WND Quiet On Death of Race-Baiter Colin Flaherty
Topic: WorldNetDaily

When Colin Flaherty died last month, WorldNetDaily was silent about it, even though he did his most prominent work there. He was the guy who wrote for WND between 2012 and 2014 about his obsession with "black mob violence" -- even when those mobs involved no actual black people -- and published an edition of his race-baiting book "White Girl Bleed A Lot." It was bad enough that Google threatened in 2014 to pull the plug on its ad services to WND because of all the race-baiting; WND eventually capitulated and agreed not to serve Google ads on its race-baiting pages, and Flaherty left WND shortly thereafter.

But you know who did more Flaherty's death? The white nationalists at VDARE, offering no fewer than five tributes. Lead white nationalist Peter Brimelow mourned him this way: "Colin, like me, was once a Contender in the Corporate Media, from which he was progressively extruded because he refused to Get The Memo that he wasn't supposed to discuss a forbidden topic—in his case, black crime." Actually, if WND thinks you're too race-baity, you were never a contender.

John Tremain, meanwhile, highlighted how "Future PC Enforcers seeking to sanitize the past for the Ministry of Truth will have their work cut out for them trying to erase Colin’s massive content footprint. He leaves behind thousands of hours of videos, podcasts, and interviews, countless articles on rogue sites like American Thinker, VDARE.com, and American Renaissance" -- thus showing the bigoted crowd with which Flaherty ran. Tremain also claimed that Flaherty had been "befriended by many black conservatives," among them Jesse Lee Peterson, who uses his black-conservative privilege to sound like a white supremacist.

Speaking of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor also served up a tribute that mostly stuck to recounting his life story (though he did link to a piece we wrote in complaining that "Huffington Post, of course, called his reporting 'race-baiting'). Another fun racist friend, John Derbyshire, touted in his Jan. 14 podcast how "At one of my encounters with the late Colin Flaherty I impressed him by knowing the Irish spelling of his name."

Finally, a coward writing under the pseudonym "A Southerner" served up a more gushy tribute, serving up revisionist history at one point by claiming that Flaherty "told me that in 2014, Google even threatened to demonetize WND if all ads weren’t removed from Colin’s pieces, because they drove so much traffic." The writer concluded:

My friend Colin Flaherty made a difference.

Our cities can be rebuilt. Statues to those who came before us can be recast.

Heroes who, in dark times, defended what was undefendable, can be celebrated.

But it’s only because those who lived bravely and without fear dedicated their lives to truth, in a time of universal deceit, that what once was can be again.

Colin Flaherty risked everything. And he made a difference.

Rest in peace, Big Man.

It's telling of the person Flaherty actually was that this coward feels he must hide behind a fake name on a white nationalist website to pay tribute.

MRC Melts Down Over Nonbinary Olympic Skater
Topic: Media Research Center

Once again, the Olympics are not heterosexual enough for the Media Research Center. After spending the 2018 Winter Olympics lashing out at figure skater Adam Rippon for being gay and disapproving of Republican anti-LGBT stances and last year's Summer Olympics actively rooting for the U.S. team to fail becuase there weren't enough right-wing heterosexuals on it, the MRC's coverage of the 2022 Winter Olympics kicked off on a similar note, with Jay Maxson spending a Jan. 10 post melting down over a nonbinary Olympic skater:

Can we ever have a gender-normal Olympiad again? Last summer in Tokyo, it was all about the transgenders. Next month in Beijing, the United States will feature its first-ever non-binary winter athlete.

Since this gender craze is all about the pronouns, we’re about to see someone who looks an awful lot like a “he,” but who goes by “they.” Oh, for the good old days of the thrill of the sport and the agony of defeat again. When men were men and women were women!

Timothy “they” LeDuc is one of four persons named to the 2022 U.S. Olympic Figure Skating team Sunday morning. In 2019, he was one of the first openly homosexual athletes to win gold in a U.S. pairs' event. This year, LeDuc took gender confusion a step further by publicly coming out as a so-called "non-binary" and the first such U.S. athlete to win a championship in any discipline. In another four years, he'll probably compete as a house plant.

Maxson went on to complain: "LeDuc’s Christian family is from a traditional evangelical church that tried to change their son, and the NBC story portrays them as the weird people." Maxson clearly doesn't see that as weird at all -- he (or she) seems to believe everyone must be forced to be heterosexual, given how much he (or she) hates LGBT people.

Actually, LeDuc's family's attempt to change them was much more harsh than the way Maxson

Maxson concluded by spewing more hate at LeDuc and the LGBT community in general:

At least today, LeDuc is fantasizing as outside the binary world. So naturally, he’s going to be looked at as odd, as peculiar by the greater public. But the strange, the unusual is already acceptable to the wide, wacky media world. NBC and others that are so quick to give in and go along with anything LGBT, no matter how radical it is. No questions asked. 

It's weird that a NewsBusters blogger whose presence is so devoid of basic details that we can't even determine what sex he (or she) is, lket alone if his (or her) name is genuine is so concerned about the sex and sexuality of others.

CNS Editor Still Bashing Biden's Debt, Silent On Trump's
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey wrapped up his commenting on federal deficits in 2021 the way he has all year long -- blaming President Biden for running them up and pretending that Doanld Trump never added anything to the debt. Jeffrey spent his Dec. 15 column complaining;

If you divide the $28,908,004,857,445 in debt that the federal government owed before the debt limit was lifted by the 100,424,240 American households that paid net income taxes in 2018, it works out to approximately $287,859 per income-tax-paying household.

[...]

President Joe Biden's fiscal 2022 budget proposal called for running a cumulative deficit of $14.531 trillion over just the next 10 fiscal years. Balancing the budget — let alone slowing the increase in the debt — plays no part in his fiscal plan.

Adding another $14.531 trillion to the federal debt would increase the burden on the 100,424,240 income-tax-paying households of 2018 by approximately $144,696.

MRC Shows Residual Love For 'Let's Go Brandon' Insult
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center just loves the "Let's Go Brandon" insult of President Biden -- so much so that some of its writers wants to dispense with the euphemism and go full "Fuck You Biden." How has the MRC been loving it lately? Mostly by turning it into a victimhood indicator.

