In 1940, the Germans defeated the French with incredible speed. The armies of fascism and totalitarianism simply went around their opponents' elaborately constructed defenses, and the swift collapse of what had only recently been a major military power came shortly thereafter.
In a similar fashion, America's strongest bulwark for the preservation of our most cherished liberties, embodied in the Constitution, has been neatly bypassed. The forces of collectivism, socialism and tyranny, uniquely American versions of Marxism and progressive dictatorship, moved swiftly through an undefended gap.
That gap was a wildly and deliberately exaggerated health crisis. A disease that has a low mortality rate for young and healthy people was used as a pretext for draconian denials of rights that not too long before had been considered inalienable. A swift expansion of government power into areas totally outside of its legitimate mandate followed. The rule of law was replaced by the arbitrary decrees of highly dubious "experts" and power-hungry politicians, and traditional legislative processes were abandoned in favor of irrational and socially destructive lockdowns and mandates.
The advocates of dictatorial government by unelected or dishonestly elected elites have come uncomfortably close to their century-old dream of a planned society. Much more is yet to come – and if they continue to progress at their current rate of speed, the American way of life as we have known it will come to an end.
Great transformations are being achieved with extraordinary speed. Driven by false ideologies, as well as by hostility toward and contempt for what America at its very best used to be, they are striving persistently to realize their ambitions. It remains to be seen how far they will be able to go. It may very well be that the 20th-century experiences of China, Russia, Cambodia and Germany will turn out to be more relevant to us than anyone could have dreamed even a short decade ago. Yet it may also be that sufficient exposure to the deadly nature of their ideological and social reconstructions will provoke a sufficient counter-reaction, once enough Americans realize the danger they are in.
MRC Writer Gets Off On Gun Parts Labeled 'Let's Go Brandon' Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center hypocritically got way into the "Let's Go Brandon" euphemistic vulgarity to insult Presdient Biden. MRC writer Nicholas Fondacaro, meanwhile, was so into the vulgar insult that he's totally cool with gun parts engraved with it and doesn't see them as an implicit threat at all, trying to dismiss them as "novelty" parts. He wrote in a Nov. 1 post:
MSNBC was in a panic Monday after they discovered that companies in the firearms industry made novelty AR-15 parts featuring the anti-President Biden slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” adoring them. It also proved to be another demonstration of just how little the liberal media understood about firearms and gun laws, as they claimed the parts represented clear and present “threats” to the President. They even ran to the Secret Service to let them know and tried to link the parts to January 6.
The novelty part in question was this stripped lower receiver from Palmetto State Armory. According to the webpage for the pre-order part, the serial number range would consist of “BRANDON 0000” and the fire selector flipped between “‘F@CK!’ (Safe), ‘JOE!’ (Fire), ‘BIDEN!’ (Full-Auto)’” engravings. They sell for $59.99.
“A South Carolina gun dealer called Palmetto State Armory is selling what is known as a lower receiver, which is essentially the guts of an AR-15 assault rifle, branded ‘LETSGO-15,’” Dilanian said. “And as you said, on the weapon’s fire selector, the expletive we can’t say on television is next to the safety mode, the word Joe is next to the single-shot mode, and the word Biden is next to the automatic firing mode.”
But the horror of novelty AR parts didn’t stop there for Dilanian. “Now, after I got a tip about this, I came across two other companies marketing AR-15 ammunition magazines with ‘Let's go Brandon’ stickers on them,” he reported in all seriousness.
If they can be used as real gun parts, they're not "novelty" parts. Nevertheless, Fondacaro labored to justify tgheir existence:
What MSNBC failed to mention was the fact that since lowers are the serialized part of an AR, they needed to be shipped to a federally licensed gun store and required a background check before the part could be handed over to the buyer. This meant that those able to acquire them were law-abiding gun owners.
And just because it had a “full-auto” engraving, didn’t mean it would be utilized that way. For a law-abiding gun owner to own a rifle capable of being fully automatic, they needed a special license from the ATF, which was a long and tedious process. A buyer could get the lower and simply use a normal single-shot trigger mechanism in it, or possibly a binary trigger.
This is just another example of how the liberal media are trying to criminalize dissent and portray those opposed to Biden as violent extremists and terrorists.
Fondacaro doesn't know that, of course. And the mere fact that gun parts are being emblazoned with a vulgar insult of a president means that the violence is very much implilcit. And he seems cool with that too. You can bet he would not be so sanguine if said parts were inscribed with an insult to Donald Trump.
Blast From The Past: CNS Obsesses About Obama Using First Person Singular Again Topic: CNSNews.com
One of CNSNews.com's longtime word obsessions regarding Barack Obama has been complaining that he referred to himself too much in speeches: a 2009 column by editor Terry Jeffrey railed at Obama for this, and Jeffrey went on to devoteentirearticles counting how many times Obama used first person singular in a given speech. (By comparison, Jeffrey and CNS had few complaints about Donald Trump's rampant narcissism.)
When Obama spoke at November's climate summit, the powers that be at CNS decided the time was right for more Obama-bashing potshots. First up was Susan Jones to complain about the content of Obama's speech:
Addressing climate change "is going to be really hard," President Barack Obama said in a speech Monday to the United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.
Speaking at the event in person, which means he burned fuel to fly there, Obama dedicated much of his speech to young people, urging them to make true believers of their elders and "to vote the issue -- vote like your life depends on it, because it does."
Jones made sure to note that Obama "used a personal example" by noting that he could afford to alter his lifestyle but most people can't.
