NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC War on Ketanji Brown Jackson, Part 1: Building the Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was manufacturing a right-wing talking point by smearing every potential Supreme Court nominee as a left-wing radical well before Jackson was actually nominated. Read more >>
'Cackling Coven': MRC's Fondacaro Has Issues With Women Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro appears to have issues with women, if his insistence on smearing the co-hosts of "The View" is any indication. A coven, of course, is word used to describe a gathering of witches, so it's clear that he believe "The View" hosts are evil simply for expressing opinions he is paid to hate. (We assume he'a not referring to the band that had a 1971 hit with "One Tin Soldier.")
Fondacaro seems to not understand that spewing insults and denigrating women as ugly sub-human evildoers who would cast a spell on anyone they feel like is not "media research" and does nothing to make anhone believe that the MRC is a credible operation. Then again, it keeps paying Fondacaro to make those vile insults, so perhaps destroying its crediblity is the ultimate goal.
Fondacaro clearly hates his neighbors and thinks he's doing it in the name of heaven (in his version of "heaven," it's the right-wing narratives he gets paid to perpetuate). Maybe he ought to listen to that song to see what it says about judgment day and what is beneath that stone.
CNS Mad Biden Doesn't Hate Transgender People Enough Topic: CNSNews.com
It's effectively a corporate mandate at the Media Reearch Center that all employees are to hate transgender people and anybody who doesn't, and its "news" division CNSNews.com has fallen in line with that ditkat. When President Biden marked the Transgender Day of Visibility, CNS was ready to lash out. Susan Jones was first out of the gate with a March 31 article complaining about an administration decision on passports -- and the length of the accompanying fact sheet:
"Today, the Biden-Harris Administration recognizes Transgender Day of Visibility, an annual celebration of the resilience, achievements, and joy of transgender people in the United States and around the world."
So begins a very, very lengthy White House "Fact Sheet" of what the Biden administration is doing to "support the mental health of transgender children, remove barriers that transgender people face accessing critical government services, and improve the visibility of transgender people in our nation’s data."
For starters, the Department of State is announcing that beginning on April 11, 2022, all U.S. citizens will be able to select an “X” (instead of 'F' or 'M') as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.
[...]
Although the first sentence of the news release talks about the "joy of transgender people," the news release later notes that transgender children "are put at higher risk of attempted suicide or mental health challenges when they face bullying, rejection, or denial of health care."
The administration says it plans to provide more mental health resources for transgender youth. This includes a new Health and Human Services website that "that offers resources for transgender and LGBTQI+ youth, their parents, and providers. These resources include best practices for affirming an LGBTQI+ child, and information about suicide prevention services."
Later that day, Craig Bannister melted down over Biden saying that transgender people were "made in the image of God":
“Our entire administration sees you for who you are: made in the image of God,” President Joe Biden tells transgender Americans in a video released Thursday.
In a video celebrating a “Transgender Day of Visibility,” Biden reassures the nation’s transgenders that his entire administration “sees” them:
“To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your president sees you – Jill, Kamala, Doug - our entire administration sees you for who you are: made in the image of God, and deserving of dignity, respect and support.”
According to the Bible (Genesis 1:26-28), however, God created only males and females: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them.”
It was left to an anonymous CNS writer to complain in an April 1 article that "The White House released a 'fact sheet' on Thursday outlining the 'advances' it says the administration has made in “equality and visibility for transgender Americans.'" The anonymous writer somehow managed to avoid complaining about the length of the fact sheet.
We've already noted how managing editor Michael W. Chapman lashed out over a transgender being flown outside of a federal agency building, and how right-wing ex-transgender person Walt Heyer attacked Biden for promoting "institutionalized child abuse" for refusing to hate transgender people as much as he does.
CNS' columnist also turned their anti-trans hate toward Biden. An April 11 column by dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue spewed:
It was reported on April 1 that President Biden took the opportunity on "Transgender Day of Visibility" to commend the parents of transgender children for "affirming your child's identity," saying it is "one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy."