A Dec. 14 post by Jay Maxson complained that a golf ball maker "is now part of the corporate censorship movement." becauses it refuses to allow people to imprint "Let's Go Brandon" on their golf balls. Maxson further complained: "Fox News Digital investigated whether or not people can order balls with messages like "F Trump", "ACAB" (all cops are bastards), 'Antifa', 'Kill Cops,' 'Impeach Trump' and 'Kill Trump.' None of these derogatory phrases were blocked." Unmentioned was the fact that very few left-wing radicals are golfers, let alone ones who can afford to spring for specially imprinted golf balls.

When a right-wing jerk, Jared Schmeck, said "Lets Go Brandon" to Biden during a White House event, the MRC rushed to his defense. A Dec. 26 post by Tim Graham was offended that anyone would find the phrase offensive:

On Friday afternoon, CNN anchor Boris Sanchez denounced the rude behavior, and then CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein said it was about "insurrection" and the "Big Lie" that the Republican base thinks Biden isn't a legitimate president. (CNN never considered Trump legitimate.)

[...]

NBC News posted an article headlined "Parent uses right-wing slur during Biden call with NORAD Santa tracker." It began: "President Joe Biden was subjected to a right-wing anti-Biden slur during a Christmas Eve call with NORAD's Santa tracker." Bloomberg's "Quicktake" also called it a "slur." 

ABC News chose the headline "Father uses vulgar insult during holiday call with President Joe Biden." Technically, this is not accurate, since there is no vulgarity in "Let's Go Brandon."

Kevin Tober used a Dec. 28 post to claimed that MSNBC's Ncolle Wallace "laughably claimed on Monday that the Oregon father who said '“let’s go, Brandon' to President Joe Biden was part of a 'slow-motion insurrection'." But Tober also admitted that the man appeared on creepy insurrection cheerleader Steve Bannon's show to declare, "Donald Trump is my President and he should still be President right now. The election was 100% stolen. So I just want to make that clear." Sounds like a guy who is definitely at least insurrection-curioius, no?

On Jan. 4, Tober was insisting that the deliberately offensive phrase was a "practical joke" and that Schmeck should never have to face consequences for saying it:

The idea that someone should have their life ruined over a practical joke, is patently insane and frankly anti-American. Yet that is exactly what CNN Opinion columnist and SiriusXM radio host Dean Obeidallah argued in a recent column last week. 

In a piece titled “You can't troll the President with 'Let's go, Brandon' and then play the victim”, Obeidallah argued that Jared Schmeck, the 35-year-old Oregon father deserves whatever punishment the cancel culture tyrants want to inflict on him for the grave sin of saying “Let’s Go, Brandon” to President Joe Biden during a call on Christmas Eve.

Obedallah went on to point out how Schmeck was painting himself as a victim because his insult was criticized: "Aww, poor 'victim' Schmeck. Apparently, he thinks he should be able to tell Biden to basically go f**k himself while on a family-friendly holiday call, but no one should be able to take issue with his actions." Tober didn't take that well:

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you believe without fear of retaliation or punishment. In fairness, he did write that didn’t have any “ill wishes towards Jared Schmeck.” While one sentence later, he wrote that he hoped no one tells him: "Let's go, Jared!"

No, Kevin, that is not the definition of "freedom of speech" -- which you should know because you work for an organization whose primary mission is to inflict retaliation and punishment on non-conservatives who say what they believe. For instance, the day before Tober wrote this post, he was raging at NBC for "maligning conservatives who care about local political and cultural issues as violent rioters in the mold of those who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6." He clearly does not believe NBC employees should have "the freedom to say what they believe without fear of retaliation or punishment."

If the MRC adhered to Tober's definition, it would soon be out of business -- and Tober would be out of a job. He appears to be a little too focused on spewing hate at anyone who works in non-right-wing media to understand the corner he painted himself into.

On the Jan. 5 NewsBusters podcast, guest host Nicholas Fondacaro rehashed Tober's post, then played whataboutism by citing threats against CNN host Brian Stelter and his family and claiming that CNN "doesn't seem to think that what they say and the hatred that they stoke against Fox and people on the right can result in the same things they they're being subject to." That statement is stunningly oblivious to the fact that the MRC stokes hatred against CNN, MSNBC, the broadcast networks and people on the left, because their tone is much more harsh than almost anything CNN has said about Fox News. Fondacaro then hypocritically cited incidents of alleged violence against Republicans... without any condemnation or even mentoin of right-wing violence against liberals.

Don't expect Fondacaro and Co. to ever take responsiblity for any of that, of course -- acting responsinbly is not what they do.

WND's Farah Touted Scientist His Own Website Admits Is Discredited
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah wrote in his Dec. 27 WorldNetDaily column:

Do you trust the Chinese Communist Party to tell the truth about the COVID-19 virus that has killed some 5,413,000 people throughout the world?

Do you buy the story that it escaped the Wuhan lab accidentally, according to the Chinese government?

Do you recognize that this same totalitarian nation is responsible for the worst genocide in history between Mao's Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the great purges and the Tibet invasion, between 1949 and 1969 – estimated to have claimed as many as 78 million lives?

Let's be frank.

With a track record like that, why does the world give China the benefit of the doubt?

Recently, Joshua Philipp, an award-winning investigative reporter with The Epoch Times and an expert on unrestricted warfare, interviewed Dr. Yan Li-meng, a virologist and former member of the World Health Organization influenza H5 Reference Lab based at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, a key emergency disease facility for the Chinese government.

Yan does not believe the Chinese government when it comes to the origin of the virus.

Yan said SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a secret 20-year-old bioweapons research program that included coronaviruses.

"I'm the big problem," Yan said. "They (the CCP) need to disappear me. The reason is very clear, because the things I'm telling the world actually reveal the top confidential plans of the Chinese government. They've spent over 20 years working on the novel bioweapons, including coronavirus."

But Farah apparently doesn't read his own website. Yan's story has been discredited by actual scientists -- and WND even corrected an article that had promoted Yan's claim.

In September 2020, WND hyped Yan's asssertion that "she has evidence COVID-19 is man-made and plans to publish it soon." As we noted, a month later WND appended a correction to the article:

CORRECTION Oct. 11, 2020: Appearances by Dr. Li-Meng Yan on media outlets in Britain and the United States have come under fresh scrutiny in connection with her own pre-print (an unpublished draft of a science paper) on the website Zenodo claiming to provide evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was created in a laboratory and is not of natural origin. Yan's pre-print, which was not peer-reviewed by other experts in the field, claims that some unique characteristics in the SARS-CoV-2 genome prove that the virus is man-made. However, experts disputed Yan's pre-print for being flawed and containing unsubstantiated claims. The exact origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains unknown. Dr. Yan claims to prove that the SARS-COV-2 virus originated in a lab, but a careful analysis of her pre-print actually shows this claim is unsubstantiated.