That was followed by an anonymous article credited only to "CNSNews.com Staff" -- but almost certainly Jeffrey, since this is his bizarre bugaboo -- counting all the first person singular references in Obama's speech:
Former President Barack Obama used the first person singular pronouns “I” and “me” 56 times during the speech he delivered on Monday at the COP 26 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland.
Here is a video of his multitudinous expressions of "I" and "me:"
Obama set the tone early on in his speech, when he used the word “I’ about once every fourteenth word.
“I am a private citizen now so trips like this feel a little bit different than they used to,” Obama said. “I don’t get invited to the big group photo. Traffic is a thing again. Music doesn’t play when I walk into the room. On the positive side, I can give a speech like this without wearing a tie and not create a scandal back home. I hope. But even though I’m not required to attend summits like this anymore, old habits die hard.”
Jeffrey has never explained why Obama using first person singular sets him off so much -- and why Trump's narcissism doesn't bother him at all even though it has caused even further division in the country.
MRC Aims For Revisionism On GOP Attacks On Cleland Topic: Media Research Center
Brad Wilmouth is the Media Research Center's chief of historical revisionism -- see his attempts to recast Donald trump and the Central Park Five and claims about crimes committed by immigrants. He made another attempt to whitewash history in a Nov. 11 post:
On Tuesday's The 11th Hour show, MSNBC's Brian Williams began his last few weeks hosting the show by spreading more misinformation as he accused Republicans of running a "disgusting smear campaign" against veteran and then-Democratic Senator Max Cleland when he ran for reelection in 2002.
Picking up on the recent passing of the former Senator, Williams recalled some of his heroism that led Cleland to lose both legs and one arm, and to earn a Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Silver Star. The MSNBC host then took a shot at Republicans over something that happened 19 years ago.
Williams recalled: "He went on to get involved in politics -- U.S. Senator from Georgia -- later defeated by a disgusting GOP smear campaign that somehow he wasn't tough enough on terrorism. The attack ad showed him next to imagery of Osama bin Laden."
Although it has been repeatedly claimed in the liberal media that Cleland's face was paired next to that of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, the image of bin Laden was used in a different frame, as can be seen in video of the ad.
As for the reason he was defeated, which Williams did not elaborate on, Cleland's colleague from Georgia, then-Senator Zell Miller -- a conservative Democrat -- chalked up the loss to the more liberal Cleland supporting the unionization of the newly formed Homeland Security Department in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Wilmouth is nitpicking here and trying to attack Williams for something he didn't say -- note that he has to attribute the Cleland-bin Laden claim to "the liberal media" and not Williams himself. Cleland's picture in the ad may be in "a different frame" from bin Laden, but it also appears immediately after bin Laden's picture.
Wilmouth did not supply a link to back up his claim that Miller blamed Cleland's loss on "Cleland supporting the unionization of the newly formed Homeland Security Department." However, a 2003 Roll Call article reported that "Miller contends that Cleland lost because [then-Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle refused to allow the Senate to approve legislation creating the Homeland Security Department before the elections" -- which is not the claim Wilmouth made.
It seems Wilmouth would rather not remind people that Republicans aggressively questioned the patriotism of a soldier who lost three limbs in Vietnam.
WND Hypes Attempt to Rebrand Anti-Gay Conversion Therapy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rachel Alexander uncritically repeated in her Oct. 11 WorldNetDaily column:
It's no longer considered politically correct to discuss changing physical attraction from one gender to the other, but some are forging ahead to explore it anyway. The left preaches that people should be able to determine their own sexuality, but hypocritically doesn't defend the freedom to change from same-sex attraction to opposite-sex attraction.
A new study published in the the Journal of Human Sexuality examined 75 adult males who reported same-sex attractions and wanted to explore their sexual-attraction fluidity. Therapists skilled in reintegrative therapy worked with the men to seek and resolve past traumatic memories. The focus was on resolving this emotional pain, not actually changing attraction, which can occur naturally as a result of this therapy. One participant explained, "My therapist never tried to get me to change my sexuality, or who I was attracted to, but instead helped me to process traumatic memories from my past that had brought me shame and fear."
While there is a movement to get rid of so-called "conversion therapy," which in the past has involved aversion techniques like shame, pain or coercion to try to force people to change their gender attraction, reintegrative therapy is nothing like it. In reintegrative therapy, the patient drives the treatment; it's his choice. For whatever reason, the patients have chosen to change their sexual attraction. People on both sides are finally starting to understand that sexuality is fluid, that it's not just something that can be boiled down to either, "Are people born gay, or is it a choice?" And so far no one has discovered a "gay gene" either.
Its proponents honestly admit it doesn't work for everyone. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Jr. is following in the footsteps of his father, who pioneered the therapy. His father readily admitted that about one-third of his clients did not change their sexual attraction. However, the therapy helped them in other areas, such as improving family and peer relationships.
Alexander then worked to whitwash the image of anti-LGBT "therapists like Nicolosi Sr. (though she never refers to him by name) and burnish Nicolosi Jr.'s rebrand:
The battle of gay rights is essentially over. Gays can marry and have children, and students are taught to be proud of being gay. So why can't gays who want to explore changing their sexuality consider becoming straight of their own volition? Wasn't the whole gay rights movement about letting gays decide what they want to do sexually?
Reintegrative therapy isn't about religion. It's about individualism, people making choices for themselves. This is why so many gays and transgenders are emerging on the right. They realize the left only allows one viewpoint about LGBT issues, and at the same time they see through the left's lies that the right is their enemy.
Meanwhile, Nicolosi Jr. is upset whenever anyone reminds people of the legacy of his family and his therapy. Bob Unruh wrote in a Nov. 7 article:
The Reintegrative Therapy Association and its California-based founder, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, are suing two researchers who used their so-called scientific paper to lash out at "Reintegrative Therapy," which they claimed was a piece of the "conversion therapy" movement.
