What makes the Twix scenario all the more tragic is that there is a rapidly growing body of evidence against children acting out their trans identities, especially with the help of puberty blockers and then sex-change surgery.

Brown's response to the commercial's depiction of bullying was to say that he would teach his children not to bully quite so overtly, and besides, transgender people are the real bullies:

To be sure, if I were raising a child today I would teach that child not to insult other kids, let alone adults. That means I would not be encouraging my son or daughter to tell others that they were "weird."

At the same time, I would teach my child that a boy who wears a princess dress is confused, in need of love and prayer rather than affirmation and praise.

And while I would not want my child to tell a witch that she was weird, I would certainly tell my child that the devil was real, that demons were real, and that witches were playing with unholy fire, needing to be saved and redeemed.

For Twix, however, the synopsis of the ad was, "With a little magic, the new nanny helps a non-binary child deal with bullies and find self-acceptance."

So, the way to deal with a child bully is to be a bigger bully, in this case, an adult bully, more specifically an adult witch bully with destructive powers. That's how you help a trans child find self-acceptance: by destroying, or at the least endangering and terrifying, another child who makes fun of him.

Don't you just love the voice of tolerance?

For his Nov. 10 column, Brown finally got around to complaining there was a gay character in a Disney movie released months earlier:

Forgive me for being late to the party, but it was only this week that I saw most of Disney's new movie "Jungle Cruise." The movie is rated PG-13 and is based on the Disney theme park ride of the same name. It features mega-star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and tells the story of a courageous single woman in search of a healing cure located on the Amazon. Johnson is the boat captain, and the woman (Emily Blunt) is accompanied by her utterly wimpy, fear-filled brother (Jack Whitehall), who, it turns out, is gay.

But why, oh why, must the brother be gay? What is gained by it? How is the plot enhanced? If anything, Whitehall's character plays right into negative gay stereotypes. And of what value are the vulgar, double entendre sexual jokes? Disney studios, why, oh why?

[...]

The reality, of course, is that LGBTQ characters abound on TV and in the movies. And if you identify as LGBTQ and want to see someone like yourself on the screen, you can readily do it, right up to being a gay or bi or trans superhero.

Disney would do best to give up throwing "gay bread crumbs" to their LGBTQ viewers and simply make family-friendly movies that will not offend the historic moral sensibilities of their viewers – unless they have pushed most of them away already.

Nothing so offends the "moral sensibilities" of people like Brown than to be shown that gay people exist.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:24 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Curtis Houck apparently got bored with his relentless Jen Psaki-bashing and his man-crushing over Peter Doocy -- after writing his highly biased review of what dismissively calls "The Psaki Show" on Oct. 22, he didn't write one for more than three weeks. Part of that time, though, Psaki was off duty after being diagnosed for COVID, though briefings continued under deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, whom Houck has denigrated as nothing more than a beneficiary of "diversity bingo." Apparently Houck hates Jean-Pierre so much that he refuses to even review her hearings for the same lashing-out screeds he piles on Psaki.

Thus, it was the duty of Scott Whitlock to look at a Nov. 8 briefing by Jean-Pierre, albeit only to complain that the "liberal media" aren't covering questions from the briefing about "the latest terrible polls for Joe Biden" (whom Whitlock apparently still won't acknowledge won the election and is president).Whitlock complained that Jean-Pierre served up "talking points" for one question and "stonewalled" another, but he didn't explain how that was any different from how any given Trump White House press secretary had behaved.

Houck didn't return to briefing writeups until Psaki did. In writing about the Nov. 12 briefing, he seemed sad that "Fox’s Peter Doocy wasn’t in attendance" but happy that someone asked about "Let's Go Brandon" chants. But he did latch on to another biased right-wingh reporter in Doocy's stead:

And with Doocy not in attendance, it was Jacqui Time in the Briefing Room as Fox colleague Jacqui Heinrich drew lengthy Psaki word salads with denial dressings on gas prices and then a study from the Tax Policy Center that revealed Biden’s so-called human infrastructure plan would lower taxes on wealthy Americans rather than raise them[.]