Despite the fact that his own website considers Yan discredited -- and refusing to share that fact with his readers -- Farah concluded his column with paranoiac ranting based on her dubious claims:

Joe Biden is also compromised – by Hunter Biden's business in China.

So is Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell by his own dealings in China, as well as Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

And don't forget the press and Big Tech – that goes beyond compromise! They are more than apologists for China. They freely and eagerly censor all voices that criticize the Chicoms. Just ask Google who committed the worst genocides in history!

Time is running out for America.

We keep hiding behind the pandemic, with vaccine mandates that are not working, mask mandates that never worked and businesses that are in bed with China.

Meanwhile, China grows more bellicose and warlike.

China is the most existential threat to the U.S. in the world. Where does this end?

And Farah wonders why his website is going down the tubes.

NEW ARTICLE: A Tale Of Two (Or Three) Whistleblowers
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves Facebook whistleblowers who are as right-wing (if not more so) than it is. Liberal whistleblowers? Not so much -- to the point that it followed Facebook's script in an attempt to discredit her. Read more >>

CNS Dutifully Parrots Attacks On Biden Over Meat Prices
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com is never going to call out Donald Trump for his torrent of lies, but it will rebut and nitpick President Biden with right-wing talking points at every opportunity.

In a Jan. 4 article, Susan Jones complained that "President Joe Biden on Monday blamed a lack of competition in the meat processing industry for rising meat prices at the grocery store," going on to lean into CNS' Biden-is-senile narrative by claiming that "Biden stumbled as he tried to explain how "these middlemen" operate."Fully half the article, however, is given over to a meat industry lobbying group to attack Biden:

In reaction, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) -- which bills itself as a "leading voice" for the meat and poultry processing industry -- said Biden is wrong to blame private industry for price inflation:

"Prices reflect supply and demand in a healthy market," NAMI said in a news release.

"For the third time in six months, President Joe Biden and his Administration announced the same plans to spend $1 billion to fund government intervention in the market in an attempt to increase prices livestock producers receive while blaming inflation on private industry,” said Julie Anna Potts, president and CEO of the North American Meat Institute.

Jones went on to note that note that"Biden on Monday announced a four-point plan to strengthen competition" -- then added that "On that first point alone, NAMI posed the following list of questions," of which there were eight."

A hour later, Jones hurled another attack piece at Biden over his meat-price plan, courtesy of a longtime political operative:

President Joe Biden on Monday announced a plan to lower the cost of meat by going after the nation's four largest meat processors, whom he accused of "exploiting" farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

But, as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich observed: "If you have a president who can't solve the problem of enough supply for monoclonal antibodies, can't solve the amount of supply for testing, can't fix anything involving the pandemic," how can we expect Biden to lower the cost of beef?

"They have more ships sitting outside Long Beach harbor, about 121 now, than they had three weeks ago. So the supply chain stays broken," Gingrich told Fox News's Sean Hannity on Monday:

Of course, writing articles attacking Biden is what Jones gets paid to do.

MRC Delcares War On Website Rater NewsGuard With Bogus 'Study'
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a dislike for the website credibility rating firm NewsGuard that has only grown more visceral. In 2020, we noted that the MRC tried to tag NewsGuard as "liberal" for no real reason other than that it once fact-checked Rush Limbaugh. Last May, the MRC's Kayla Sargent freaked out over NewsGuard launching a service that would allow advertisers to block its ads on websites that contain misinformation -- weirdly screaming in the headline that this was "DISGUSTING." She huffied that "NewsGuard’s new service to help advertisers fight what it considers to be 'misinformation' could even be dangerous to the idea of free speech, because the organization is so overtly left-leaning." She offered no credible evidence that NewsGuard is "left-leaning."

But when NewsGuard announced it was spreading its ratings system to broadcast news, the MRC decided to declare war. Joseph Vazquez ranted against the "leftist" NewsGuard in a Dec. 3 post, first repeating the MRC previous factually deficient attack on the organzation over its Limbaugh fact-check, then adding:

NewsGuard even went after pro-life organizations like Live Action, giving it a dubious score of “30” out of 100 and accused that it “severely violates basic journalistic standards.” Meanwhile, NewsGuard rates baby slaughter mill Planned Parenthood with a “75” score and claimed its “ website adheres to basic standards of credibility and transparency.” [Emphasis added.]

But that’s not all. NewsGuard’s “Nutrition Label” rating for LifeSiteNews relied on pieces marked as “opinion” to lambast the pro-life website for information that the outlet considers to be not factual, such as the link between breast cancer and abortion. However, leftist Jezebel, a site that appeared to highlight and sympathize with “unlicensed, untrained illegal abortionists,” is considered a good site by NewsGuard.

Note that Vazquez hung political labels on Jezebel but not LifeSite or Live Action, which are unambiguously right-wing. He also forgot to mention that LifeSite is a notorious spreader of misinformation, particulary about COVID; when social media shut down its accounts because of the information it spreads, the MRC conferred victimhood on it.Vazquez also didn't prove that Planned Parenthood is unreliable or that LiveAction is reliable (Live Action got kicked off Instagram for spreading misinformation).Vazquez further whined:

A December 2020 report by NewsGuard illustrated the bias the site has against conservatives. It claimed that organizations listed “published falsehoods about both COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. election.” The list included outlets like Breitbart, The Blaze, The Epoch Times and LifeSiteNews. The “Trustworthy and Trending” list, on the other hand, included liberal propaganda outlets like NBC News, The New York Times, Microsoft’s MSN.com, The Washington Post and the taxpayer-funded National Public Radio. 

Vazquez provided no evidence to dispute any specific findings, though.

The gauntlet having apparently been through, the MRC slapped together a so-called "study" in an attempt to tar NewsGaurd as having a liberal bias, which Vazquez hyped in a Dec. 13 post:

A new analysis reveals the extraordinary left-wing bias of website ratings firm NewsGuard, which should concern every American given that it is expanding its reach into cable and broadcast TV news. Liberal outlets were rated 27 points higher on average than news organizations on the right.