The action was filed in U.S. District Court in the southern district in California by the Thomas More Society and its supporting attorneys.
The California organization, which owns the name Reintegrative Therapy as a registered trademark, explains it is a "specific form of psychotherapy that treats traumas."
It has been known to "trigger spontaneous sexuality changes as a byproduct," the legal team explained, but it is "dangerous health misinformation by LGBT political activists" to characterize it as "conversion therapy."
However, Unruh didn't mention Nicolosi's father or the fact that his "reintegrative therapy" -- Unruh's article is such a copy-and-paste job that several references to the term still have the trademark symbol that was attached in the Thomas More Society press release -- has its roots in conversion therapy.He also couldn't be botyhered to try to add journalistic balance to his article by seeking a response from the researchers Nicolosi is suing.
Meanwhile, the lie was further put to Nicolosi Jr.'s lawsuit by the website trying to keep Nicolosi Sr.'s legacy alive. A pop-up window (screenshot above) on the site's front page links to a press release about the study promoted in Alexander's column with this text:
VINDICATED: Landmark study, just published, demonstrates sexuality change.
• Significant decrease in same-sex attraction experiences
• Significant increase in heterosexual attraction experiences
• Significant change in self-identity toward a heterosexual identity
• Significant increases in well-being, and decreases in psychological distress
Does that sound like a program that's not about conversion? Further, a video touting reintegrative therapy on Nicolosi Jr.'s website is titled, "This changed my sexuality."
Meanwhile, an observer noted that Nicolosi Jr.'s doctorate came from a school (the Chicago School of Professional Psychology) that wasn't accredited by the American Psychological Association at the time he received it, and that the Journal of Human Sexuality isn't exactly know for its peer review process.
Anti-Vaxxer MRC Sports Blogger Cheers Selfish Athletes Who Abandon Team By Refusing Vaccine Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted the anti-vaxxer activism of Media Research Center sports blogger John Simmons. There's more where that came from.
In an Oct. 13 post, Simmons cheered NBA star Kyrie Irving for refusing to get vaccinated and standing up the vaccine mandate of the supposedly evil NBA, even though he's being selfish and harming his team by doing so:
Irving is on point; his perception is not wrong. The NBA is trying to use their power and influence to get people to be vaccinated, and they are threatening to take away their employees’ livelihood in the process (while Irving is already a millionaire, he will lose an estimated $380,000 for every game he doesn’t play).
What we see in the NBA and with Irving’s situation is an extension of what we see in our nation at large, and Irving is perfectly in the right to protest the vaccine mandate. He and any others who stand against it will be ridiculed, but hopefully, enough will stand against it to create change.
Until then, we can only hope Irving will not cave to the pressure of getting the jab.
The following week, Simmons defended Irving's selfishness when notorious individual Charles Barkley called Irving out on it:
Cleveland Clinic infectious disease specialist Lyssette Cardona, MD, said that there is still a chance that vaccinated people could get COVID-19, which means that you can still spread it to anyone you meet. Can it help your immune system in the physical battle against COVID? Sure. But is it a magical cure that will remove sickness for good? No.
So “getting it for other people” seems like a weak argument to use when criticizing another person for their decision. This argument is emotion-driven and not based on the reality that no matter what decision we all make, sickness and COVID-19 are just a byproduct of an imperfect world, and there is nothing we can do to fully eliminate it.
It sounds like anyone who uses this reasoning, including Barkley, is simply too scared of being sick to continue to live a normal life, and further needs everyone else to cater to their emotional needs. And that is more selfish than someone not getting the COVID jab because of personal preference.
Getting a vaccine is simply a matter of personal choice, nothing more, nothing less. Kyrie Irving is perfectly within his rights as an individual to not get the vaccine, and no one should coerce him into changing his mind, not even the great Round Mound of Rebound.
On Oct. 19, Simmons had a sad that Washington State University football coach Nick Rolovich was fired for not getting vaccinated, again portraying selfishness as individualism (apparently forgetting there's no I in team):
The beauty of individual autonomy is that you should have the freedom to make a decision without explaining why you did something, especially not the vaccine mob that apparently has a stronghold in Washington State’s government and colleges. Whether it is a vaccine mandate, our religion, our career paths, or where we live, we have the ability to choose and not be scrutinized for those decisions.
Rolovich and his assistant may have lost their jobs because of this, but they have chosen to value their freedom than comfort, something that will pay dividends in the long run.
Simmons found another selfish person to tout in an Oct. 22 post:
It’s been quite a week for Allison Williams. An ESPN college basketball and football reporter for 10 years, she quit the network last week because she declined to get vaccinated, and ESPN rejected her request for an accommodation. On Thursday, Williams did an interview with Megyn Kelly on her eponymous SiriusXM show, Williams criticized the president and others easily given to dismiss our freedom via COVID-19 vaccination mandates. And on Friday it was announced she’s joining the conservative Daily Signal.
During said interview, Kelly asked Williams about President Joe Biden (stupidly) remarking last month that the vaccine mandate “isn’t about your freedom.” Williams torched him for throwing freedom under the bus:
Because right-wingers like Williams and Simmons have decided that personal convenience is more important than public health, apparently.
Simmons went to the tennis world for his latest selfish athlete in an Oct. 26 post:
Novak Djokovic is without question one of the greatest tennis players of our generation. Nevertheless, he is often branded as a villain of the sport due to his racket-smashing shenanigans and his willingness to challenge the level-headed, gentlemanly mold of a tennis player with his intense competitiveness. But the villain might now be the hero in a greater cause after his stand against the Australian government.