For the Nov. 15 briefing, though, Houck was in full Doocy-gasm mode:

After not having been around for Friday’s return of The Psaki Show, Fox’s Peter Doocy made the most of his first crack at Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Monday’s installment with hardballs on President Biden’s past comments smearing Kyle Rittenhouse, new reports about tension between the White House and Vice President Harris, and whether the U.S. government will boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.

Doocy started his turn by getting right to the chase on China: “Ahead of this meeting with President Xi, is President Biden considering a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics this winter?”

Just as she did on Friday when asked by Reuters’s Andrea Shalal, Psaki ducked and refused to stand up for human rights, saying she doesn’t “have anything beyond that for you.”

[...]

Doocy wrapped by drilling down on President Biden’s attacks on Rittenhouse just after the August 25, 2020 shootings: “Why did President Biden suggest that Kyle Rittenhouse, on trial in Kenosha, is a white supremacist?”

[...]

Doocy tried again, pointing out the fact that Biden did weigh in and “Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom came out saying that the President defamed her son and...she claims that when the President suggested her son is a white supremacist, he was doing that to win votes.”

Questioned whether that was the case, Psaki made it clear she was done: “I just having nothing more to speak to — an ongoing case where the closing arguments were just made.”

Houck then went on another vacay from his brief-bashing duties. He didn't return until Nov. 23, when he could have another Doocy-gasm under the ridiculously hateful yet word-salady headline "Doocy Stuff's Psaki's Gobbles":

In the final episode of The Psaki Show before Thanksgiving, Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy went into the break with a bang as he grilled Jen Psaki over far-left Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s proposal to abolish prisons, pressing for answers on whether President Biden will apologize for impugning Kyle Rittenhouse’s character, the record costs for Thanksgiving dinner, and Biden’s holiday vacation to Nantucket.

[...]

The Fox reporter moved on to Rittenhouse and followed up on questions he asked from November 15: “Would the President ever apologize to the acquitted Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse for suggesting online and on TV that he is a white supremacist?”

Predictably, Psaki made it all about Donald Trump: “[T]his is about a campaign video release last year that used President Trump's own words during a debate as he refused to condemn white supremacists and militia groups.”

Without stating it, Psaki appeared to give oxygen to Biden’s lie, saying he’s called out “the tragic consequences of” extremists feeling emboldened to the point “when people think it is okay to take the law into their own hands instead of allowing law enforcement to do its job.”

Houck refused to highlight that there is evidence of Rittenhouse having white supremacist sympathies, in the form of him hanging out with the Proud Boys and flashing hate symbols shortly after he killed two people and wounded another, so Biden is not "lying" at all. Psaki did point that out in her response to Doocy, but Houck left that buried in a transcript.

There was more sucking up to Doocy for the Nov. 29 briefing:

The Psaki Show returned Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday with a packed show on the heels of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus and a host of new travel restrictions. So, it fell to Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy to question Press Secretary Jen Psaki on, among other issues, President Biden’s hypocrisy on Covid travel bans and his latest mask faux pas.

Doocy cut right to the chase with a question no one had asked Biden following his Covid remarks or Psaki prior to his turn: “Before Joe Biden was President, he said that Covid travel restrictions on foreign countries were ‘hysterical,’ ‘xenophobia,’ and ‘fearmongering.’ So, what changed?”

Possessing zero shame, Psaki insisted he “put it in full context,” which was supposedly about Biden being “critical of was the way that the former President put out, I believe, a xenophobic tweet, in how he called — what he called the coronavirus, and — and who he directed it at.”

Psaki added that Biden “has not been critical of travel restrictions” since “we have put those in place ourselves” to “follow the advice of health and medical experts.”