This was not an April Fool's joke. No, this is the mindset of the president and an administration that purports to being compassionate, but in reality is promoting child abuse on a massive scale. No need to impute malicious motive — cluelessness will do.
[...]
Note that Biden sees this issue in terms of discrimination, not mental or physical health. This is the kind of robotic response he has been trained to develop.
Of course, chemical castration and body mutilation are the real issues, not discrimination. Nobody thinks that eight and ten-year olds are being discriminated against because they cannot drink alcohol, drive a car, or vote. Responsible adults are committed to the psychological and physiological wellbeing of children — they don't allow them to be exploited by irresponsible adults.
At some point in the future, historians will look back at this period in history and wonder why so many prominent Americans aided and abetted child abuse. That day can't come too soon.
John Stonestreet and Wayne Stender used their April 11 column to fight for the right of Christians to hate transgender people:
A little over a week ago, the White House issued a series of documents for the “International Transgender Day of Visibility.” Even more than revealing a new progressive “baseline” when it comes to politics and gender, these documents foreshadow new and real threats to religious freedom.
[...]
Transgender ideology falsely promises hope and instead brings harm to people who bear God’s image. When government forces and federal departments are co-opted to advance this ideology, religious freedom is placed in a precarious and fragile position.
[...]
Christians in this cultural moment cannot abandon truths about the human person, sexuality, and religious freedom whenever a new administration roars. With clarity and courage, we must teach our kids, build our institutions, and take all necessary stands based on what is true about men and women, sex, marriage, and freedom.
Donohue returned to spew more hate in an April 22 column:
There is no such person as a transgender — you are either male or female — but there is such a thing as transgenderism: it is an ideology that promotes the fiction that the sexes are interchangeable.
To win, proponents are bent on getting to children, prompting little kids to question whether they are satisfied being a boy or a girl. If they are in doubt, they should be advised to at least consider making the switch.
There is no more rabid advocate of transgenderism in America than the president of the United States. Indeed, transgender mania has gripped the White House.
Within months, the Biden Administration will finalize changes to Obamacare that will make it easier for persons seeking to transition to the opposite sex. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading the way, treating gender identity as a status worthy of being covered by laws against sex discrimination. Changes will also be made to healthcare plans, so that sex-transition procedures can be covered.
This is a classic case of top-down politics. There is no national outcry demanding that those who want to flip their sex should be given the green light. If anything, there is a growing consensus that we need to hit the pause button on this subject.
Humor-Impaired MRC Treats Colbert Joke Seriously Topic: Media Research Center
How humor-impared is the Media Reserach Center? It decided that a Stephen Colbert joke was a statement of fact that needed to be fed into the right-wing outrage machine. When Colbert made a joke about being willing to pay $15 a gallon for gas because he drives a Tesla, Joseph Vazquez fired up the ol' outrage machine, completely missing the joke to embrace a righ-wing narrative, tarring Colbert as a rich, out-of-touch elitist:
Was it part of multimillionaire CBS comedian Stephen Colbert’s routine to look like a complete hypocrite by lecturing people about the morals of paying higher gas prices?
The Late Show host praised that the U.S. and European allies are finally considering banning imports of Russian oil. Of course, the consideration comes after President Joe Biden slapped more sanctions on American oil than Russian oil. Under Biden, the U.S. has reportedly imported “more than half a million barrels per day (BPD) of oil from Russia,” making Russia the U.S.’s third largest oil supplier.
Colbert conceded that gas prices have hit $4 a gallon, but then claimed: “A clean conscience is worth a buck or two.” He continued his nonsense with a facetious twist: “I’m willing to pay $4 a gallon. Hell, I'll pay $15 a gallon because I drive a Tesla.”
Pontificating about the virtue of paying high gas prices while driving an electric vehicle is blatant hypocrisy, and so is the fact that the show host also enjoys a $75 millionnet worth.
Colbert definitely put his foot in his mouth.