Ahead of the Australian Open, the first leg of the tennis Grand Slam that is set to be held in January, Australian Minister for Immigration Alex Hawke said that anyone wishing to enter the country, not just tennis players, must be “double vaccinated” to cross their border.
Djokovic fired back at the command with the same force as one of his serves, telling local Serbian media that:
I will not reveal my status whether I have been vaccinated or not, it is a private matter and an inappropriate inquiry … People go too far these days in taking the liberty to ask questions and judge a person. Whatever you say -- ‘Yes, no, maybe, I am thinking about it,’ they will take advantage.
It appears that Djokovic having a spine and standing up to the bullies in the Australian government paid off. Yesterday, Tennis Australia, the governing body for Tennis in the country, announced that unvaccinated players will be allowed to participate in the tournament as long as they undergo a two-week quarantine period beforehand (this course of action goes against their original plan to have all tennis players vaccinated).
Djokovic’s convicted stance against tyranny is without a doubt a major victory for unvaccinated players and it is what likely forced Tennis Australia to change course (after all, how could they afford to forgo the millions they would lose in revenue if Djokovic refused to join the tournament?). But it also speaks to a more important lesson about just how easy it can be stand up to bullies and tyrants.
Just like a right-winger to portray people trying to preserve public health as "bullies and tyrants."
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is the only present scientific way of measuring deaths and injuries from any vaccine – including the COVID-19 vaccine. It's not my system. It's not based on politics. It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal opinions.
It is a science-based medical reporting system provided by the government and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It is the only way of keeping track of deaths, crippling injuries and adverse reactions from any vaccine. It has been used for many decades.
No one in the medical community or media has EVER in history ignored or disparaged VAERS before – until now.
Here are the VAERS numbers: Over 17,000 Americans are reported dead from this vaccine – mostly from strokes, heart attacks and blood clots. Over 800,000 are reported injured, many of them hospitalized (over 83,000), many with life-threatening illness (over 18,000) and many others permanently disabled (over 26,000).
This information is all publicly available and provided by the CDC. This cannot be called "misleading" by anyone in the media. The very definition of "misleading" would be to either disparage or ignore VAERS and not report on it daily to your readers.
The number of deaths and significant injuries reported to VAERS is now dramatically higher than in the past 30-plus years combined. This has happened in only 10 months.
That's a fact. Facts cannot be "misleading."
Actually, facts can be "misleading" if you don't report all facts that are relevant to an issue -- and that's exactly what Root is doing here. As actual doctors stated about VAERS:
VAERS is set up to capture potential adverse events caused by vaccines. It is the best tool we have to find what may be previously unrecognized and extraordinarily rare adverse events that may eventually be linked.
VAERS cannot and does not determine whether a vaccine caused something. The CDC states this clearly in their disclaimer: "A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination." The disclaimer continues, "The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental or unverifiable."
Root is deliberately misleading his readers by censoring the fct that none of those deaths reported to VAERS has been confirmed to have been directly attributable to the vaccine. Yet Root continued to rant:
Even more facts and SCIENCE ...
Studies are in from many countries, but in particular the U.K. and Israel, reporting:
No. 1: The vaccine is in fact failing miserably – a huge majority of recent cases, hospitalizations and deaths are among double vaccinated individuals. FACT.
No. 2: Cases are slightly higher in countries with higher vaccination rates, and slightly lower in countries with lower vaccination rates.
These are factual, credible, scientific studies from multiple countries.
Yet Root didn't link to any of them so we could judge for ourselves. He concluded:
More importantly, the very definition of "science" is asking questions and debating.
To not ask questions, especially in the face of so many Americans sick with COVID-19 who are double vaccinated, and so many dead or injured directly from the vaccine as reported by VAERS, would make someone either naive, gullible, blind, deaf or very dumb.
I'm proud that my time at Columbia University taught me to think critically, ask questions, never accept as fact what any government agency or authority figure says and always be a fearless debater.
We're pretty sure that Root's time at Columbia didn't teach him to deceive his readers in order to politicize science and health for partisan reasons. You know, just like he tried to further birther conspiracies by claiming he never met Obama at Columbia while both were students there, never mind that Columbia is a very large university and Root would have no reason to have met Obama at the time.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC's School Wars, Part 3: The False Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center wants you to believe that a national school boards group and the Justice Department want to criminalize every person who speaks at a school board meeting. But even the MRC's own fact-check didn't back up that claim. Read more >>
Bias: CNS Devoted Article To Trump's Veterans Day Message -- But Not Biden's Topic: CNSNews.com
A Nov. 11 article by Craig Bannister was a very gushy piece to a certain former president:
On Thursday, former President Donald Trump released a Veterans Day video, in which he expresses his extreme gratitude to all of those who have served in the U.S. military.
Trump begins by paying tribute to all of the “incredible people” who have served the nation:
"We love you, our nation respects you, the world respects you – and, we will come back,” Trump promises, noting that America has experience “very, very tough” times of late:
“Our country has gone through a lot. The last period of time has been very, very tough, watching what you had to watch. But, our country will be back and will be back stronger than ever.”
“Happy Veterans Day," Trump concludes.
As the Western Journal reports, as Commander-in-Chief, Pres. Trump was an active supporter of the U.S. military. In 2018, he made a surprise visit to troops in Iraq. He issued an executive order streamlining student loan debt-forgiveness for disabled veterans and also signed bills expanding benefits for U.S. service members.
While CNS served up a Veterans Day tribute from a man who got five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam, one of which was based on the dubious medical diagnosis of bone spurs, it did not publish a similar article about the Veterans Day message from the current president, even though President Biden issued one.