MRC Free Speech America analyzed the NewsGuard ratings of media outlets based on a list compiled by AllSides classified by their “bias” on a left-to-right scale. The average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like Jacobin and he Nation — was 93/100. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News, Washington Times and New York Post — was a low 66/100. That’s a 27 point disparity.

According to NewsGuard’s skewed ratings, left-leaning outlets have substantially more “credibility” on average than right-leaning outlets.

But as we've documented, AllSides is a right-leaning fact-checker that uses sloppy labeling, and the MRC has previously praised it for leaning into its "liberal bias" narratives. Nevertheless, Vazquez tried to make a case for AllSides' credibility, claiming that "Even the liberal Poynter Institute cited two media experts who shared 'praise for the stated methods for rating bias' by AllSides." Vazquez did weirdly complain, though, that "AllSides including Deseret News in its “lean right” list is disputed by MRC research; as we've documented, that "dispute" is based solely on coverage on two stories seven years apart in which the paper -- which is owned by a division the Mormon Church, hardly a bastion of liberalism -- dared to accurately report bad news about a Republican.

Vazquez then moved on to cherry-picking attacks on NewsGuard's numbers:

The breakdown of the lists of outlets is even more revealing in terms of their individual grades. Socialist site Jacobin, scored an astonishing "92.5" by NewsGuard. The same outlet published Marxist propaganda in October headlined: “Socialism Isn’t Just About State Ownership — It’s About Redistributing Power.” In April 2020, Jacobin published a piece celebrating how “[s]ocialism is back on the agenda in the United States, thank God. And today’s newly minted socialists shouldn’t be afraid to embrace Marxism.”

[...]

That’s not all. The Nation, which also scored a high “92.5,” is the same outlet that published a 2020 piece defending “property destruction” as integral to the success of a left-wing “uprising” following the murder of George Floyd. The piece advocated for property violence: “Given that capitalism largely restricts pleasure to the consumption of goods, we should be able to entertain the idea that this taking of unnecessary things—while not a recognizably political act—is understandable or even a [sic] justifiable.”

Vazquez seems to be arguing that Jacobin and The Nation be rated lower simply for advocating a political viewpoint he gets paid to disagree with. He offered no evidence why those views, in and of themselves, should automatically make a website less credible.He continued:

By comparison, The Federalist, posted in the “right” AllSides list, was scored the worst with a ridiculous “12.5” on NewsGuard. A predominant reason for the abysmal rating, according to NewsGuard, was that The Federalist questioned the efficacy of mask mandates for COVID-19, even though liberal CNBC (not on the AllSides list, but has a “95” NewsGuard rating) cited a study showing that cloth masks were only 37 percent effective at filtering out virus particles. Another August preprint study did not find an “association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”

In cherry-picking that piece, Vazquez didn't mention all the other misinformation the Federalist has publiahed. He went on to whine:

Only two “lean-right” outlets on the AllSides list were given “100” scores by NewsGuard, both of which happen to be the Democrat-favoring Deseret News and the anti-Trump Reason magazine. Another anti-Trump outlet listed in the “lean right” AllSides list was The Dispatch, which received a “92.5” score from NewsGuard. It appears NewsGuard is more willing to award great scores to “lean right” sites that ironically publish pro-liberal content it approves.

Vazquez is again arguing that only websites that spout the same right-wing views he gets paid to advocate should be considered "credible." He refuses to take into consideration the idea that conservative websites are, in fact, less credible than liberal-leaning ones.

This "study" is a complete failure. But you know who loved it? AllSides, the supposedly neutral operation it relied on for its ratings. It devoted a Dec. 14 post to reviewing the findings and giving them credence, once again leaning into the MRC's politically motivated bias narratives: "Journalists tend to lean left, which reflects in their work. It makes sense that NewsGuard would rate them more highly because NewsGuard’s review staff is mostly made up of longtime mainstream journalists."

That, of course, is the ultimate evidence that the MRC's "study" is fatally flawed.

CNS' 'Balance' On Harry Reid's Death Includes 20-Year-Old Attack
Topic: CNSNews.com

When longtime Democratic Sen. Harry Reid died, in late Decmeber, CNSNews.com did the right thing with an anonymously written Dec. 29 article quoting Nancy Pelosi praising Reid as "a titan of public service,” adding perhaps unhappily that she also called him "a leader with strong family values."

Because no praise for a Democrat, living or dead, is apparently allowed to stand alone at CNS, this was followed a few hours later with another anonymously written article, this time bashing Reid for something he did 20 years ago:

Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who passed away this week, opposed President George W. Bush’s nomination of former Sen. John Ashcroft (R.-Mo.) to be attorney general of the United States citing, among other things, what he called Ashcroft’s “substantial biases against…gays and lesbians” and calling Ashcroft “a man who prevents women from options to which they should be entitled”—an apparent reference to abortion.

Despite Reid’s opposition, Ashcroft was confirmed as attorney general on 58-42 vote conducted on Feb. 1, 2001.

“I have weighed the facts revealed before the Judiciary Committee to the best of my ability,” Reid said in a Senate floor speech on Jan. 31, 2001.

“The evidence has convinced me that Mr. Ashcroft has demonstrated real and substantial biases against women, people of color, gays and lesbians, and anyone else who does not meet his personal definition of what constitutes an American,” said Reid.

“Not only has he shown that pervasive bias, he has repeatedly acted upon it as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as a member of this body,” Reid said.

“I cannot confirm a man who allows his bias against another's most personal lifestyle choices to effect his decision on whether that individual is fit to enter public service,” said Reid.

“I cannot confirm a man who prevents women from options to which they should be entitled,” he said.

“I cannot confirm as attorney general anyone who will not confer upon that office the impartiality it demands and, most importantly, deserves,” said Reid.

The anonyous writer didn't prove anything that Reid said wrong or even tried to justify Ashcroft's actions; instead, the article is filled out with a copy-and-paste of the entire speech.

We're not sure what the point of this article is. It's clearly meant to be a parting right-wing shot at a dead Democrat by folks who clearly despise LGBT people, but it ultimately comes off as evidence of Reid's integrity that he was willing to try and block the nomination of Ashcroft based on his anti-LGBT track record.