Vazquez apparently thought his humor-devoid take was so hot that thge MRC made up a meme card about it -- which also missed the fact that it was a joke.
Vazquez also repeated the right-wing talking point that "canceling the Keystone XL pipeline was a “bad policy decision” because it could have given the U.S. a strategic advantage over Russia," even though most of the products of the pipeline would likely be exported, not saved for U.S. consumption.
But who cares about humor or facts when there are right-wing narratives to be advanced and people to be demonized and deliberately misinterpreted?
So-called transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell and an injurious form of mental illness. Belief in same exhibits a level of mental sickness in the afflicted individual that's beyond rationality; but to demand the public participate in this mental sickness transcends reality.
Hollywood has been called a dream factory, but in reality it's a factory that was created and is sustained to manufacture lies to anesthetize the public to the level of immiseration that envelops them. Hollywood is also the industry of distraction and agitprop ingested by the gullible as truth. Even documentaries presented as factual are nothing more glamorized lies, e.g., the JFK assassination et al.
Consider the theft of the election from President Trump. The question isn't how; the fact is – it was. Omitted in the endless hours of debate and condemnation of those of us who understand it was a statistical impossibility for Biden to win without cheating, was the fact that this wasn't the first theft of a presidential election.
[...]
The value and judicial competency of Biden's token Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, isn't based upon meritocracy; it's based upon melanin and gender. I cannot think of a more insulting assault on my judicial abilities if I were the nominee.
Cultural Marxists, neo-Leninists and the liberal Democrats that emulate them are a variant species of "The Children of the Corn." Bathtub gin has done less brain damage than the demonic psychosocial idiocies they panhandle as a higher form of social inclusion.
I submit that the objective to which they are most earnestly dedicated is to subvert God's intended order of creation, i.e., man and woman. I further submit that the truly clever aspect of this hellish objective has been to convince the public that their objective is a social necessity, through the use of fictional disaffection and alienation that threatens their well-being.
This effort was augmented by the abandonment of Truth in Christendom as said Truth is immutably stated in the Word of God. Sin was recast as love, and as such the function of male and female was repurposed into a reality where mental illness was applauded – and the pursuit of exchanging the "Truth for a lie" was fully underway. Homosexuality was no longer a disgusting, dirty, sexual perversion; it was gender. But it couldn't stop there, so transgenderism and every other form of sexual perversion imaginable was invented to give the illusion that this mental illness was normal.
-- Mychal Massie, March 14 WND column (Massie also quoted from the "Homosexual Manifesto," which, as we noted the last time he did this, is satire not meant to be taken seriously)
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, is a reminder that for all of the boastful bravado regarding the elevation of women, Marxists and their Democratic sycophants hold women in the lowest of esteem. Jackson also reminds me of just how "man dominated" Marxists are from the top down.
[...]
I have to laugh every time I hear some liberal feminist claiming another of their kind is a "strong, independent, brave woman." What a crock of vomit mixed with the substance that comprises encopresis sans micturition.
If Hollywood women are "so strong and independent," why do they have to sleep with directors and producers to get a role in a movie? If liberal Hollywood women are so admirable, why are they expected to murder their unborn children to keep their jobs? Or is that their demented definition of "independent and strong"?
These women love to talk about the great and all-powerful Hillary. I ask you, if Hilary is so powerful and such an independent woman, why was the nomination taken from her in 2007 and given to Obama? Or are we supposed to forget that the Clinton team had dirt on Obama that was reputed to be so devastating that it would force him from the race? Somehow, said information quietly disappeared.
[...]
Pelosi may be speaker of the House, but as such she is little more than a toothless old sot suffering from tardive dyskinesia and some pronounced form of hebephrenia. In brief, she's a toothless old dog who wags her tail when the true Marxian leadership gives the order.
I thought Cheryl Cooky – Purdue University professor of American studies and women's, gender and sexuality studies – set a new standard of mental illness and delusion when she claimed Will Thomas was a modern-day Jackie Robinson. Will Thomas is the mentally ill fake pretending to be a woman so he can sate his pathetic ego by winning swimming events he wasn't good enough to even qualify for competing against other men.