Does CNS hate Biden so much that it thinks a Veterans Day message from a man whose aggressive avoidance of military service is well known though he once attended a military school is more important than a message from the sitting president? Apparently so.
Oh, and Bannister didn't mention that the Western Journal -- his source for Trump's alleged accomplishments -- isn't exactly a fair and balanced media outlet; Media Bias/Fact Check labels it as far right with questionable accuracy.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Back To Work Edition Topic: Media Research Center
After taking a good chunk of November off from his self-appointed duties of bashing Jen Psaki and fluffing Peter Doocy, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck tried to get back into the swing of things as December began. Indeed, he was in full Doocy-gasm mode for the Dec. 1 briefing, which also featured Anthony Fauci:
With the liberal media in a tailspin over the omicron strain of the coronavirus, Wednesday’s White House press briefing was jam-packed with both Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Dr. Antony [sic] Fauci, so Fox’s Peter Doocy naturally brought the heat and actually challenged the administration while other lobbed fear-mongering questions.
When Doocy first got a crack at Fauci, he set Fauci up with a seemingly benign question: “Dr. Fauci, as you have advised the President about the possibility of new testing requirements for people coming into this country, does that include everybody?”
Skip ahead to Psaki’s turn and, after wishing her a happy birthday, Doocy hit the administration for demanding “these vaccine mandates for workers” despite the fact that “federal courts are saying that they don’t know if they’re legal” and Biden “talks about...respecting the rule of law[.]”
Psaki said she needed to “clarify exactly what we’re talking about” and claimed “a lot of companies” are implementing mandates even without the force of the federal government because “it makes sure they have a healthier workplace,” so it’s almost irrelevant.
Doocy grew blunter in his next question: “[W]hat ever happened to President Biden’s promise to shut down the virus?”
After Psaki said they’re still “working on it,” Doocy noted that “there’s another variant” and thus has the White House’s thinking shifted to telling Americans “that the President, instead of shutting down the virus, is going to try to help people live amidst the virus and go about their lives[.]”
Of course, Psaki said people should know that the administration is “all sick and tired of this virus,” but blames it on the fact that not enough Americans are vaccinated.
Houck went on to obsequiously gush over another "zinger" question from Doocy.
Houck cheered on Doocy's partisan shots at Vice President Kamala Harris at the Dec. 2 briefing:
The omicron strain of the coronavirus continued to suck up much of the oxygen on Thursday as the liberal media’s fear machine dominated The Psaki Show, but Fox’s Peter Doocy focused on other topics as he sparred with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki over the staffing turmoil in Vice President Kamala Harris’s office and the rampant crime in American cities.
After citing the confirmed and reported staffing changes, Doocy didn’t waste any time in firing off this question: “Is the Vice President not satisfied with the staffing that she has had so far or do people just not want to work for her anymore?”
Psaki did her job as well, insisting that “working on a presidential campaign...and working in the first year of a White House is exciting and rewarding but it’s also grueling and exhausting” and thus “it’s natural for staffers who’ve thrown their heart and soul into a job to be ready to move on to a new challenge.”
After she added she wouldn’t speak to any particular announcements other than Symone Sanders’s departure and Harris’s office would have more information, Doocy pressed as to whether it’s “not a case of bad headlines...and a decision...to shake” things “up...to fix an image issue.”
Psaki made clear she wouldn’t have much else to say besides complimenting Sanders, so Doocy broadened things out and specifically whether Harris believes her “staff are to blame for her not making any kind of meaningful progress on the big things in portfolio” like immigration and voting.
Again, Psaki wasn’t interested, leaving Doocy to pivot to crime and citing how big cities are dealing with smash-and-grab robberies, a record number of police officers have been shot and killed this year.”
Apparently, Houck can't fathom why Psaki might get tired of taking hostile, biased questions from a partisan reporter.
Houck continued his role as Fox News press release writer with more Doocy-gasming at the Dec. 3 briefing:
An ill President Biden served as a focus of Friday’s White House press briefing, so it was natural that Fox’s Peter Doocy was in the middle of it in questioning Press Secretary Jen Psaki on that as well as the Build Back Better (BBB) Act and China’s refusal to allow for a complete investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.
Similarly, Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann drilled home the plight of Chinese Uighurs and Voice of America’s Patsy Widakuswara brought up new Chinese provocations against Taiwan. At the opposite end of the spectrum, others continued pushing draconian Covid mandates with one trumpeting an Orwellian move out of Germany.
Doocy led with BBB and specifically whether there was “any thought...to maybe waiting for Build Back Better until a month that you don't have this big miss in the jobs report?”
Psaki quipped there were “a lot of things gathered into that question,” but she rejected the premise by returning to past White House talking points dismissing the CBO.
Doocy thanked Psaki and said he would “include that in our coverage,” but things got even more amusing when Doocy broke the fourth wall:
PSAKI: I look forward to seeing it on Fox later today.
DOOCY: It's on Fox right now, I think. [POINTS AT THE CAMERA]
PSAKI: I bet it is.
Then again, Fox News couldn't possibly pay Houck enough for all his fangirling over Doocy.
Newsmax Toots Own Horn On Va. Election Projection Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has a grudge against Fox News for (correctly) calling that Joe Biden would beat Donald Trump in Arizona in the 2020 presidential election -- to the point that it took great umbrage that Fox News re-hired the analyst who made that (again, correct) call.
It was not shy, however, about making its own (and correct) early call in the Virginia gubernatorial election, so much so that Eric Mack devoted a Nov. 3 article to tooting his employer's horn, under the headline "Newsmax First to Call Virginia Gubernatorial Race for Youngkin":
Newsmax has declared GOP candidate Glenn Youngkin has defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial election, held alongside local and state races across the nation on Tuesday night.