In that way, CNS' sniping backfired. That's what happens when making partisan political points becomes more important than reporting the news.

UPDATE: That same day, CNS also reposted a 2016 article by Susan Jones about how Reid said that he's "one of the kings of earmarks." Keep it classy, CNS!

Newsmax's Hirsen Gushes Over Kevin Sorbo
Topic: Newsmax

How much did Kevin Sorbo pay James Hirsen to write an excessively gushy Dec. 20 Newsmax column about him? Enough for Hirsen to crank out this press-agent-worthy glurge:

Kevin Sorbo is a multi-talented entertainment pro.

He first rose to international fame in 1995, when he landed the lead role as Hercules in “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.” At the time it ranked as one of television’s highest-rated syndicated shows.

Its success yielded the popular 1995 spin-off series called “Xena: Warrior Princess.” Lucy Lawless plays the lead in the TV fantasy offshoot. And the pair of hits allowed for some fun crossover appearances of characters between the two shows.

Kevin also plays main character High Guard Captain Dylan Hunt in the 2000 sci-fi TV series “Andromeda,” which was penned by the creator of the enduring iconic series “Star Trek,” the late, great Gene Roddenberry.

As one of Hollywood’s top celebrities, Kevin’s more recent projects have focused on using his many mighty gifts in spiritually-oriented ways.

As a major co-star in the 2014 watershed faith-based film “God's Not Dead,” he portrays an atheist college professor, who on the first day of class mandates that his students disavow their religious beliefs.

The movie has an astounding profit margin, having grossed more than $62 million on a $2 million budget. It not only succeeded in turning industry heads, but it also ended up launching a whole new film franchise.

Of course, this is all a lead-up to promoting Sorbo's current film project:

His latest project is a new cinematic adaptation of a “Left Behind” work that is part of the bestselling series co-authored by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

[...]

Kevin produces and stars in the upcoming “Left Behind: Rise of the Antichrist,” which is currently being filmed in Canada. He and co-star Greg Perrow recently provided some insight as to why they are making the movie, and what people can expect in the re-launch of this beloved saga.

Hirsen concluded by bestowing victimhood on Sorbo for being a right-winger in Hollywood:

Like many other faith-filled people in Hollywood, Kevin has borne his share of scorn.

He noted, “There's a negativity towards Christians in Hollywood, and a negativity towards people who believe in God.”

Maybe, just maybe, Kevin, whose efforts in the past helped bring us tales of battling mythical beasts and who is now taking on the biblical ones, will get some folks to crack open the Good Book.

A great place to start at this time of year is Luke chapter 2, verses 1-20. Merry Christmas!

That's not the only gushy promotion Hirsen was handing out over the holiday season. His Dec. 6 column touted "The Chosen," a streaming show that claims to be "the first multi-season series focusing on the life of Jesus Christ," and its success at crowdfunding. And his Jan. 3 column touted the film "American Underdog," a fulm about football playerKurt Warner made by the "modern-day virtuosos of the faith-based genre" that "remained in the top four [movies] over New Year's weekend"; Hirsen concludedthat column with the corny line, "faith is the completed pass into the end zone."

This turn toward the spritual, by the way, came after Hirsen spent the weeks after the 2020 presidential election enthusiastically embracing election fraud conspiracy theories, only to apparently be so shaken by the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection that he took a more existential tone. Hirsen has largely stayed away from writing about politics ever since -- which makes sense, given that he's supposed to be Newsmax's entertainment writer -- but he also hasn't apologized to his readers for pushing those bogus conspiracy theories.

WND's Root Wants Trump To Hate COVID Vaccines More Than He Does
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Wayne Allyn Root is a ridiculously huge Trump fan, as well as a prolific COVID misinformer. He spent a couple of his WorldNetDaily columns dabbling in both. His Dec. 24 column was dedicated to the former:

Guess what? I already scored big for Christmas. I got my No. 1 gift. Actually, 80 million Trump warriors (aka "deplorables") scored big for Christmas. Because we all asked Santa for a Trump comeback.

Well, we got more than we hoped for. Because Trump has made perhaps the biggest comeback in history. And he did it far faster than anyone imagined possible.

I call it "The Donald Trump Christmas Miracle."

[...]

But that's only Trump's remarkable political comeback. His financial comeback is even bigger. Have you heard about that? Of course not.

In only one year's time, after losing the election, nonstop slander by the media and the Jan. 6 debacle, Trump is now richer than ever before.

Trump's new social media venture turned public company Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) has tripled his net worth. According to Bloomberg, Trump was worth $2.5 billion before. But he now owns a 58% stake in DWAC. Bloomberg says that stake is worth as much as $4.8 billion.

Trump just sold his stake in his Washington, D.C., hotel. The Washington Post reports Trump could profit over $100 million from the transaction.

Trump is also selling books like hotcakes. Trump's new book sold 100,000 copies in just 10 days, at $74.99 a copy and $229.99 for signed copies. That means Trump grossed over $10 million in 10 days. Signed copies of Trump's book are reselling on eBay for $1,600.

His speaking tour with Bill O'Reilly is selling out sports stadiums and grossing over $2 million per day. Not a bad day's work!

[...]

The title of my book perfectly describes this man: "Trump Rules"!

What lies ahead? Remember, I'm the national radio and television host who suggested to Trump that he should become speaker of the House in 2022, as a springboard to his presidential victory in 2024. Stay tuned.

So, I say to all Trump warriors, "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night."

Root's Dec. 31 column, however, was dedicated to the one issue he disagrees with Trump about. After complaining that the above fanboying was ignored, he lamented:

Then during that same weekend, Trump made some comments about the COVID-19 vaccine that I strongly disagreed with. It is the first issue we have ever disagreed on. I made several national television appearances to make my case. I believe he is a huge favorite to regain the White House in 2024, but the way Trump is speaking about the vaccine could turn off his base and therefore damage his prospects.

Of course, the media took this as a negative. They couldn't wait to scream in headlines about a rift between a high-profile supporter and Trump. That couldn't be further from the truth.

A journalist for Reuters contacted me today. Here was my response:

[...]

"This is the first issue I've ever disagreed with him on. It doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for having him back as president one bit.

"He was a great president. He has made one of the greatest political comebacks in history as of right now. A huge majority of the country wants him back. A huge number of voters wish they could have their vote back. Biden is a disaster. I believe Trump is the prohibitive favorite to be back in the White House in 2024. I pray that happens.

"But we do disagree on this one issue: the COVID-19 vaccine. The 'intervention' I spoke of was simply a chance to convince Trump that he should alter his message. He deserves full credit for being a four-star general and coordinating the amazing response to COVID-19. Trump was fantastic. But he should now stress:

"No. 1: The vaccine and booster after booster for everyone was not what was intended. The vaccine was only to fight a holding pattern until therapeutics could be developed. Trump had put therapeutic development on a fast track. Biden and the Dems stopped that.

"No. 2: The vaccine was never intended for those who had already had COVID-19 and have therefore acquired natural immunity. It was only intended for those at high risk and certainly NEVER for children.

"No. 3: He should stress his strong opposition to vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, mask mandates and lockdowns.

"No. 4: And, Trump would never have allowed power-crazed, control-freak politicians to use the vaccine as an excuse to destroy your business or steal your job.

[...]

Trump should take credit for making the vaccine available in record time, but also point out that America is about freedom and choice. Those who want it can get it because of his efforts. Those who don't want it are free to never get it. And he must stress he will fight for our rights to freedom and choice.

Here's perhaps the most crucial point of all for Trump to make: If "science" won't respect or allow discussion or debate, then it's no longer science; it's just propaganda.

Root has offered no evidence he's open to any science that disagrees with his conspiratorial propaganda, let alone admit that the COVID conspiracy theories he has peddled have largely been proven wrong.

Did The MRC Get Played By Facebook To Attack Facebook Whistleblower?
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's recurring meltdown over Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen for getting more attention than the MRC has -- repeatedly lashing out at her for supposedly being a "leftist" -- has continued apace:

Catherine Salgado put "whistleblower" in scare quotes when referencing Haugen in a Dec. 9 post. Brian Bradley did the same the next day, adding:

But was Haugen really a whistleblower? After she resigned from Facebook in May, The Wall Street Journal revealed a trove of files, provided by Haugen, which she portrayed as evidence of Facebook’s indifference to so-called right-wing “misinformation” that she perceived, according to Time magazine, as implicating national elections and contributing to the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill Riot. Haugen also called for increased online censorship during a recent Senate hearing.

The public emergence of Haugen’s left-skewed, Orwellian talking points could motivate more whistleblowers to exhibit faux-courage by resigning from their companies and peddling the liberal narrative that curbing free speech is necessary for Americans’ safety. The introduction of financial incentives in Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) FTC Whistleblower Act could also motivate more “whistleblowers” like Haugen to cast blame on social media companies for supposed pro-right-wing bias.

Salgado more fully lashed out at Haugen in a scare-quote-laden Dec. 21 post, pushing her "leftist" talking points and suggesting she came forward for the money:

When Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen came on as a guest of leftist, pro-censorship New York Times podcast host Kara Swisher’s show, Haugen had one core question related to Facebook’s “misinformation” efforts: “Will they go far enough?”

Swisher claimed that Facebook shouldn’t be “choking people in the dark,” which Haugen agreed to, during the podcast. Haugen also advocated for a “free market of ideas” online. In contrast, Haugen said that Facebook subsidizes hate to make money. Her solution? More censorship.

“Facebook has done a really good job of distracting us with the censorship debate,” Haugen complained. She doesn’t appear to be all too concerned about Facebook’s biased censorship, believing discussion of the issue is an obstacle to the changes for which she advocates.

[...]

Haugen admitted to Swisher that members of her “comms team” had previously worked for Democratic campaigns and that the nonprofit Luminate, a network member of leftist eBay founder and billionaire Pierre Omidyar, had paid “operational” expenses for her. Yet Swisher mocked reports pointing to the questionable nature of Haugen’s politically leftist advisors.

Haugen also denied that she was incentivized by a potentially large financial reward for her “whistleblowing,” though Haugen then mused over how she would invest the money if she received it. The “whistleblower” even said that she would work for Facebook again if offered, because she still believes its work is important. Haugen wants to start a movement of young people who drive “rituals of governance” around Big Tech.

But it appears that the MRC's repeated "leftist" attacks on Haugen were not only playing into Facebook's agenda, they may have been done at Facebook's request. The Wall Street Journal reported:

The day after former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen went public in October, the company’s team in Washington started working the phones.

To lawmakers and advocacy groups on the right, according to people familiar with the conversations, their message was that Ms. Haugen was trying to help Democrats. Within hours, several conservative news outlets published stories alleging Ms. Haugen was a Democratic activist.

Later, Facebook lobbyists warned Democratic staffers that Republicans were focused on the company’s decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who killed two people during unrest in Kenosha, Wis., and who was later acquitted of homicide and other charges.

The company’s goal, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the company’s outreach, was to muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance that was emerging to enact tougher rules on social-media companies in general and Facebook in particular.

The Journal further reported that after Haugen's "60 Minutes" appearance, "the company and its representatives spread word among lawmakers’ offices, advocacy groups and others that she had partisan motives, according to the people familiar with those conversations," and that the Haugen-bashing articles that appeared in right-wing media "variously called Ms. Haugen 'the frontwoman of a PR campaign pushed by the Democratic party,' a 'leftist activist' and someone who is 'part of a broader Democratic initiative.'" That's pretty much how the MRC portrayed her. The Journal also noted that "Facebook representatives alleged in conversations with reporters that she was a proxy for" Omidyar -- which sounds a lot like Salgado's above-noted attack.

Salgado wrote a Dec. 30 post on the Journal article exposing Facebook's use of right-wing media to attack Haugen. But rather than admitting the MRC got played by the organization it's trying to destroy,  Salgado simply summarized the Journal's bombshell quickly and without comment, while still repeating those Facebook-directed attack lines:

Facebook has done everything since “whistleblower” Frances Haugen’s revelations except apologize. The company changed its name, denied massive problems, and reportedly even sold different narratives to politicians from different ends of the political spectrum.

The Wall Street Journal, which originally broke the “Facebook Files” revelations from leftist "whistleblower” Frances Haugen, in a new piece that Facebook had intentionally depicted Haugen as a leftist activist to rouse Republicans.

Salgado uniroinically linked to two earlier attack pieces on Haugen's purported "leftist" sympathies, seemingly unaware that this was evidence of the MRC's active participation in Facebook's smear campaign.

And then -- even knowing she's doing Facebook's bidding by making political attacks on Haugen -- Salgado still continued to hype that tainted "leftist" narrative. She huffed in a Jan. 7 post that "Leftist activist turned Facebook 'whistleblower' Frances Haugen has been touring the world to advise lawmakers." She then rehashed the Omidyar talking point in a Jan. 18 post:

Recently, leftist activist turned Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen admitted that she had received monetary aid from the nonprofit Luminate, an Omidyar Network member. While the Tech Oversight Project reportedly strongly opposes Big Tech-funded groups and lobbyists, and seeks antitrust action from lawmakers, the project’s ties to Omidyar should raise concerns for pro-free speech advocates. 

Salgado is clearly not afraid to look like a slave to manufactured talking points -- even after they've been exposed as manufactured.

Massie's Muslim Meltdown: WND Columnist Hurls N-Word At Omar, Tlaib
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've noted how WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie likes to take refuge in his black-conservative privilege to sound like a white supremacist. He took that to an extreme in his Dec. 13 column, in which he tarred Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib -- whom he has spewed Islamophobic venom at before -- with the N-word (though at least he knows well enough not to actually say the word out loud):

One of the most highly revered Democratic leaders in history, the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia,, said he had "seen and knew lots of white" ones. In fact, despite the best efforts of liberal apparatchiks masquerading as fact-checkers to claim otherwise, one of those who eulogized Byrd when he died in 2010 epitomizes one of the "white ones" Byrd referenced. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

As a child, both my late grandmother and my late mother explained to me that "a lowdown, common, dirty person" was the definition of the particular "word" the late Democratic senator employed multiple times on cable news programming between 2001 and 2005.

When I employ the "word" the late Sen. Byrd correctly used in referencing the "white ones" he knew, which I argue is descriptive of the Democratic Party at large, I'm not being boorish. I am, however, using the "word" Democrats are responsible for turning into a skin-color pejorative. I sardonically applaud Byrd's words as truth about his fellow Democrats, truth that was long past due.

The "word" I am referencing is the best and most appropriate descriptive of Muslim Democrats Ilhan Omar, Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, Mich; albeit the "word" is extendable to Muslims who are beheading, raping and pillaging every single part of the world they infest.

Without exception, when the truth about the pair is openly voiced in a public forum, they predictably sniffle, feign offense and shed crocodile tears. This is exactly the act Tlaib and Omar put on when Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., truthfully referenced Omar as being akin to a violent foreign terrorist. Rep. Boebert's truthful statement evoked a teary-eyed jeremiad that showcased an acting ability as pathetic as that of Richard (I'll never call that guy Rachel) Levine being made a four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service.

Rushing to the cameras to show support in opposition to the truth being told about Omar were other Democrats who by definition are the "word" the late senator used. They included Reps. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Pramila Payapal, D-Wash. Of course, Nancy Pelosi, who is the dictionary picture of the "word" Democrat Byrd used, wasted no time promising retaliatory action as punishment for truth telling.

Evidence seems to support the allegations that Omar married her brother to gain entrance into the United States. Thus, it is most certainly fair to question how often the godless marriage was consummated and which of the children she has her brother fathered. Tlaib is a godless, uncouth, foulmouthed stain on humanity.

Massie expanded his definition of the "word" to all Muslims (and Democrats):

The "word" Sen. Byrd used most assuredly describes those in the Democratic Party in which he spent his entire life. Those who murdered over 3,000 innocent Americans Sept. 11, 2001, those who murdered Tyrone Woods and others Sept. 11, 2012 in Benghazi and those who beheaded the late reporter Danny Pearl are murderous representatives of the word Byrd used. (See: "'BDS' Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.")

Those who are perverted pedophiles like the satanic heathen Muhammad they call a prophet was by definition the "word" Byrd used. Those Muslims who murder and then sodomize Americans Biden has abandoned in Afghanistan are the epitome of the "word" as well.

Omar and Tlaib are Erebusic and morally opprobrious; identifying them as the poster anti-Semite Muslims representative of the "word" the late Democratic senator said he knew is in perfect keeping with the character of those two and all Muslims like them mentioned here within.

If they like, I'm willing to sit down face-to-face and explain to them in even greater detail, why an eternity of unimaginable suffering awaits them if they don't turn from the ways Byrd's "word" rightly defines.

Massie doesn't seem concerned about the eternity of unimaginable suffering that awaits him for the unhinged hatred and lies he has spread over the years.

(Oh, and "Erebusic" is perhaps Massie's favorite five-dollar word to throw at anyone who's not as right-wing as he is.)

Newsmax's Black Adds COVID Misinfo To His Trump-Fluffing
Topic: Newsmax

The first indication that Conrad Black's Dec. 22 Newsmax column -- headlined "The Clouds of Political Madness are Gathering" -- would be quite the trip was the tag that "The author is a non-clinician." We know what that means: lots of COVID misinformation. And, by golly, he didn't disappoint on that front:

Joe Biden and the Democrats are embarking on a new campaign of terror over the Omicron variant, (“a winter of ... death” for the unvaccinated), which is, in fact, a Christmas blessing. There are fewer than 10 fatalities reported in the entire world as a result of this new variant on COVID. It is like a conventional flu, except that 90% of the people afflicted have mild or no symptoms and all of those afflicted benefit from the reinforcement their immune systems are getting against all variants of the disease.

No greater gift to herd immunity from the COVID family of viruses could have been sought or imagined. Yet it is being used to justify a renewed campaign to transform Americans into a nation of cowardly, paranoid, and hypochondriacal moles.

Yeah, that's not the way omicron worked out. And, no, omicron is not the flu. It also turns out omicron is a detriment to herd immunity.

Black also labored to spin the news that Fox News personalities were texting White House officials demanding Trump do something about the Capitol riot he helped incite:

The January 6 commission and Trump-hating nightly media commentators professed to find in the fact that Donald Trump’s family and Fox News Trump personalities Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity warned the then-president of backlash if he didn’t take a strong line against the trespassing and vandalism at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, proof that the melee was a pre-planned insurrection and that Trump’s complaints of election fraud were unfounded. (It confirms merely that like almost everyone, they disapproved of the attack on the Capitol, but did not deny Trump’s and his law-abiding supporters’ grievance.)