But, Nancy Pelosi's comment extolling Biden makes both Cooky and the Thomas guy seem normal even if those two are certifiably nuts, as in crazy.
[...]
Allegations abound that Biden stole his friend's wife. His drug-addicted, sex-obsessed son is reported by reputable sources to have been sexually involved with a minor family member. Even by the mobster code of ethics instilled in Pelosi by her Baltimore, M.D., mobster father, the aforementioned would have been unacceptable. But, the Biden family is more like something out of Macbeth.
The Democratic Party has been the party of Satan from its inception. It simply transmogrified from "a likeness" of Satan to a full-blown, fully public, no longer hidden image of Marxism, neo-Leninism and Fabianism, which are the triad of Satan.
To the Democrats' leaders, Women and crayon people are of value only as long as they follow the prescribed mantra. For women that means any women who dare not subscribe to the industrialized murder of children are viewed as traitors to women's rights.
For the sub-group people identified by melanin content, it means living the entirety of their lives filled with self-inflicted immiseration and the never-ending complaint of socio-inequality based upon the fallacious construct of skin color.
The increasing inability to portray Joe Biden as anything other than a slobbering, cognitively diminished, pathetic excuse for a human being forced the Marxian Democrats to do what they do best – create a diversion based upon melanin content.
MRC Ready To Shove Its Hated Jen Psaki Out The Door Topic: Media Research Center
When it was rumored in February that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was thinking of leaving her position, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck -- whose hatred for Psaki has been reinforced every day he smears her and fluffs Peter Dopocy -- was eager to [pounce in a Feb. 28 post:
According to Puck News’s Dylan Byers on Wednesday, a real Psaki Show could soon become a reality as CNN and MSNBC have been jockeying to hire the current White House press secretary as a full-time host (and not as a commentator, like she did from 2017 to 2020 at CNN).
Byers — formerly of NBCNews.com and the CNN Media team — wrote that, “earlier this month,” Psaki had respective lunch meetings with “CNN interim co-president Amy Entelis and CNN+ programming lead Rebecca Kutler” and then “NBC News Chairman Cesar Conde and MSNBC President Rashida Jones.”
For CNN, they’re hoping to nab “a marquee star” amidst chaos within the company. As for MSNBC, they’re aiming to find someone to fill the void that’ll be left by Rachel Maddow.
Because Houck can't abide anyone saying nice things about Psaki, he grumbled that "Byers gave syrupy praise for Psaki" by putting her in the company of other former White House staffer who have gone on to greater things, then whined that "Of course, Byers left out the affable and widely-respected Dana Perino of Fox News." He then complained that "Byers boasted that 'many of whom credit her with restoring dignity to a lectern that had been ravaged and abused by Sean Spicer, Sarah Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany. And her daily briefing has become appointment viewing for fans who eagerly await her pithy retorts to reporters[.]'"
He did, however, repeat Psaki tweaking Doocy during that day's press briefing:: "On Friday afternoon, Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba asked Psaki about the report, to which she replied with a nod to Fox’s Peter Doocy: 'I have more than enough on my plate here and so, you can't get rid of me quite yet. Sorry, Peter, for you on that.'"
When Psaki's next gig at MSNBC was reported on April 1, Houck made sure to insult her on the way out the door, though no departure date was announced:
Psaki — host of what we’ve referred to as The Psaki Show — has spent the entirety of the Biden presidency as perhaps its most public face (aside from the President himself), left to answer, lie, and spin her way through the many controversies, crises, and gaffes.
And, of course, it’s safe to argue Psaki’s stock wouldn’t be anywhere near where it is without her viral back-and-forths with Fox News’s Peter Doocy, who’s been able to hold the administration accountable without scooping to the juvenile levels we saw with a host of liberal journalists to Trump press secretaries.
So, whether it’ll be called The Psaki Show, Circle Back with Psaki, or Psock It, or Put a Psock in It, White House reporters will soon face a new face on a day-to-day basis at the podium.
Actually, the only juvenile behavior we saw in the White House briefing room during the Trump years were attempts to expel reporters whose aggressive reporting press secretaries like Jim Acosta and Brian Karem.
Since he gets paid to trash Psaki at every opportunity, Houck used his briefing writeup that day to trash her for not confirming reports about her departure and purported ethics questions about negotiating a new job while still in the old one:
Hours after Axios’s Sara Fischer broke news that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki would be joining MSNBC, Psaki faced a slew of questions in Friday’s briefing about the ethics behind such a swift move and negotiating a job while still in government. CBS’s Ed O’Keefe broke the ice, but he was followed by future Psaki colleague Kristen Welker of NBC, who questioned whether she should be allowed to stay at her post.
O’Keefe stepped up after most of the briefing had been dominated by the March jobs report, gas prices, and Russia’s war against Ukraine: “[O]ne little bit of housekeeping. Is it true that you are leaving the White House to work for MSNBC?”
Psaki tried to get away by quipping that “you can’t rid of me yet,” but that fell on deaf ears as she went onto say she couldn’t “confirm” anything “about my length of public service or planned service or anything about consideration about next plans.”
[...]
As Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) correctly noted, it’s all but certain “[e]very reporter in that room knew that Psaki was negotiating with several networks,” so it’s worth pondering a question he raised: “They all just went on with the charade of asking and answering questions from a known future colleague.”
By contrast, Houck was completely silent when his beloved Kayleigh McEnany arguably violated ethical employment practices by refusing to do her job at the end of the Trump administration, holding absolutely no press briefings lest she be forced to answer questions about the Capitol riot her boss helped to incite.
When Psaki's departure date of May 13 was announced, Houck unsurprisingly took a shot at her -- while, of course, engaging in a little Doocy-fluffing -- in a May 5 post, claiming that "ending a 17-month run that saw her become a household name with spin of the administration’s struggles and presidential gaffes and viral exchanges with Fox’s Peter Doocy."
Houck then obsessed over the sex life of Psaki's replacement, Karine Jean-Pierre -- whom he has previously smeared as a diversity hire because she's black and LGBT -- making sure to highlight that "Jean-Pierre is the partner of longtime CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux (with whom they share a daughter)."
WND Won't Define 'Reasonable' Physical Punishment In Criticizing Corporal Punishment Ban Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh complained in a March 21 article:
Starting now, if a parent spanks a disobedient child that action could result in a criminal record in one country.
And it applies to anyone who has responsibility for a child, such as a relative or caretaker when the parent is absent.
And it applies to visitors – and their children – too.
The new law has been implemented in Wales, which followed Scotland in deciding that no corporal punishment on a child is legal, ever.
Physical punishment already was a violation of the law in schools, children's homes, local authority foster care homes and childcare settings.
Even hitting a child already was considered common assault even by a parent or caretaker.
But the law allowed them to raise the defense that it was a reasonable punishment.
Now that option is gone.
But Unruh never defines what is supposedly a "reasonable" physical punishment for a child. Instead, he found a group that actually calls itself Be Reasonable to criticize the ban:
"The smacking ban is an unnecessary, unworkable and undesired law that was pushed through the Senedd by those who think they know better than parents," said Gareth Davies, the Welsh Conservatives' spokesman for social services.
The law was voted on in 2020, and was known as the Children (Abolition of Defense of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act.
A spokesman for pro-parent group Be Reasonable explained the evidence from the National Health Service, the courts, the police and prosecutors all said that removing the "reasonable chastisement defense" would accomplish the criminalization of loving parents.
But lawmakers did it anyway.
And Unruh never did get around to explaining how issuing physical punishment makes for "loving parents." He also no doubtedly thinks the "seriously out of whack" headline on his article is absolutely hilarious.
MRC's Double Standard On Gotcha Questions Topic: Media Research Center
A week after the Media Research Center enthusiastically embraced a gotcha question to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson about what a woman is, MRC executive Tim Graham apent an April 2 post whining that a similar question was asked of a Republican governor:
The Associated Press reporter in Phoenix and other Arizona reporters want to put Gov. Doug Ducey on the defensive. AP's Bob Christie positioned Ducey exactly where the Left wanted him on his bill on preventing men from women's sports. The headline was "Arizona governor won’t say transgender people exist."
Nobody said transgender activists were like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. But on the left, unless you respect transgenders and accept their gender-bending, you don't "see" them, you "erase" them, like they don't exist.
After an excerpt from thte article that noted Ducey "paused for several seconds before answering" with a non-answer then gave another non-answer after being asked again, Graham huffily played whataboutism: "This is somehow a gaffe. President Biden can say transgenders are 'made in the image of God,' and nobody shouts at him about how transgender people don't accept what God 'assigned' them."
It wasn't a hard question to answer, the AP gave him two chances to do so, and he couldn't do it. Graham made sure to note an after-the-fact tweet by Ducey whining that the question was "absurd and offensive" and finally giving a definitive answer to the question -- raising the question of why he couldn't have done that the first time. But Graham was silent on why this was such a terrible question, and Republicans demanding that Jackson define what a woman is was not absurd and offensive.
CNS Questions Russian Money To 'Anti-Energy Activists,' Censors Russian Money To GOP Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister wrote in an April 5 CNSNews.com article:
Twenty congressmen are calling on House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to hold a hearing to investigate potential efforts by Russia to undermine U.S. energy independence by funneling funds to anti-energy-production environmental groups in the U.S.
“Given the current global conflict, it is crucial that the Committee exercise its investigative powers to shine a spotlight on alarming reports of Russia’s attempt to buy influence in U.S. politics through domestic environmental groups,” says the letter sent to Maloney on Thursday.
“Russia’s energy sector plays an important role in facilitating its militaristic ambitions. Russia’s energy sales substantially support the current attack on Ukraine,” the letter explains.
The 20 members of Congress are requesting a hearing on alleged coordinated attempts by Russian entities to buy influence and finance U.S. environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an effort to reduce the energy security of the United States.
Bannister was silent, however, on Russian money being funneled to Republican politicians. For example:
Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-British citizen with ties to Russia, donated more than $6 million to Republican PACs, many linked to GOP politicians in 2015-15.
Two Republican operatives were charged last year with funneling money from a Russian national to Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
Russian oligarch Andrey Muraviev wasindicted in Marchfor funneling donations to Trump through two men who had already been accused of making illegal donations.
A donor to Republican Sen.Tom Cotton has received donations from a hedge fund investor who's making money off Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Donation pleas at the end of every CNS article claim that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor." If that was true, wouldn't Bannister have mentioned all this Russian money going to Republican politicians?
MRC Goes Orgasmic Over Musk's Plan To Buy Twitter Topic: Media Research Center
If you thought the Media Research Center wasn't squee enough when Elon Musk announced that he had purchased a piece of Twitter, the squee ramped up to positively orgasmic levels when Musk declared he was planning to buy all of Twitter. Joseph Vazquez screamed "IT'S HAPPENING" (to which it was changed from "GAME ON") in the headline of his April 14 article announcing it:
The world’s richest man is officially launching his bid for a hostile takeover of one of the most censorship-obsessed Big Tech platforms in the country!
Bloomberg News reported Thursday morning that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is “saying the company has extraordinary potential and he is the person to unlock it.” The value of the offer, according to Bloomberg, amounts to a whopping $43 billion. Musk announced the move in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk also tweeted that, “I made an offer.”
This follows Musk’s cryptic rejecting of a seat on Twitter’s board of directors after his purchase of a massive 9.2 percent stake in the platform. CNBC reported recently that “[i]f Musk had joined the board, he would not be able to acquire more than 14.9% of the company’s shares.”