Decision Desk HQ also made its early projection via tweet at 8:37 p.m. ET. The latest AP ballot results from Virginia will be updated live here.
A McAuliffe loss in Virginia, which Democratic President Joe Biden won by a double-digit margin over Republican then-President Donald Trump last year, would represent a demoralizing setback for national Democrats. McAuliffe saw his lead in public polls evaporate in the campaign's closing weeks.
McAuliffe came out to speak to his supporters at his election headquarters at 10:20 p.m. ET, but refused to concede the election, saying there was 18% of the vote remaining to be reported and he wanted to be sure every vote is counted.
Mack then touted Donald Trump's nastiness at McAuliffe and praise for his supporters in backing Youngkin.
This was followed by a Nov. 4 column by Dick Morris complaining that the networks didn't call Youngkin the winner, imagining that it was because McAuliffe was "preparing for a lawsuit to contest the election results" if he lost. He then lashed out at Fox News for also not calling the race early, like Newsmax did:
In 2020, in the face of massive evidence of Democratic chicanery, Fox News called Arizona for Biden 20 minutes after polls closed, largely at the reported prompting of Fox’s election decision desk director Arnon Absalom Mishkin.
Mishkin, a known Democratic operative with ties to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, should have been fired for his unseemly haste on the election night of 2020
Instead, Fox News has stated they are re-hiring him for election coverage through the 2024 election.
It made no sense that outlets like Fox News hesitated all Tuesday night before bowing to the obvious and declaring Youngkin the winner.
Apparently, Fox News only declares races prematurely when the Democrat is winning.
Morris studiously omitted the fact that Mishkin's call was correct and has since been proven correct -- and the "massive evidence of Democratic chicanery" has never credibly surfaced.
CNS Again Touts Right-Wing Business Group, Hides That They Share A Funder Topic: CNSNews.com
We'venoted how CNSNews.com loves to quote the right-wing Job Creators Network -- just as much as it loves to refuse to disclose the conflict of interest that JCN is funded by the Mercer family, which also happens to be the largest individual donor to CNS' parent, the Media Research Center. Well, JCN got some more love from CNS in a Nov. 8 article by Megan Wlliams:
One of the nation’s leading small business advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate last Thursday, citing an unnecessary exacerbation of the worst labor shortage the U.S. has experienced in decades.
The Job Creators Network (JCN) is suing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for their emergency temporary standard requiring all businesses with 100 or more employees to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations and enforce the regular mask-wearing and testing of unvaccinated employees.
JCN’s President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz said in a press release that OSHA does not have the authority, nor a big enough threat posed by COVID-19, to create or enforce such a mandate.
This was followed by a Nov. 10 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman hyping JCN some more:
The Biden administration apparently is concerned that its COVID vaccine mandate for private-sector employers could lose in court, according to the Job Creators Network (JCN), and this is why it is urging companies to proceed with the vaccinations despite a federal court's ruling to halt the mandate pending a review.
“The Biden administration signals that it smells defeat on its illegal vaccine mandate by urging businesses to comply with it despite a federal court freeze," said JCN President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz in a statement.
"By encouraging businesses to continue implementing vaccine rules for their employees, the Biden administration must be worried about losing and is trying to get as many employers to comply before its ultimate demise," he added.
JCN's Ortiz said, "We encourage the courts to listen to small business plaintiffs like us and turn this vaccine mandate temporary stay into a permanent block, freeing small businesses and their employees to get back to work bringing the economy back.”
"President Biden is completely out of touch with reality and is under the misguided impression that this unconstitutional mandate will not have a detrimental impact on the small business community," Ortiz said. "We know better and we will continue to fight until it is completely eliminated.”
Neither Williams nor Chapman acted in a journalistically responsible manner by disclosing to readers that CNS and JCN share a major source of funding.
In a shocking departure from traditional hospital policies, admission to a hospital has become like reporting to prison. Prisoners in America's jails have more visitation rights than do COVID patients in America's hospitals.
One family member, a professional psychologist with a career focus treating victims of trauma, said that in many hospitals COVID patients are treated "little better than animals."
Shocking recordings of Mayo Clinic-Scottsdale and Banner Health System hospital executives have been released by an attorney on the Legal Advisory Council of Truth for Health Foundation, an Arizona public charity. Executives were discussing coordinated efforts to restrict fluids and nutrition for hospitalized COVID patients and to suppress all visitations for COVID patients.
The COVID Protocol hospital physicians must follow, in lockstep across the U.S., appears to be the implementation of the 2009-2010 "Complete Lives System" developed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel for rationing medical care for people older than 50.
Weirdly, Vliet doesn't actually quote anything from these purported "shocking recordings" -- let alone that there's any link to the right-wing bogeyman that is the "Complete Lives System" -- nor does she provide a direct link to them at the Truth for Health Foundation; she simply links to the group's home page, where it's not even highlighted. Also, Vliet hides the fact that the "Complete Lives System" is about allocation of scarce medical resources, not routine medical care. We don't know what is on those recordings since Vliet would rather fearmonger than offer facts, but the discussions may actually be referring to triage, a situation that governs how medical resources are allocated when dealing with a large number of patients... such as emergency rooms and intensive care units being swamped by COVID patients.
You'd think a doctor like Vliet would know the difference. Apparently not.