As our friend Matt Whitlock pointed out, Psaki’s response should be torn to pieces by the so-called fact-checkers in the establishment press as Biden did indeed denounce the China ban.

Actually, Houck's friend is wrong -- not once did Biden reference the China travel ban when he accused Trump of xenophobia, and he later expressed support for travel bans.

In the midst of more Doocy-gasming, Houck actually got mad at Psaki for pointing out that Biden is following the law on thte southern border:

Touching on two other topics before wrapping, Doocy applied the same pressure he did on travel bans with one about the Remain in Mexico policy: “Joe Biden once described the Remain in Mexico policy as ‘dangerous,’‘ inhumane,’ ‘goes against everything we stand for as a nation of immigrants.’ So, why is he keeping it?”

Psaki affirmed Biden “continues to stand behind exactly those comments and statements,” but the administration has had to reimplement it due to a court order, which Doocy took as time to move to the last question.

Pointing out that Biden said last week his “administration is monitoring the situation in Waukesha closely” and how it’s since “revealed by prosecutors that the assailant — the assailant swerved his truck side-to-side as part of an intentional act to run over as many people as possible,” Doocy wondered why Biden hasn’t gone to visit the victims.

Using a line that would have been ridiculed if uttered by a Trump official, Psaki emphasized that “our hearts go out to this community” and they were “in touch...with officials,” but there’s no trip to announce because “any president going to visit a community requires a lot of assets” and “requires taking their resources.”

Because Houck and the MRC remain Trump stans, he would never have ridiculed Trump for saying such a thing, because we know that unlike Biden, Trump is a attention-glomming egomaniac who has a pathological need to insert himself in the middle of everything.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:48 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 9:10 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

We noted that a WorldNetDaily column by Wayne Allyn Root resurrected the old Cloward-Piven bogeyman to rage against vaccine mandates. But he was not the first WND writer to do so. That honor, such as it is, goes to Joseph Farah in his Oct. 14 column:

We haven't been hearing possible explanations for Joe Biden's actions over the last nine months other than stupidity, a cognitive disorder, misguided thinking, even insanity.

But is it possible that he's being guided by some close to him who are following a scheme much more malign – the Cloward-Piven Strategy?

[...]

The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been adopted as part of mainstream leftist ideology. It's the Rosetta stone for understanding what progressives do and why they do it. It seems to make no sense on the surface to non-leftist ideologues. It seems like irrationality, stupidity or even insanity. But it's not. It's pure evil from the pit of hell.

It's the kind of thinking that led to the gas chambers. It's the kind of thinking that led to the gulags. It's the kind of thinking that led to the guillotines.

I fear it comes from the evil nature of those who plan to finish the job of fundamentally transforming America.

Let's recall that the Obama administration, which included Joe Biden, first set out to kill the flawed but greatest health care system the world had ever known. Obama lied repeatedly about what he was doing. He misrepresented his intentions and his goals. Once he got what he wanted and people could see it didn't work the way they thought it would work, he told them they just didn't understand. He told them it was their imaginations that they were losing their health insurance, paying more for medical services and being denied treatment.

You see, in this example, if you followed the Cloward-Piven Strategy, your goal was never to provide better and more affordable health care. It was to destroy the system and replace it with complete government control.

Farah went on to claim without evidence that "New York City went bankrupt in the 1970s because of the Cloward-Piven Strategy specifically designed to precipitate a crisis in the welfare system. No one made the direct connection back then. It took years to figure it out."

Farah concluded by ranting:

If it's not error, bad judgment, misguided thinking, irrationality, ideological and multicultural blindness or insanity that explains what Biden and the cabal of pseudo-scientists, ideologues and population-control activists are doing on the China virus front, what does?

I fear it's something much worse – Cloward-Piven.

Will it bring America to its knees as it brought down New York City in the '70s? Only if we recognize it's intentional – rather than the work of just a goofball, senile president.

Spoken like a true -- and truly untrustworthy -- conspiracy theorist.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:29 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink