MRC Lashes Out At CNN's Stelter For Criticizing Fox News On Its 25th Anniversary Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's line on Fox News is that 1) it should never be criticized for having a right-wing bias, even though the MRC's stock in trade is attacking what it thinks is "liberal bias" in media, and 2) should never be criticized at all, unless it's by them for not being right-wing enough. So when Fox News marked its 25th anniversary in October, the MRC was ready to lash out at the haters -- particularly CNN's Brian Stelter, whose recent book on Fox News the MRC predictably trashed.
Nicholas Fondacaro was dishing out the Stelter haterade in an Oct. 3 post:
Invoking a tone one would expect a parent to use to inform a child of something tragic, CNN’s Brian Stelter concluded Sunday’s so-called “Reliable Sources” by informing his meager viewers that Fox News would be celebrating its 25-year anniversary the coming week. Warning them that they could see commercials for it, Stelter lashed out at his ratings superior by equating them to the diseased heart of the Republican Party, ready to give out at any moment. He even suggested Fox had torn apart families.
“You'll probably hear a lot about Fox News this week. The network is turning 25 and running lots of commercials celebrating its birthday,” he announced in his clownishly sober tone. “But you won't hear any honest assessment of Fox on Fox of how the network has changed America.”
After hawking his trashy anti-Fox News book, yet again, Stelter suggested Fox was about to have a heart attack, grotesquely whining about them being patriotic after 9/11, and bashing them for being pro-America:
The idea that someone with Stelter’s physique would say Fox had “clogged arteries and weak muscles” was as rich as his favorite chocolate cake.
Because attacking your target's physical appearance is always a sign your underlying intellectual argument is sound.
When Stelter brought up Fox News' culture of sexual harassment as practiced and exemplified by founder Roger Ailes, Fondacaro went into paroxysm of whataboutism:
“But for all the fun, there's so much darkness in Fox's history,” he sneered as he brought up Roger Ailes:
You won't see Roger Ailes in the retrospectives, but his abuse of women, his leg cam, his paranoia, his rage; it’s what translated into the network that exists today. Full of rage, anger. It’s the whitelash on TV, although, often delivered with a smile. Ailes also brought us Donald Trump.
Do you know what you won’t see in any CNN retrospectives? How they helped Saddam Hussein peddle propaganda, how they tried to defame a teen as a racist and were forced to pay him money, how both Cuomo and Lemon were accused of sexual assault and weren't fired, how boss Jeff Zucker has torn down the company and its reputation, or how they’ve eviscerated journalistic ethics.
And as he was wrapping up his vapid rant, Stelter equated Fox News to a tool of arsonists, declaring: “…the political science research is clear: Fox is not just a mirror, it's an accelerant.” He then touted the coming release of another anti-Fox News book “The Brainwashing of My Dad and it’s about exactly what you think.” “ For the families who feel they have been torn apart by Fox, this week is not a happy anniversary,” he squeaked.
In reality, it’s the leftist kids who just can’t accept the fact that their parents had different opinions and were rabid enough to ruin their relationship over it.
Given that, again, the book had not yet been released, Fondacaro cannot possibly know its contents or that it's solely about intolerant "leftist kids."
Needless to say, Fondacaro's boss and fellow Stelter-hater, Tim Graham, wanted in on this action too, so he dedicated his Oct. 4 podcast to similarly dumping on Stelter fot committing the greivous offense of criticizing Fox News. He began by perpetuating the fiction that Fox News is "fair and balanced" -- to Graham, it meansuncritically repeating right-wing talking points -- and continued to refuse to admit it has any sort of bias, instead speaking in code that "we like Fox News precisely because it breaks the monopoly and monotony of the liberal media. ... They don't get to constantly put conservatives on defense and then have no idea what it feels like to have to go on defense."
Then it was Stelter-trashing and whataboutism time, starting with echoing Fondacaro's insult about Stelter's appearance, which Graham claimed to want to avoid but we doubt he ever disciplined Fondacaro for making it:
Now, I'm not going to go exactly where Nick Fondacaro went by mocking Brian Stelter's dieting habits and whether he has clogged arteries -- no fat-shaming here, I'm a llittle too fat -- but mocking the opposition channel that kicks your keister down ratings street on and daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis is a really interesting analogy coming from CNN.
Let's have some fun with this. Let's sort of count the ways of what Stelter is saying is wrong. First of all, who is CNN to say another network is far too aligned with a political party? As usual, they have to fall back on the idea that almost every media outlet has clogged arteries for the Democrats. They're all pumping out liberal, partisan talking points. Fox seems alone, it somehow stands alone. It is the outliler so it is the Cloggy McCcogged-Heart. The overall sound you get from this is the liberals wishing ths conservative channel had never been born. They wanted it aborted like Ralph Northam took it outside, made it comfortable and then made sure it didn't happen.
When Stelter brought up Fox News founder Ailes' history of sexual harassment, Graham retorted with mroe whataboutism: "You can lament the way Roger Ailes treated women. But it's a little odd to find all the darkness over there, Brian, where there at your own CNN you have Jeffrey Toobin unpunished for spanking the monkey on a Zoom call in front of the females, you have Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon both accused of sexual harassment as well. Where's the darkness in CNN's history?" Note that Graham doesn't actally "lament" Ailes' harassment history, let alone criticize it. He then added to the whataboutism by blaming the media industry as a whole for patterns of sexual harassment.
Meanwhile, the MRC-approved, conservatively correct take on Fox News' anniversary came in Jeffrey Lord's gushy Oct. 9 column, in whcih he praised Ailes for having "combined an instinctive understanding of both television and American politics that proved to be an invaluable asset in the creating of Fox News" but being careful not to mention his history of sexual harassment.He too attacked Stelter for his book about Fox News that purportedly had "no self-awareness that it was CNN that spent the Trump era falsely purveying the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, a classic conspiracy theory endlessly pursued not just by CNN but the rest of the liberal media." Lord clearly didn't read the Mueller report.
He concluded with this glurgy tribute: "So on the 25th anniversary of Fox News, let it be said that the term visionary, exactly as Jonathan Swift defined it as 'the art of seeing things invisible' is exactly what describes Rupert Murdoch and his vision of the once invisible dream of Fox News."
That's what the MRC wants the entire media to sound like.
God will stop protecting America through His grace if the U.S. becomes a nation where federal law makes it legal to abort an unborn child at any point during pregnancy, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) warned on Tuesday.
In remarks on the House floor, the congresswoman implored her colleagues to vote against the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755) when it comes up for a vote this week.
Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research tried that trick on another bill in an Oct. 15 column, stating that "There is no doubt that teacher union bosses scored a $200 billion victory over taxpayers with the adoption of the so-called 'American Rescue Plan' in March." The American Rescue Plan is, in fact, the actual name of the plan and the legislation it was passed through.
Right-wing Catholic priest Michael P. Orsi referred to the "so-called 'infrastructure' bill" in his Oct. 27 column. The name of the bill is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, so "infrastructure bill" is what it's actually called.
The biggest abuser, though, has been Susan Jones, who has repeatedly dismissed the Build Back Better plan as "so-called":
As for the so-called Build Back Better/reconciliation package, Manchin said he agrees with some of what's in it. -- Nov. 4
Sanders spoke shortly after Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday" that he is a "no" on the so-called "Build Back Better Act (BBB)," which is many Democrat bills in one. -- Dec. 20
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said on Sunday that his fellow Democrats are well aware of the "difficulties" he's had with the so-called "Build Back Better Act." -- Dec. 20
Jones also uncritically quoted Republicans referring to "the so-called Build Back Better"-- Kevin McCarthy on Nov. 19, Virginia Foxx, also on Nov. 19 and Rob Portman on Dec. 15.
MRC's Right-Wing Film Critic Whines That 'Eternals' Is Too Woke (Read: Not Heterosexual Enough) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's right-wing film critic, Christian Toto, has deemed himself the judge of all that is "woke" and not "woke" in filmdom -- which explains why he hates the recent Marvel movie "Eternals." It also explains why his Nov. 6 review of the film began with a lenghy rehash of his ideologically motivated attack on the 2016 all-female "Ghostbusters" reboot, in which he denied hating the movie because the genders of the leads were changed but, rather, because the movie purportedly used ""victimization storylines ripped from today’s snowflake-encrusted headlines." Yeah, we wouldn't want a movie to have any relevance to the real world, would we?
Toto eventually gets around to attacking "Eternals" for being similarly "woke," which seems to come down to not having enough heterosexual characters, from the obtuse angle of bashing an article noting the complaint:
The new MCU film Eternals, in theaters Nov. 5, is earning tepid reviews prior to its release. Even the positive critiques are far from glowing, and the movie hovered around the “rotten” mark at RottenTomatoes.com before falling to 53 percent at the moment.
That’s a first for an MCU film.
Enter TheHill.com to the rescue.
The left-leaning outlet, citing a thinly sourced story from TheDirect, said audiences are savaging the film, sight unseen, due to its LGBTQ content. “Eternals” features an openly gay hero, played by Brian Tyree Henry, and offers a series of casting and plot choices that fall squarely in the “woke” category.
TheHill.com is a serious news outlet. Why would it write the story in the first place? The headline itself sounds hyperbolic – ‘War erupts over new Marvel blockbuster’s gay superhero’
It’s the Ghostbusters media template, take two. Reporters view Eternals as part of the woke revolution, and they feel compelled to protect it at all costs.
And because it's "woke," Toto feels compelled to trash it. Also, The Hill isn't a "left-leaning outlet"; media observers view it as being in the middle, and it regularly publishes right-wing media critic Joe Concha.
Toto then insisted that LGBT content in movies is no longer a problem for people: "Gay and lesbian stories abound in pop culture today. They’re everywhere in an industry that once tried to hide a lesbian star’s relationship with another actress, Anne Heche. So why would the tiny LGBTQ moments in Eternals evoke such an allegedly hostile reaction?"But if LGBT content is no longer a problem, why did Toto's publisher, the MRC, publish an attack on a bisexual Superman? Toto continued:
TheHill.com piece also notes that other MCU properties, including Avengers: Endgame and Loki, also feature LGBTQ characters. Has either one been “review bombed?” If not, why not?
Some of the early comments tied to Eternals could, in theory, reflect anger at the sexuality on display. Or, more likely, it captures an audience exhausted by woke virtue signaling in their favorite shows and movies.
So, if you redefine LGBT content as "woke," then you can justify hating said content. (Also, the MRC trashed "Loki" for being gender-fluid, putting another hole in Toto's theory of acceptance.)
Continuing to deny the reality of people hating LGBT content in films, Toto -- who also seems unaware that the MRC has additionally lashed out at non-heterosexual characters in "Supergirl" and "Batwoman" -- continued to play dumb: "Audiences eagerly embrace actors of all races, assuming they deliver fine performances in entertaining content. If the 'review bombing' phenomenon were as real and pernicious as we’re told, we’d see it across the pop culture landscape."
By contrast, Toto was much kinder to a different Marvel film. A Dec. 18 review gave his "anti-woke" imprimatur to "Spider-Man: No Way Home" for not having "dabbled in wokeism" and for being a "course correction, a sequel that adores its audience, its lore and the ability to transport us for two-plus glorious hours." He did not mention the existence of any LGBT characters in the film, which presumably is the reason is "woke"-o-meter didn't go off.
CNS Hypes Biden's Travel Expenses -- But It Buried Trump's Much Higher Expenses Topic: CNSNews.com
Back in 2018, we documented how CNSNews.com served as a servile stenographer for right-wing legal group Judicial Watch -- at least 46 articles that year alone. After a couple years of relative inactivity because Judicial Watch was giving Donald Trump's corruption a pass -- indeed, Judicial Watch was such a Trump stan that CNS published an article after the 2020 election featuring Judicial Watch leader Tom Fitton embracing Trump's Big Lie by ranting that "'Joe Biden is not 'president-elect'' despite what the liberal media claim, and they do not have the constitutional authority to declare the winner of a presidential election."
But it appears CNS is firing up the stenography machine again. An anonymous "CNSNews.com Staff Writer" wrote in a Nov. 18 article:
A new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) report from Judicial Watch shows that the Secret Service's travel costs for President Joe Biden to go to his home in Delaware, and several other domestic stops, total at least $2,252,600.50.
Those costs cover from the start of his presidency in January through Aug. 8, 2021. However, the full costs are likely much higher because the Air Force has yet to provide information on the Air Force One travel costs, and the Secret Service has not provided cost records for other Biden trips to Delaware, reported Judicial Watch.
“The costs of presidential travel and security is of obvious public interest,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement. “It is frustrating that after years of litigation through two presidential administrations, the Secret Service and Air Force are still stonewalling the costs of presidential travel.”
The anonymously written article was conveniently lacking context -- specifically, any mention of a certain former president who liked to spend his weekends away from the White House. After all, doing so would make Biden look good by comparison.It was reported that Trump's weekend trips to Florida's Mar-a-Lago -- of which Trump made four during the first three months of his presidency alone -- cost about $3 million each, or the total of Biden's trips to Deleware over the first seven months of his presidency.
The funny thing is, Judicial Watch tracked Trump's travel expenses too, which is also omitted from the CNS article -- and, curiously, from the Judicial Watch press release that was rewritten for this CNS article. Perhaps that's because Judicial Watch found that Trump's travel expenses in thefirst year of his presidency surpassed $13 million, a pace that far outstripped Biden's expenses.CNS dedicated no article exclusively to Trump's huge travel expenses; instead, a November 2017 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman hyped that "travel expenses for President Barack Obama and his family totals $114.6 million, including trips in 2017," adding as an aside that "travel costs for President Donald Trump and his family, so far, total $10.3 million."
That's how CNS' right-wing bias works. It had similarly complained about "taxpayer funds" being spent to build a fence at Biden's Delaware beach house while censoring that the government was still paying for security upgrades at Trump's Mar-a-Lago.
MRC Responds To Criticism Of Biased Texas Redistricting With Lame Whataboutism Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's defense of Republican-controlled redistricting plans that disproportionately favor Republicans is a lame one, featuring a massive dose of whataboutism. Lydia Switzer showed off this non-argument in an Oct. 22 post:
The liberals at CNN want you to believe that they care about upholding democracy, but the evidence shows that they turn a blind eye when it’s the Democrats rigging the system.
On Thursday’s “Reality Check” on New Day, John Avlon dramatically proclaimed: “Defending democracy doesn’t take a day off.” He then went on to complain about Republican congressional redistricting while ignoring the blatant gerrymandering happening in states run by Democrats.
Texas, which gained two congressional seats after the most recent census, was Avlon’s main target: “[Republicans] weren't about to make the congressional districts more representative of the actual electorate. No. So they went to work drawing districts that artificially increased their own advantage, connecting suburban districts with sprawling, rural communities, consolidating minority-heavy areas and generally painting Texas red.”
Unsurprisingly, neither Avlon nor New Day co-host John Berman brought up the obviously partisan redistricting proposals in states like liberal Illinois, which will lose a congressional seat. The proposed new congressional map for Illinois was so unfairly partisan, benefiting Democrats, that it received criticism from both sides of the political aisle.
Avlon accused Texas of being “a textbook case of politicians choosing their voters rather than voters choosing their politicians,” but didn’t have a single word on the transparent attempts of Illinois Democrats to slash Republican power.
Brad Wilmouth served up a combination of irrelevant whataboutism and reflexive defense of anything Republican in atatcking criticism of Texas' congressional redistricting in a Nov. 4 post:
In the past couple of weeks, CNN and MSNBC have shown multiple double standards by peddling misinformation about Texas's congressional redistricting plan to accuse Republicans of cutting minority representation in the state while ignoring aggressive gerrymandering by Illinois Democrats. It was even wrongly suggested that Republicans would prevent any black members of Congress from being elected in Texas.
Additionally, the liberal networks -- each of which only has one Hispanic host anchoring on weekdays (and until recently had zero) -- pushed for racial quotas to guarantee more representation for Latinos, and even understated the number of minority majority districts.
Contrary to reports that Texas Republicans hoarded both of the state's new congressional districts, the GOP legislature handed one new seat to Democrats by drawing the 37th district in the Austin area where Joe Biden received 75.2 percent (according to data recently released by the Texas Tribune).
CNN's Ed Lavandera, jumping to the conclusion that white voters equal Republicans, claimed both districts would likely elect Republicans while coverage did not acknowledge Democrats would get a new seat, sometimes emphasizing the total number of white majority districts.
And without informing viewers that the GOP increased the number of minority majority districts (based on eligible voters) from 14 to 15, both networks seized on the solidly Democratic 35th district having its Hispanic percentage trimmed from 53 to 48 percent to claim that a Hispanic district had been eliminated.
In total, in 10 districts (or 26 percent) Hispanics would be the most numerous group, although only a majority in seven. In five other districts, a majority would be nonwhite without any particular group holding a majority.
It is noteworthy that, while CNN cited U.S. Census reports that 39.3 percent of Texas residents are Hispanic, CNN's exit polling found that, on Election Day 2020, only 23 percent of voters in the state were Hispanic.
Wilmouth conveniently didn't mention the fact that the Republican-controlled redistricting process exploited that low number of active Hispanic voters in rejiggering things -- which later drew the ire of the Department of Justice, who sued Texas over the redistricting. Politico reported on the DOJ's concerns:
The suit takes particular issue with the 23rd Congressional District — a sprawling West Texas seat now held by GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales — accusing Texas Republicans of intentionally eliminating its status as a district where Latinos could elect their candidate of choice.
More than 50 percent of the voting age population in the new 23rd District is Latino, but the Department of Justice claims — as it has in previous litigation against other iterations of this seat — that GOP mapmakers swapped out Latinos who vote regularly with low-propensity Latino voters.
The end result, the suit says, is “an effort to strengthen the voting power of Anglo citizens while preserving the superficial appearance of Latino control.”
The suit also noted the lack of a new Latino opportunity seat in Houston's Harris County and accused the legislature of having “surgically excised minority communities from the core of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (DFW) by attaching them to heavily Anglo rural counties, some more than a hundred miles away.”
The suit also singles out the new 24th Congressional District, held by freshman GOP Rep. Beth Van Duyne. By reducing the district’s swath of northwest Dallas County, the mapmakers dropped the Latino citizen voting age population from 40 percent to 23 percent. The suit says the map again strengthens the Anglo voting bloc.
GOP mapmakers created three new deep blue seats — in Austin, Houston and Dallas — to accommodate a growing number of left-leaning voters and keep them from overwhelming the red-leaning districts surrounding them. None of those seats have a Latino-majority. Republicans will likely control at least two dozen of the state’s 38 seats under this new map.
Wilmouth returned for a Nov. 22 post complaining that CNN's John Avlon was "condemning the Republican-backed redistricting plan in Ohio which improves the GOP's strength in the state's congressional delegation." Wilmouth admitted that the GOP plan would allow Republicans to "hold 13 out of 15 districts in the state," but he buried in atranscript the fact that Trump won only 53 percent of the 2020 vote in Ohio, which makes this look an awful lot like gerrymandering. He then played the whatboutism card on Avlon, rehashing his Texas criticism and addint: "So Avlon seems to want racial gerrymandering, which often means oddly shaped districts, if it results in a minimum quota of minority-majority districts, but voices opposition to gerrymandering at the same time.
When the DOJ announced its action against Texas, Kyle Drennen used a Dec. 7 post to absurdly frame it as the DOJ "trying to bully Texas into changing its electoral map to benefit Democrats" -- as if the GOP plan benefited all Texans instead of just Republicans. He then a sserted that an NBC reporter "was indistinguishable from the liberal partisans" ... for stating facts like "The state was allocated two more congressional seats after the 2020 census, but did not draw a single new district with a majority of black or Hispanic voters" and that the Texas plan is "part of a national wave of states redrawing their voting maps, many controlled by Republican lawmakers, that could impact next year’s midterm elections and those for years to come."
Drennen once again proved Steven Colbert right when he stated at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association dinner that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
NEW ARTICLE: Jack Cashill And The Wrong Side of History Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist seems to enjoy defending the worst people -- like insurrectionists, racist congressmen, charlatan filmmakers and killer cops. Read more >>
MRC Defends Aaron Rodgers For Not Getting Vaccinated Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was already giving love to pro football quarterback Aaron Rodgers in an Oct. 20 post, when the mysterious Jay Maxson gushed over how Rodgers "became the latest celebrity to speak out against cancel culture. A blight on the nation, cancel culture is part of a soft society that attempts to shrink and silence people, the Packers’ quarterback observed on the Pat McAfee Show," adding how "The quarterback said American society is “soft” and intolerant of people’s right to disagree. He criticized how people can’t have “back and forths” disagreements without somebody feeling offended."
In retrospect, one wonders if Rodgers was trying to buy himself a little right-wing inoculation against an upcoming scandal -- which broke a couple weeks later when itwas revealed that Rodgers lied to his Green Bay Packers team about being vaccinated against COVID (his insistence that he didn't notwithstanding), falsely claiming he was "immunized" when actually he was taking dubious medications like ivermectin. He then tested positive for COVID. Of couirse, the MRC -- whose sports bloggers havebeenpushing anti-vaxxer arguments for a while now -- launched a full-throated defense of Rodgers.
Matt Philbin devoted a Nov. 5 post to Rodgers saying all the conservatively correct things in defending his selfishness:
Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers has suddenly become one of the great villains in pro sports. He caught the covid this week and it turns out he never got vaccinated. Thus, sneering sports mandarins like Nancy Armour cast him out into the darkness as “anti-science.”
It won’t help that Rodgers isn’t contrite. In fact, he’s fighting back. Appearing on the Pat McAfee Show, the sidelined (for the week) superstar said, “I realize I’m in the crosshairs of the woke mob right now,” and he wanted to address some of the issues about him and the vaccine, “before my final nail gets put in my cancel culture casket.”
Sounds like a guy who knows exactly what’s going on. He called the hysteria around athletes’ reluctance to get vaccinated “a witch hunt..” He also pointed out that "Every member of the left" was anti-vaccine until Joe Biden took office. And he’s right. There are plenty of examples of lefties expressing reluctance to take any drug developed during the Trump Administration.
Actually, he's wrong. Aswedocumented when Philbin's fellow MRC workers pushed this right-wing narrative, Trump was cynically using the promise of a vaccine as a re-election ploy and thus couldn't be trusted about the vaccines' efficacy (not to mention his being a congenital liar), and top Democrats including Joe Biden and Katherine Harris said they would trust credible medical officials.
Philbin went on to uncritically quote Rodgers insisting that "I'm not an anti-vax, flat-earther,” and that he had allergies to two of the available shots, though he didn't demand evidence from Rodgers to back that up or explain why Rodgers should be taken at his word.
But the MRC is blindly loyal to anyone who spouts their agenda, and Rodgers is their new champion. Maxson used a Nov. 9 post to defend Rodgers from criticism by NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
When athletes like Rodgers say something stupid, “the public trust in athletes lowers and sponsors might consider avoiding players in favor of actors, pop stars, or social media influencers.” Woke athletes like Stephen Curry and LeBron James don’t have to worry about that (by parroting left-wing narratives), but young, rising stars might be denied lucrative advertising deals.
The NBA’s all-time leading scorer went through a whole litany of statistics in defending vaccinations, calling Rodgers ignorant for not doing likewise and taking the jab. He said it’s a lie that Rodgers is passionate about people’s health.
The hardcore lefty never questioned his pal James’ veracity when the current Lakers’ star said blacks are hunted by police and that racist remarks were spray-painted on his L.A. mansion. It's the outrageous social justice and race-baiting like that which has crushed the NBA's favorability ratings.
Maxson went on to sneer that Abdul-Jabbar "has often been judged by the weak content of his character," but linked only to his (or her) own posts as evidence of that "judging."
The defensive whining continued:
A Nov. 9 post by Kristine Marsh cheered that "Rodgers pushed back against the “woke mob” for pushing for his cancellation from sponsorships and the excessive media criticism of him" and bashed "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin for criticizing him, huffing that "'Tolerant' leftists want to punish anyone who mocks their totalitarian impulses."
Maxson returned to play whataboutism that the Packers "were subjected to a massive fine over COVID-19 protocol violations, while Henry Ruggs III and Deshaun Watson, who allegedly committed far greater offenses, have not been fined a penny." He (or she) then tried to soft-pedal Rodgers' lie to his team: "It was learned that in preseason he was immunized, but not vaccinated. He then engaged unsuccessfully with the NFL in an attempt to get the league to approve of the immunization. He’s been accused of intentionally lying about being vaccinated."
The next day, Maxson played whataboutism on Abdul-Jabbar for criticizing Rodgers while his son "received a ridiculously light sentence for stabbing a man to within an inch of his life."
Maxson served up even more whataboutism on a sportswriter who critricized Rodgers while also being a defender of Colin Kaepernick, whom Maxson obsessively hates: "There is no real comparing Rodgers’ refusal to take shots or wear a mask in public with a malcontent who led countless athletes astray and a deepening of the American divide.
Maxson whined on Nov. 15 about vaccinated NFL players who contracted COVID being treated differently than Rodgers:
Vaccinations are not fool-proof preventers of COVID-19. They are, however, “vaccinations” against objective reporting by out-and-out dishonest sports media. The stories of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, Minnesota Vikings guard Dakota Dozier and Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers are living proof.
As most people know by now, the media went berserk over Rodgers, who said he had been “immunized” before catching COVID-19 and sitting out last week’s game. Dozier and Roethlisberger were vaccinated and still caught the coronavirus, but they both got treated with kid gloves by woke media hypocrites.
Maxson didn't mention that one big reason for the disparate treatment is that those players didn't lie about being vaccinated, like Rodgers did.
In a Nov. 18 post, John Simmons cheered that the NFL "hilariously outsmarted by Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers on their vaccine policy," whic his a funny way of describing how Rodgers lied to his team and embraced dubious treatments instead of actually getting vaccinated. He went on to grumble that "The overreaching, nonsensical, and fear-based protocols the NFL has implemented throughout the year have ignored science, disregarded personal choice, and divided the league between the good (vaccinated) and bad (unvaccinated) people.
On Nov. 28, Maxson sympathetically reframed Rodgers being a jerk into him merely telling a joke that people who aren't his fans didn't get:
The Wall Street Journal didn’t get the joke. After Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers confirmed he has a broken toe last week, he humorously called it “COVID toe.” That remark was in reference to massive media coverage of him previously catching the coronavirus after not having been vaccinated. The WSJ took the joke as truth – hook, line and sinker – and ran a story on it.
Nonetheless, a day later, the WSJ’s Andrew Beaton reported that Rodgers is dealing with “a mysterious and painful toe injury.” He reported “COVID toe” is a real ailment related to people with the coronavirus and sore toes.
Maxson offered no evidence that Rodgers was, in fact, telling a joke beyond uncritically quoting Rodgers complaining about the coverage of his statement.
Simmons was still defending Rodgers in a Dec. 17 post, this time against Presdient Biden:
Let’s get one thing straight: President Joe Biden has proven in his tenure in the White House that he is not an expert in … well, pretty much anything, and certainly not in how individuals should handle their own health.
That is why one cannot help but laugh at Biden’s latest quip on what he thinks Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers should do regarding the COVID vaccine.
While visiting communities in Kentucky that were devasted by tornadoes this past weekend, Biden had an interaction with a woman wearing a winter hat with the Packers logo in which he told the people that Rodgers should get the vaccine. The people laughed at his quip, and Biden continued to inspect the devastation.
But the truth is, Rodgers should not get vaccinated just because someone else wants him to or because outside voices are pressuring him – not even when it’s the President of the United States.
You know who else isn't a health expert? Aaron Rodgers. It's clearhe did not confirm with his own team's health experts before lying to them about being vaccinated. But Simmons is more than happy to give him a pass on that lie by insisting his claim of being "immunized" actually means something (and because he's now a right-wing hero):
Rodgers stated before the beginning of the season that he was “immunized” against COVID, but was crucified when the media found out that he was not vaccinated. Everyone from sports reporters to talk show hosts painted him as a dangerous, anti-science attention seeker when it was further discovered that he consulted Joe Rogan on what medications he should take to keep himself healthy.
But those same people are perfectly fine when governments, businesses, and even some people’s family and friends demand that we take the vaccine because they think it is the only way to salvation from COVID-19. Furthermore, it’s always funny how our government leaders think that they hold the monopoly on all the effective treatments to fight sicknesses. Our bodies and other methods have helped us do just fine for thousands of years before vaccines came on the medical scene.
So, even if the most powerful man in the free world thinks that you should get the vaccine, neither you, nor Rodgers, nor anyone should feel like they have to. Make your own choices, and do not apologize to anyone once you do.
It should also be noted that Simmons has offered no health expertise either -- he's just spouting right-wing anti-vaxxer rhetoric.
CNS Catholic Priest Columnist Pushes More Anti-Vaxxer Attitudes Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how Rev. Michael P. Orsi uses his CNSNews.com columns to sound much more like a right-wing activist than thet Catholic priest he's supposed to be. He has continued to place activism above religion in his CNS columns. He served up a dangerously contradictory message -- and perpetuated his previously expressed anti-vaxxer notions -- in his Oct. 21 column, praising medical professionals who have worked through the COVID pandemic, then fearmongering about COVID vaccines and cheering doctors and nurses who refuse to get vaccinated:
“Following the science” has also brought us to an ironic situation where we’re under extreme pressure to accept vaccines whose effectiveness is highly questionable, and for which evidence is accumulating that they can be harmful.
This is unprecedented. In the past, when some new vaccine or medication was seen to cause harm, it would be pulled from the market immediately.
Among those who are most hesitant about the vaccines — and most vocal in their skepticism — are medical professionals themselves. Numerous doctors are sacrificing hospital privileges over their refusals to be inoculated. Nurses are quitting their staff positions. We face an actual healthcare crisis because of it.
Many of these folks have gone on record with public statements, social media posts, and online videos warning about the vaccines. They’re making their case with frightening accounts of negative reactions, including heart damage, blood clotting, loss of physical capacities, and deaths, even among the young and otherwise healthy.
Suddenly, those who recently were hailed as heroes find themselves criticized and shunned, even mocked and belittled, by health agencies, hospitals, government officials, and the news media.
Perhaps worst of all, the general public — we who so often find ourselves as patients dependent on medical expertise — have been thrown into a state of utter confusion. The credibility of the entire healthcare profession has been seriously undermined.
Whose advise are we to trust, when there’s a multiplicity of conflicting claims and theories, when the recommendations and guidelines and official pronouncements of our purported authorities keep changing from day to day?
To whom can we turn when we need help and healing?
Orsi then lamented the "profoundly negative effect on the social and moral fabric of our country, on our sense of community, driving wedges between people, alienating friends and family members"-- but he qiuickly went conspiratorial, declaring that "it all feels highly contrived. It could very well be intentional — an element in some plan of those who seek to weaken our nation and diminish American influence in the world. And you can be sure there are plenty of such people, who are willing to do the devil’s work, who won’t “let a crisis go to waste,” as it’s been said. In fact, Satan is having a field day right now." It appears never to have occurred to Orsi that the people spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines are the ones doing the "devil's work" here.
Orsi concluded this column by serving up another contradictory message:
Make no mistake, this virus is real. It’s brought genuine tragedy. Colin Powell is only the latest high-profile example of the many folks who’ve died of COVID and its complications. I’ve known plenty of others.
Though I have received the vaccine myself, I take no personal position on its efficacy or safety. I’m not a doctor or a scientist, so the feelings I express are based only on what I hear and read. I can’t offer definitive proof of my own, one way or the other.
I simply don’t know.
It does seem to me, however, that this pandemic is being exploited to achieve objectives that have very little to do with protecting public health — and much more to do with socialist-inspired ideological dreams.
Doctors, nurses, and others who are resisting the mad vaccine rush are doing an inestimable service in raising critical questions at this critical time. They’re forcing us to take a closer look at an increasingly desperate situation.
Once again they are proving themselves to be real heroes.
Orsi is trying to have it both ways -- admitting that "the virus is real" and that he got vaccinated while trying to take "no personal position on its efficacy or safety" and praising doctors and nurses who have fallen for conspiracy theories and endangering others and themselves by not getting vaccinated. But if Orsi is vaccinated, he has, in fact, taken a "personal position" on the issue, and he's acting irresponsibly and hypocritically by encouraging anti-vaxxer attitudes. He's trying to make "heroes" out of people who aren't heroes at all.
By remaining deliberately obtuse about the vaccines' safety and efficacy, Orsi is contributing to the exploitation of the pandemic -- not by "socialist-inspired ideological dreams" but by radical right-wing reactionaries who care even less about public health. That's a place no Catholic priest should choose to be, but that's exactly where Orsi is.
Orsi echoed this attitude in his Nov. 9 column, in which he huffed: "What we’ve always assumed to be basic rights have been seriously eroded. The issue of vaccine mandates is only the most visible area in which the assault on personal autonomy is taking place. At any time we could be called upon to defend ourselves, our families, or our beliefs."
Orsi is again sounding like a right-wing activist, not a Catholic priest, pretending that public health doesn't matter and individual freedom trumps everything.
Does MRC's Promotion Of Bozell's New Book Violate Nonprofit Rules? Topic: Media Research Center
For the past few months, the Media Research Center has been giving aggressive promotion to chief Brent Bozell's new memoir, "Stops Along The Way," mainly in the form of numerous emails to the MRC's mailing list. One email, for example, has the usual conservative talking heads serving up blurbs for the book, though it didn't correct Pat Boone calling the MRC the "Media Research Council." The MRC's various websites have also run prominent ads promoting the book.
It's unclear, though, how this effort to soften Bozell's image meshes with the guy who's best known for calling President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead."
Those emails, though, usually state that they are "a product of MRC." But is that even legal? It's clear that Bozell's book is a personal memoir that's not tied to the MRC's mission -- which means the MRC could be violating IRS nonprofit tax law by allowing its assets, such as mailing lists, to be used for the personal use of another. We also don't know if Bozell has compensated the MRC for use of its mailing list for personal use or for the website ads. We asked the MRC about this in a message, but it hasn't gotten back to us.
Meanwhile, the MRC's NewsBusters has been shilling for Bozell's book in ostensible "news" items -- another use of a nonprofit's resources for personal use. An anonymously written Dec. 10 post linked to a 20-minute-long segment devoted to Bozell and his book by right-wing radio host and MRC buddy Mark Levin (with whom the MRC may or may not have a cross-promotion deal with), which got this mushy introduction:
“I thought now would be a perfect time to bring back one of the great American patriots on this program, one of the people who each and every day – mostly behind the scenes but publicly when he’s called upon – is fighting for your liberty,” Levin declared in his gracious introduction of Bozell. Levin added: “And in doing so, he is taking on the American media, because he knows that they’ve turned into a propaganda and tyrannical organization pushing an agenda and an ideology, but he knew it before most of us.”
The rest of the interview was just as softball. Funny, we thought the MRC hated softball interviews.
Another anonymously written post, on Dec. 14, touted Bozell's book-shilling appearance on Newsmax with host Greg Kelly, with more promotional mush:
“There is Brent Bozell, he is the President and founder of the Media Research Center, and he is also the author of the new book, Stops Along The Way: A Catholic Soul, A Conservative Heart, An Irish Temper, And A Love of Life,” host Greg Kelly introduced at the top of the segment. He then cited this “gem” form the book: “If a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, then a right-wing nut job is a liberal who just survived a communist machete attack.”
Kelly read another line: “It is that unflinching knowledge of both sides of any issue that makes a conservative out of a liberal. And it is the reason why conservatives always outscore liberals on political knowledge tests.” He remarked: “Number one, I did not know that about the political knowledge.”
Bozell might want to get right with the IRS -- or explain to us why he already is -- before he uses his MRC again to shill for his personal purposes.
This brings me to the point I wish to address. I saw an Associated Press headline this morning that read, "After unrelenting summer, Biden looks to get agenda on track." Exactly what agenda is it that Biden must get back on track?
His goal is the transmogrification of America into a government-controlled and government-dependent dystopia, where the life force is used to support a despiteous plexus of self-interested necromancers lording control over the necropolis that was once an admired nation. Exactly what part of that agenda is not on track?
Why do you think there's been no effort on the part of the GOP to remove Biden from office? Biden is the poster person for the legal phrase non compos mentis, i.e., not capable mentally and not of a sound mind.
What else must Biden do to prove his mental deficiency? Does he have to collapse at the podium during a press conference? Oh! Wait! He's already done that. Maybe if he decided to publicly micturate during an interview. Oh! Wait! He does the equivalent of that every time he opens his mouth. In fact he added the voluntary act of encopresis on the military and their families when he, like Obama, before him abandoned American military to be murdered by the sub-humans only marginally less palatable than himself.
Republicans won't lift a finger to have Biden removed from office because he is cash cow for their fundraising. They're using Biden to raise literally hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars that will never be used to the benefit of America and/or the public they claim to represent.
Biden's cognitively impaired to the point of needing sticky pictures to find and use the bathroom, but that's his problem. There's no way on this earth that I will surrender my right to protect my body and my life against his death-dealing overreach regarding the jab.
If, as Biden claims, this China flu is of great concern, I say prove it by providing the same freedom to determine what's best for me as with the murder of babies. Make ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as available as late-term baby-killing. Biden and his kind will undoubtedly argue there's a difference between baby-killing and "my body my choice," and what he is demanding I must allow myself to be poisoned with.
But, how many people have dropped dead moments after being infected with the deadly injections Biden is demanding we submit to? How many women have experienced miscarriages within days/weeks of being injected with this experimental drug Biden's panhandling? Of the millions of people who have been taking ivermectin for decades and/or the great number of people taking hydroxychloroquine, how many have developed life-altering permanent maladies in comparison to the number of who have after being infected with Biden's drugs?
Biden may be a diaper-wearing molester with dementia, but he's cashed in on a criminal enterprise that would make Al Capone proud. Biden, his son Hunter and reportedly Biden's brother have cashed in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars because of Biden holding political office.
All things considered, it doesn't take a fortune-teller or palm reader to predict Joe Biden isn't long for this earth. At least he isn't long for this earth in a bipedal position.
It's not just delusional and an outright lie to argue Biden is competent to execute the most basic functions associated with the office his minions stole; it is a sign of psychological impairment. Biden is a shuffling, mumbling, disaster of a human being who, as I have oft said, needs sticky notes with pictures on them posted in bathrooms to show him how to pull down his zipper.
He is the semi-ambulatory textbook definition of non compos mentis, which is a legal phrase for "not of sound mind or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs." The same was the case with Barack Obama in December of 2010, when there were "allegedly" unconfirmed whisperings that Obama was unstable and being heavily medicated.
The point I want to make is that whatever productive years Biden had remaining are now squarely in the rearview mirror of his failed life. Harris' ability to do to voters what she did to married men is not a skill set worthy of office. And Pelosi is in the same condition as Biden when it comes to lucidity.
Once again Jimmy Carter can breathe easier as another layer of worthless, ineffectual, bigoted, racist flesh now separates him from being the worse president in the history of America. Obama earned that title on steroids; but records are made to be broken, and that brings me to "Dementia Joe Biden."
Carter was and is a racist anti-civil rights crusader who loved to tell how his mama took care of their "nigras." Obama is a racist contradiction in terms and values whose wife redefines uncouth. He embraces Islam, but publicly admits to having a ravenous sexual appetite for white men. The Obama woman is alleged to have a voracious appetite for vodka and men.
But this isn't about previous failures; it's about Biden. He's a ghost of a man who needs note cards to count to five even when his fingers are available. Looking into his eyes is like looking at a sign that says "vacancy." His eyes are dead and lifeless. You can literally watch the difficulty he has in putting words into sentence form. His is truly the sad end result of a wasted life.
It's no secret that Biden has always been a drunken, womanizing, open-his-mouth-and-anything-comes-out simpleton. Colleagues on Capitol Hill who like him publicly concede with little or no prompting that he is a mean-spirited yet sometimes likable guy who isn't very smart.
The dolorous facial expression he exhibits reminds the public of a person staring at a digital clock, unable to tell the time. What does that say about the people trying to convince We the Public that Biden is capable of lifting a glass to his mouth without pouring the liquid on his chest?
Biden came from essentially nothing. He was a drunken blowhard in Scranton before hitching his wagon to the erstwhile villainy of Delaware by obtaining a political career that has been beneficial to the unsavory of the moneyed class in that state.
Allegations abound that he stole his friend's wife. His drug-addicted, sex-obsessed son is reported by reputable sources to have been sexually involved with a prepubescent family member – so why should it be a surprise that Biden is mistreating and betraying We the People?
I'd conclude with "Let's go, Brandon!" Your poll numbers should prove the truth of my words. I'd also remind him that with his health failing rapidly, it might make sense to think about eternity. Because, in my faith, homosexuality, advocating for murdering children, lies, adultery and sexual molestation are not pendants to wave on one's deathbed – even if you're a Biden.
We the People should not be discussing the outcome of Mr. Rittenhouse's trial; we should be outraged that Joe Biden hasn't been charged and removed from office (along with all members of his Cabinet and staff), because of the ineptitude of a mentally diminished sot who epitomizes non compos mentis. Add to that the fact the supposed leader of this nation betrayed and abandoned American military men/women and allies in one of the deadliest places on earth.
Biden has been openly disinterested in the fact that significant numbers of religious missionaries are facing death every day they remain in the chamber pot of cultural devolvement. His betrayal of the church is not surprising; after all, in his mind "the church" is a brothel where the idea of communion is commensurate with rape, adultery, molestation, familial child molestation, baby-killing and the most grotesque forms of hebephrenia and psychological breakdowns acted out as sexual normalcy.
As the supposed commander in chief, he should impeached with prejudice. Being commander in chief is more than playing dress-up and getting your jollies by returning the salutes of those he and his kind openly despise.
Apparently history is too dangerous to teach children. YouTube has censored a Young America’s Foundation (YAF) video about “Victims of Socialism,” restricting the video on the grounds that it is not “suitable” for kids.
YAF said it was notified by YouTube that the “Victims of Socialism” lecture video “may not be suitable for viewers under the age of 18.” The lecture or talk by retired Unitek Information Services, Inc. Chief Financial Officer George Harbison is now age-restricted and bears a warning that “This video may be inappropriate for some users.”
Harbison warned in the talk about the rise of socialism’s popularity in America, speaking on socialism’s many tragic victims, “slain innocents,” to explain why Americans should be alarmed by the trend.
Harbison’s presentation included images of victims of socialist regimes, including children. YAF tweeted a purported screenshot of YouTube’s censorship, saying, “Meanwhile, content featuring drag queens and transgenderism is available on-demand to viewers of any age.”
First: Neither Salgado nor YAF provide any evidence that Harbison has any sort of special expertise on "the victims of socialism" -- he worked in finance, after all.Has Harbison's presentation been vetted by actual historians, or is it just a right-wing rant from a right-wing group? We don't know.
Second: Putting an age restriction on a video is not "censorship." We don't recall the MRC ever claiming that keeping children from viewing materials that are insufficiently hateful of LGBT people was "censorship." Nevertheless, Salgado went on to complain:
YouTube has a history of putting age restrictions on videos it dislikes. The preview for Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s documentary series “Patriot Purge” about the events of Jan. 6 recently received age restrictions and a warning that the content “may be inappropriate for some users.” Former ABC reporter John Stossel’s anti-socialism video was age-restricted in 2018 by YouTube.
As with the YAF video, Salgado didn't explain why we should treat the work of a right-wing "reporter" like Stossel at face value. She also failed to prove her contention that YouTube adds age restrictions only on "videos it dislikes" -- which, in Salgado's biased telling, involves only right-wing videos; she cited only a couple of cherry-picked examples. Indeed, we didn't have to look far to find that a video referencing World AIDS Day had an age restriction placed on it, something we don't recall Salgado or anyone else at the MRC complaining about.
The MRC is more and more crying wolf by continuing to cry "censorship" when no censorship is actually happening.
Chuck Norris Abuses His WND Column Again By Shilling For His Gold-Selling Employer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Chuck Norris justloves to abuse the privilege (such as it is) of writing a column for WorldNetDaily by using it to shill for the gold-selling company he's a spokesman for. (WND doesn't have a problem with it, though, which tells you all you need to know about its editorial standards.) Norris' Nov. 8 column is his most blatant column ad ever, mostly because he's selling a silver coin with his likeness on it -- with a healthy dose of right-wing fearmongering and shilling for his employer:
I am so happy and honored to introduce to you the very first ever Chuck Norris Limited Edition Silver Coin from GOLDCO, a leader in the precious metals industry for whom I am honored to be a spokesman. Making the coin available is my way to show my appreciation to all of you who have supported me throughout my life. I want you to reap the benefits of silver to build long term wealth and protect your family's financial future, too.
Today, in our unstable economy and jobs that offer little to no long-term security, you never know when what you have can be totally lost or taken away. I don't have to remind you that America has lost her way and is in chaos on so many fronts. The proof is all around us. Goods are being held offshore. A massive and growing shortage of truck drivers to deliver those goods paralyzes commerce. Shelves in stores are already empty and projected to be wastelands for the holidays. With millions losing their jobs over refusals to be vaccinated, Biden's mandate mania is driving hundreds of thousands of more companies and local businesses to the brink of bankruptcy. As if lockdowns didn't do enough needless damage?
And let's not forget inflation is at a 30-year high, crazy high government spending is out of control, already leaving us with a gargantuan federal debt that will surpass $30 trillion by the end of the year. And to add insult to injury, the White House and Democratic Congress just passed another spending bill that will add another $2 trillion to the national credit card! Is Washington government run amok or what?
That is why there has never been a better time to diversify and invest in precious metals. Whatever minor fluctuations there are in year-to-year markets, precious metal investments are some of the most sound and rewarding, according to financial experts. And silver is your perfect option. As one charter financial analyst and precious metal expert estimated: "Uptrend in Silver Prices Looks Promising, Might Hit $50 per Ounce."
So, why not start or add to your silver collection with the brand-new Chuck Norris Silver Coin? Each coin weighs 31.10g, contains 1.0 Troy Ounce of 0.999 pure Silver, and is the size of a Silver Eagle. The reverse of the coin is engraved with the 5 principles for life that my mother instilled in me: Faith, Family, Fitness, Freedom, and Fight. A Certificate of Authenticity is included. The obverse of the coin features the Niue effigies Coat of Arms and Public Seal. This first-ever, legal tender Chuck Norris coin comes ready to showcase and enjoy with its own real wood display stand and patriotic packaging as an ode to my and others' military service.
Norris also wamts you to know that this coin -- worthless outside of its silver value (which in itself doesn't make it the "legal tender" Norris claims it is) and alleged collectible -- makes a great Christmas gift, and that he had this extremely stilted conversation with his mother:
My 100-year-young mom was so thrilled to receive her first Chuck Norris Silver Coin. As she did, she said to me, reflecting back upon the struggle of our family's early years in poverty, "This sure will buy a lot of caramels!" We both laughed out loud!
But then I said quite seriously, "Mom, thanks to our GOLDCO precious metal investments, we and our family will never have to face a future of financial uncertainty again."
My wife, Gena, and I pray your family members will be able to say the same. We believe they can, and it all could start with gifting them their first limited edition Chuck Norris Silver Coin. Supplies are limited, and the coins are almost all gone, so please get yours today here.
You mean all those years of TV andmovie acting didn't shore up Norris' finances? Or even the money GOLDCO is paying Norris to turn his column into the crassest form of self-promotional advertising?
NEW ARTICLE: CNS And The False School Board Narrative Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com parroted its Media Research Center parent in pushing the falsehood that a national school boards group and the Justice Department want to criminalize all people who speak out at school board meetings. Read more >>
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Doocy-Free Edition Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck found a biased right-wing reporter whose name wasn't Peter Doocy to ask hostile questions to Jen Psaki during the Dec. 6 White House press briefing:
During Monday’s episode of The Psaki Show, New York Post reporter Steven Nelson made the most of his infrequent opportunities to question Press Secretary Jen Psaki by invoking news about Hunter Biden’s Chinese business dealings and Miranda Devine’s new book about Hunter’s laptop. However, Psaki wanted nothing to do with either of them
Nelson began by citing a new and “big report” out of the Biden administration concerning “corruption” as a way of asking “two quick and hopefully pretty easy questions about that”(which ironically cited art sales as a key vehicle for money laundering).
Predictably, Psaki dismissed its importance since “the President’s son is not an employee of the federal government, so I’d point you to his representatives.”
As for the Devine book, The Laptop From Hell, Nelson said he “was hoping that you could confirm that the laptop is indeed authentic and not Russian disinformation as you seemed to suggest on Twitter last year.”
Psaki’s answer? She was even less interested: “And, as it relates to the book, I have neither had the time nor interest in exploring or reading the book.”
Nelson attempted to follow up, but Psaki wanted to go to the next reporter, arguing she had “answered your question” and reiterated he “can go to the representative of the person who’s not an employee of the federal government.”
Houck didn't mention that Nelson was shilling for his employer -- Devine is a fellow New York Post writer -- or that the Post is a right-wing newspaper owned by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.
Houck had another Doocy-less briefing on Dec. 7, but he found another Fox reporter to crush on for pushing her employer's anti-Biden talking points:
Tuesday’s White House press briefing was jam-packed amid Russian troops gathering on the border with Ukraine and a high-stakes call between President Biden and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, so it was a welcome sight when Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich and others highlighted the U.S.’s acquiescence to Russia on the Nord Stream II pipeline, Biden’s lack of public comments about the tensions, and whether he’ll handle it differently than Afghanistan.
Following lengthy remarks and a Q&A with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, CBS’s Nancy Cordes set up Press Secretary Jen Psaki by wondering whether the White House has “put plans in place in case Americans in Ukraine need to be evacuated quickly.”
As for Heinrich, she had two questions about Nord Stream II with one pertaining to whether the administration regrets greenlighting it and about whether they believe Russia is “using gas as a geopolitical weapon.”
Heinrich ended with a question on rising crime and specifically whether the White House agrees with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that claims of a rise in smash-and-grab robberies are fake news:
Then, for unexplained reasons, Houck took the rest of the week off. Perhaps Psaki-bashing isn't enough if he can't also engage n Doocy-fluffing?
More COVID Misinfo Courtesy of Joel Hirschhorn Topic: WorldNetDaily
The torrent of COVID misinformation from WorldNetDaily columnist Joel Hirschhorn has not abated. In his Nov. 16 column, he continued to insist that mRNA-based COVID vaccines are actually gene therapy, and the government is lying by calling them vaccines:
The Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, once was a federal agency that nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case. Now there are many reasons why the CDC should be widely disrespected. With over 10,000 Americans dying weekly from COVID-19, the CDC is not protecting public health. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of "vaccine."
Just imagine this: The entire push for COVID "vaccines" was based on a lie – they did not meet the official CDC definition of a vaccine. Through deception, the government could coerce the entire population to get the shot. Calling them "vaccines" was the biggest lie from Anthony Fauci and the key to drug companies making many billions of dollars.
Why would the government's key public health agency change the definition of what a vaccine is in the midst of a pandemic? And after millions of Americans have taken the shot? Now millions more are being beaten into taking it for the first time and others to get booster shots.
Here is the key point. It became widely recognized by medical experts and informed citizens that COVID vaccines clearly did not fit the official CDC vaccine definition. CDC thought the answer was not to fix what was deficient with the vaccines or stop their use by most people, as so many medical experts advised. The agency's response was to change the vaccine definition to fit the so-called vaccines.
This was done so that vaccine mandates could keep getting pushed by the government. Of course, the COVID "vaccines" should be referred to as gene therapy products, even more accurate than calling them experimental vaccines.
Hirschhorn ranted against vaccines again in his Nov. 23 column:
Big Government, Big Pharma and Big Media have colluded to keep pushing mass COVID vaccination despite all the evidence that it is not stopping spread of the virus. High vaccination rates are not producing good results in many counties, states and countries.
Americans may not be mentally prepared to hear the really bad news: The COVID pandemic is not going to end What the government is doing (and not doing) will ensure no end to the pandemic. Keeping it going means more money for big drug companies and more preventable deaths.
An endless pandemic will mean billions of dollars going to big drug companies for vaccines and a new group of expensive pills announced by Merck and Pfizer; the U.S. government is paying $700 for the former and $500 for the latter treatment. They want to compete with cheap, established early treatment protocols, including use of ivermectin.
Here is the crucial point to keep in mind. Current vaccines, including booster shots, do not kill the virus and do not prevent spread of the virus from fully vaccinated people. And the loss of effectiveness, especially for variants like delta, explains why countless more people will get breakthrough infections that are killing some people, like what happened to Colin Powell recently.
Hirschhorn went on to reference one of his favorite COVID misinformers, "the eminent Dr. Peter McCollough," as well as Steve Kirsch, another misinformer who rants against vaccines and pushes dubious treatments like hydroxychloroquine. He continued to rant:
The government keeps the pandemic alive by pushing high numbers of cases, though these are not very meaningful medically speaking. They are not accurate measures of serious COVID infection. PCR testing is commonly manipulated to yield positive results by running the test beyond 25 cycles. That manipulation promotes vaccination. But positive tests say little about whether the infection is serious, which it is not for nearly all people. We approach 50 million cases in the U.S., but only about 1.6% are COVID deaths (mostly for elderly people).
This should be clear: Mass vaccination and mandates will not end the pandemic. But there is no hint that government leaders are interested in taking a new fresh approach to addressing the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of people will die unnecessarily in the U.S. and even more globally. More deadly than the virus are feckless government officials.
In his Dec. 3 column, Hirschhorn rushed to embrace the analysis of "esteemed senior French scientist Dr. Jacques Fantini" regarding the Omicron variant -- even though its existence had only been made public just a few days earlier and much of the news coverage was speculative:
A review of studies found unequivocally that COVID vaccines do not stop viral transmission, with no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So, all real-world evidence is that omicron cannot be effectively addressed by COVID vaccines. Together with Fantini's work, the proper conclusion it that omicron will not be very transmissible nor be more infective than delta.
Because mutations will continue to produce variants, it is critically important to use the work of Fantini to accurately assess whether or not a new variant should evoke the fears and government responses that have sprung up so quickly for omicron.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Omicron has proven to be much more transissible than even the Delta variant, given how rapidly it has become the dominant variant the U.S.