Vliet's description of the Truth for Health Foundation as "an Arizona public charity" also sticks out like a sore thumb. But one has to go down pastd the end of her column to read her bio to understand why:
Dr. Vliet is the President and CEO of Truth for Health Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public charity, and the creator of the Foundation's innovative six initiatives that advocate for early outpatient COVID treatment, assist families of hospitalized patients denied effective treatment, defend medical freedom, and provide international educational and training programs focused on effective strategies for COVID and on the interconnections of health, faith and lifestyle approaches for restoring resilience and quality of life.
If that sounds like her foundation is more about politicizing COVID with dubious medicine, you're correct. A list of the people involved in it is a rogue's gallery of dubious docs:
The chief medical adviser is Peter McCullough, a rogue doctor whose COVID misinformation WND loves to spread.
The chief scientific adviser is Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer scientist who has become a right-wing anti-vaxxer hero by spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines.
The "Director of Evidence-Based Medicine and Research Methodology" is Paul Alexander, who is best known for piushing a highly risky herd immunity strategy while as a Trump White House appointee.
The "Surgery and Family Medicine Advisor" is Dierdre Byrne, whom we've noted is a pro-Trump nun and ex-surgeon who thinks people should refuse to take COVID vaccines because they were developed using fetal tissue descended from an abortion (something even the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute disputes).
Vliet went on to melodramatically write:
The heartbreaking story of Veronica Wolski, a well-known Chicago Freedom advocate, was widely publicized. Once hospitalized in ironically named Resurrection Hospital, Veronica was given Remdesivir, which she had repeatedly refused, denied proper basic medical care that could have been lifesaving, and was not allowed access to her family, priest, or health care power of attorney. Veronica was blocked from leaving the hospital when she and her attorneys demanded release. Her health care power of attorney was removed by hospital security. Veronica died alone as a medical prisoner in a Catholic hospital, denied even a priest at the end of her life.
Wolski was a QAnon supporter and anti-vaxxer who also opposed wearing masks. when she inevitably came down with COVID, she demanded to be treated with ivermectin, which the hospital refused to do. Ivermectin has not been approved for treating COVID, no matter how right-wingers like Vliet toss around dubious studies purporting to show its efficacy, and Vliet is apparently so ignorant that she doesn't understand that remdesivir is basic and potentially lifesaving treatment for COVID. Wolski was not a "medical prisoner"; she lived her life in a way that this sort of death was sadly inevitable.
Vliet then tried to manufacture a conspiracy around remdesivir:
Patients are coerced to take rapidly approved drugs like Remdesivir, in spite of known risks of kidney and liver failure, and to be placed on ventilators, both of which bring in incentive payments and create huge profits for hospitals.
As we noted when fellow misinformer Joel Hirschhorn peddled a similar conspiracy theory, remdesivir is not killing people, and patients must undergo kidney and liver tests prior to treatment to make sure it is safe for them.
Another MRC Sports Blogger Goes The Anti-Vaxxer Route Topic: Media Research Center
The mysterious Jay Maxson is not the only Media Research Center sports blogger who has been embracing COVID anti-vaxxer attitudes. John Simmons' second-ever item at the MRC was an Aug. 27 post complaining that at British soccer coach urged his players to get vaccinated:
However, a vaccine will never guarantee that a disease will go away. After all, people who got the flu vaccine before the COVID outbreak could still get the flu at a later date. According to the CDC, the flu vaccine’s effectiveness varies from season to season and further varies from person to person depending on age, health status, body type, and other factors.
In the end, COVID might be something that just becomes some new sickness we have to deal with as part of our daily lives. But to say that athletes must take the vaccine in order to fully protect themselves against is is absurd in every sense.
But COVID is not the flu, and it's a testament to Simmons' willful ignorance that he wants you to believe it is.
The next day, Simmons turned his attention to American football:
Imagine a world in which a professional athlete – in peak physical shape -- could be ridiculed and punished for not taking an experimental vaccine for a disease with a minimal death rate.
Sounds too ridiculous to actually happen, right? Well, not exactly.
Bills wide receivers Isaiah McKenzie and Cole Beasley already been punished by the NFL under it's ridiculous mandates. On Thursday, the NFL fined Beasley for an infraction, with the star wideout saying on Twitter that he was “disciplined for not wearing a mask for ‘literally 5 steps’ from the entry door to the locker room after wearing it ‘the whole day.’”
The NFL has gone far overboard in creating and enforcing mask mandates. In June, the NFL said that vaccinated players will only have to get tested once every two weeks and will not have to quarantine if exposed through contact tracing, while unvaccinated players will be tested every day and will have to quarantine if they come into contact with someone who had COVID.
Think that’s absurd? Just wait.
The fines for violating the NFL’s protocols could average $14,650 per infraction. That includes an unvaccinated player attending an indoor bar or nightclub or attending an indoor concert or entertainment event. A fine of up to $50,000 applies to more serious violations, such as a player failing to cooperate with an investigation into protocol compliance.
In fact, the COVID vaccines are not "experimental" --the Pfizer vaccine was officially approved by the FDA five days before Simmons' post. But Simmons still wasn't done with the anti-vaxx whining:
Football athletes are some of the most physically fit people on the planet. They eat healthy, train for hours every day, and have vast medical resources at their disposal. Of all people, they should be able to fight COVID-19 effectively without taking a vaccine, let alone being punished if they don’t.
The NFL has turned into a microcosm of what is happening in our country today: segregation of “good and bad people” based of vaccination status and beating into submission those who will not comply with their rules.
NFL players who have not been vaccinated should stay strong and do not cave to the fearmongering wackos running the league. If they don’t want the jab, they shouldn’t have to take it, plain and simple.