After several paragraphs of Biden-bashing, Black returned to sucking up yet again to the guy who gave him a presidential pardon for his financial crimes:

After blithely assuming the swift demise of Trump’s support, they now see the dangers of a Trump/Republican return in 2022 and 2024. But they appear to have an airtight mental block against contemplation of their own role in elevating a U.S. administration that is destabilizing the world by the self-mutilation of America.

They are incapable of contemplating the fact that Trump achieved great successes in sharply curtailing illegal immigration, unemployment, oil imports, Chinese and North Korean provocations and bringing greater prosperity to low-income minorities than any president in history. They are as blind to his accomplishments as to the fraudulence of their claim that he threatens democracy.

The same people who falsely accused Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election, and claimed that an unexceptionable telephone call to the president of Ukraine to ask what happened in the Biden family’s commercial activities there — not to try to dictate the condemnation of the Bidens — was an impeachable offense, are still raving that Trump is a fascist and even putschist mountebank.

As he has before, Black once again attempted to deflect blame from Trump over the insurrection:

For these purposes such hysterics cling more fervently than ever to the myth of the January 6 “insurrection.” There is not a scrap of evidence that Trump approved any illegalities or had any notion of overthrowing the government.

[...]

But the blame for this indignity resides clearly with the egregious mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who were repeatedly warned (including by Trump) that some hooligans might attach themselves to the large gathering of Trump voters and try to breach Capitol security, something which Trump himself admonished his supporters to avoid.

Black concluded his column with a vague threat: "The anti-Trump Republicans, or NeverTrumpers, are the most inexcusable wrong-doers: They pretended to support a president they actually conspired to defeat, by illegal means. All who righteously engaged in defamation and skullduggery to remove Trump share in the guilt for the abject failure of Biden. They have sown and they shall reap." Written like a guy who's still trying to justify the pardon Trump gave him.

CNS Loves Promoting Rand Paul's Dubious COVID Tantrums
Topic: CNSNews.com

We've documented how CNSNews.com likes to portray Republcian Sen. Rand Paul as having more practical medical experience regarding COVID than he actually does (he's an optometrist, not a virologist). It loves to promote his tantrums and -- like its Media Research Cener parent -- make him out to be a victim when the situation demands. Craig Bannister found such a situation last August (while, again, falsely inflating his medical credentials):

Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a physician and sitting U.S. senator, is slamming YouTube for removing two videos from his YouTube page, then suspending his ability to upload videos for seven days.

The first video removed by YouTube was an interview in which the senator questioned the science regarding face masks and criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci.

"Apparently, because I dared to contradict Dr. Fauci and the government, YouTube has removed my video," Paul said.

Paul had made a blanket claim in the video that cloth masks don't work against COVID -- in fact, they do, albeit not as well as N95 masks, and the work better than no mask at all. Further, the CDC debunked the two studies Paul cited in his video. Bannister never told his readers any of that, of course.

CNS amplified the victimhood by publishing a column by Jarrett Stepman decrying the "censoring" of "physician" Paul, adding, "This is hardly the first time that YouTube aggressively censored content it disagrees with or  banned those it doesn’t like." Stepman refused to concede that YouTube is a private business that has the right to enforce terms of service on its users.

Bannister returned at the end of August to tout another Paul tantrum:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is inviting journalists who have attacked his stance on the value of natural immunity and opposition to COVID mask mandates and vaccine passports to read the results of a new study.

“To every snot-nosed “journalist” who accosted me in the halls of Congress and spouted Fauci-isms denigrating natural immunity— read the science!” Sen Paul tweeted Monday, citing an article titled “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished” by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

But hat article featured claims made by Martin Kulldorff, who helped create theGreat Barrington Declaration, an anti-vaxx-adjacent document that recklessly advocated herd immunity prior to the development of COVID vaccines.

Managing editor Michael W. Chapman served another  Rand rant in an October 4 article:

During a hearing about COVID and school reopenings, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a medical doctor, criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra for ignoring the science on natural immunity, and for smearing millions of Americans who rely on their natural immunity -- after recovering from COVID -- as "flat-Earthers."

Senator Paul also criticized Becerra, a pro-abortion lawyer, for presuming "to tell over 100 million Americans who have survived COVID that we have no right to determine our own medical care."

"You alone are on high, and you've made these decisions, a lawyer with no scientific background, no medical degree," said Paul.  "This is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American. You, sir, are the one ignoring the science."

Chapman, needless to say, didn't mention that Paul's "medical doctor" optometry degree is irrelevant to virology.

Bannister touted Rand ranting again in a Nov. 30 article: "Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Biden Administration’s COVID czar, has declared himself the 'all-high priest of science' who, like 'the Great and Powerful Oz' can never be questioned – and that’s a very dangerous thing, physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) warns." Bannister served up even more anti-science ravings from Paul in a Dec. 10 article:

“Sorry, Tony,” physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Biden Administration COVID czar Dr. Anthony after Fauci advised Americans hosting holiday celebrations to “require that people show evidence they are vaccinated.”

[...]

On Thursday, Rep. Paul responded to Fauci’s advice by tweeting that he will host a Christmas celebration of “57 strong” and none of them will have to show proof of vaccination.

However, there will be one (and only one) requirement for attendance, Paul explained:

“Sorry Tony, at the Paul household Christmas (57 strong) the only requirement is having read the Constitution.”

We're sorry we missed out on getting invited to Paul's superspreader event.

Paul returned to ranting about his "snot-nosed" critics again, and Bannister dedicated a Jan. 17 post to detailing it:

Physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wonders if the “snot-nosed censors at YouTube” will now come to his office and perform an act of apology now that The New York Times and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have admitted that his comments about cloth COVID masks are not so-called “misinformation.”

“Does this mean snot-nosed censors at YouTube will come to my office and kiss my … and admit I was right?” Senator Paul asked on Twitter Saturday, embedding a New York Times story, titled “The C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.” The article reports that, as Paul has claimed, cloth COVID masks are less effective than other types:

[...]

YouTube actively censors and labels what it and liberal media declare “misinformation” regarding COVID.

But insisting that cloth masks offer no protection whatsoever -- which has been the simplisitc claim Paul has been pushing -- is objectively misinformation, and it doesn't take the "liberal media" to make that determination (and, no, Craig, that's not how fact-checking works). Paul is not right, since everyone pretty much knew that N95 masks offered greater protection than cloth masks do, so he deserves no apology.