Simmons complained more about vaccine mandates in pro football in a Sept. 2 post, repeating his bogus COVID-is-the-flu argument and gushing over players being perfect physical specimens before huffing that a team's decision to cut players based on their vaccine status is the exact same thing as racism:
Let it be said again, there is reason a professional athletes may not need to take the vaccine. One gander at a sideline of athletes – especially football athletes – are some of the most physically in-shape individuals on the planet. Furthermore, the NFL dedicates an ungodly amount of medical resources to ensure that their players stay healthy, so combining that with their incredible physical health and you have a demographic of people who should be the least concerned about their vaccination status.
The CDC has said that a vaccine’s effectiveness varies from season to season and person to person in terms of helping prevent sickness. So if the COVID vaccine- which has only been tested for months and not years-is just like any other vaccine, then it would be foolish for any sports team to make cuts based on something that has not been proven effective -such as the COVID-19 vaccine.
In the past, teams wrongfully used to make personnel decisions over skin color. Thankfully, we have moved past this foolish determinant of whether or not to allow an athlete to play a sport. But now, it seems we are reverting back to our old ways of discriminating against people and making them appear as second-rate citizens, this time based on someone’s medical history.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
That statement also applies to absurd right-wing comparisons.
On Sept. 22, Simmons gushed over unvaccinated NFL Buffalo Bills player Cole Beasley for offering to buy tickets for unvaccinated Bills fans to road games, since the home stadium requires fans to be vaccinated: "In a world where burning buildings and shaming white people has become a widely accepted form of protesting against something we disagree with, this is the type of demonstration you like to see, especially from someone with a platform as big as Beasley’s. ... If only the NFL would support protesting like this, and not demonstrations that disrespect our national anthem or supporting organizations that burn down cities and promote radical ideology.
In a Sept. 27 post, Simmons frowned on the NBA's Golden State Warriors refusing to give player Andrew Wiggins a religious exemption, adding, "Wiggins has not been clear what religion he follows, but the type of religion shouldn’t matter in this situation."He didn't mention the highly relevant fact that no major religious denomination opposes vaccination, and that many people lie about having "religious" objections to vaccines. Nevertheless, he lectured:
To many of us, the most important element of life is our religion. It influences every decision we make and helps guide our conscience in matters of right and wrong. Our Constitution protects the individual’s right to practice the freedom of religion, one of the many things that make this country so special. Unfortunately, the NBA and the city of San Francisco don’t care about people’s religious beliefs.
This should be another warning sign to Americans as to the depths to which our government and business leaders have stooped to force people to conform to what the government says. Every totalitarian or communist government in history has sought to persecute those who do not view the government as the Almighty power on Earth. When you don’t comply, your life will become miserable, and they will start stripping away elements of your freedom and your values until you finally give in. That is what America is now viewing as acceptable.
Do people have a constitutional right to infect others with a potentially deadly virus? Simmons didn't say.
WND Columnist Thinks It's 'Idolatry' To Get A COVID Vaccine Topic: WorldNetDaily
Apparently feeling left out among all the other COVID misinformers published beside him, WorldNetDaily columnist Elliot Resnick decided to stake his misinformation claim in his Oct. 29 column:
On what basis can someone claim a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate? Most people think it must be narrow and specific – for example, an objection to the use of aborted fetal tissue in the development of the vaccine. But for the 100 million Americans who already had COVID, the basis can be – indeed, should be – much more fundamental. Let's begin by reviewing two facts:
1. Never in the history of vaccination campaigns have people who already recovered from a targeted disease been asked to vaccinate themselves against it. The reason is obvious: A vaccine is designed to fool the body into thinking it is being attacked by a disease so that it can build a robust defense against it. If the actual disease, however, already attacked the body, there's no reason to fool it.
2. A recent scientific study found that vaccinated people are 13 times more likely to get COVID-19 than are people who already had COVID and recovered from it.
What does any of this have to do with religion? Simple. The Judeo-Christian tradition calls on man to use the unique divine gift with which he's been blessed – the human brain – to conduct his life. If a person shuts off his brain, if he ignores clear scientific data that demonstrate that taking the COVID-19 vaccine is unnecessary, he's rejecting God's gift. He's acting like a brute animal rather than a sentient human. In short, he's committing a profoundly irreligious act.
Thus, if a person ignores scientific data – if he irrationally receives the COVID-19 vaccine despite having recovered from the disease – he is effectively adopting the pre-biblical view of the ancient pagans who engaged in superstitious practices to ward off danger. In other words, he is arguably practicing a form of idolatry.
Actually, the scientific data is overwhelmingly in favor of people who have previously contracted COVID also getting the vaccine:
The Mayo Clinic stated, "A recent study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than twice as likely as fully vaccinated people to get reinfected with COVID-19."
OSF Healthcare similarly pointed out research showing "previously infected people who received the first dose of vaccination rapidly developed a higher concentration of antibodies needed to prevent reinfection."
The Cleveland Clinic reported that it's unclear how long antibodies from an infection last, and a vaccine will help keep the immune system going.
Johns Hopkins Medicine cited numerous research studies "that support getting vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19."
Instead of following the actual science, Resnick declared that refusing to get a COVID vaccine is some kind of moral imperative:
To resist such authoritarian orders is a religious imperative. Bible adherents worship one god and one god only. Only He can demand absolute obedience from us. Only He can ask us to walk with Him blindly, against all reason. No one else can. And if someone tries to, he is usurping God's role and asking us to worship someone other than Him.
In sum, for the 100 million Americans who already recovered from COVID-19, taking the vaccine means shutting off one's brain, rejecting modern science and irrationally submitting to a mortal power. All three are religious crimes, and therefore every Bible believer among them must be granted a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate.
It seems Resnick may need a little remedial religious education -- though he claims to be "the former chief editor of The Jewish Press" -- on top of a scientific one.