He apparently wasn’t satisfied with the shareholder cap and is now looking to buy up the outstanding stock to control the entire platform.
[...]
The game has now changed. Will Twitter finally be made to uphold the values of free speech? Only time will tell.
Remember, Vazquez and the rest of his MRC buddies thinks you have a right to lie to people and that Twitter has no right to call out those lies.
A few hours later, Vazquez and Dan Gainor cranked out a column peddling the rifht-wing falsehood that Twitter enforcing its terms of service equates to "censorship" (and making sure to please their boss by quoting him):
It was the stock buyout heard ‘round the world. Tesla owner Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter could save the whole concept of online free speech and alter politics and elections globally for years to come.
Musk’s move might be the biggest political event since the 2020 election. Media Research Center founder and President L. Brent Bozell tweeted about the offer, “Free at last. Free at last. Conservatives may be free at last!”
Leftists and the media were horrified that Musk might interfere with their ability to censor content, not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Twitter was consistently the absolute worst of the social media sites for restricting conservative content. MRC’s CensorTrack database tracked 1,954 examples of Twitter censorship, over half of the total 3,636 entries of Big Tech censorship logged.
[...]
Musk’s purchase could lift the veil of censorship that hangs like a shroud over the conservative movement. The pending purchase could also mean former President Donald Trump’s long-awaited return to Twitter. The former president used his social media superpower to beat former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in 2016. It helped offset the overwhelming bias against him in the legacy media.
They also rehashed an old MRC talking point: "Other platforms were 'offended' too and were determined to destroy Trump’s social media presence going into the 2020 election. Twitter in particular censored Trump and his campaign a whopping 625 times between May 31, 2018 and Jan. 4, 2021. President Joe Biden and his campaign weren’t censored at all during that time period." The correct way to state that is that Trump violated Twitter's terms of service 625 times while Biden did not.
Vazquez and Gainor just couldn't stop drooling over Trump's use of Twitter:
Trump wielded social media like a Twitter version of the Incredible Hulk. It gave him the power to virtually smash critics and leftist journalists alike — defining the campaign. The Washington Post noted at the time that, “Trump used social media, and Twitter in particular, to build relationships with voters and create a word-of-mouth buzz for his brand.” The paper added, “this strategy helped Trump build attitudinal loyalty, the degree to which a customer prefers or likes a brand, rather than behavioral loyalty, when a customer buys a product out of habit.”
Ohio University Social Media Analytics Research Team Lab Director Laqeeq Khan also noted in 2016 that “Trump won social media. Simply put, Trump’s campaign was more engaged with voters.” Khan added that Trump “mastered Twitter by embracing immediacy (right now), transparency (unvarnished expression), and risk (rather than caution).”
[...]
Trump built that Twitter army up to 88 million followers during his presidential term and used it to influence major news organizations. Even journalists who hated him hung on every tweet, eager for Trump to make news.
Now Musk has an opportunity to hit a reset and journalists and leftists in Big Tech are going to try to stop him.
Speaking of making the boss happy, Bozell appeared on Fox Business later that day to spout his talking points, and an anonyous MRC blogger was made to document it:
Appearing on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Co. late Thursday morning, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell declared that billionaire Elon Musk possibly buying out Twitter would both restore free speech to the social media platform and change “the entire dynamics of politics” across the globe. He also blasted the left-wing co-hosts of ABC’s The View for using the New York City subway shooting to attack gun rights.
“Elon Musk offering to buy 100% of Twitter in an all-cash deal. He says Twitter should go private....Brent, this is all about free speech, right?,” fill-in host Ashley Webster asked Bozell at the top of the segment. Bozell declared: “You know, I’m gonna suggest to you that this is the biggest story since the 2020 elections. It may be even bigger than the 2020 elections.”
Bozell went on to falsely overstate his case: "Consider, Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States in 2016 because he was able to use Twitter. In 2020, one reason, a major reason he lost the presidential campaign is because Twitter censored him and wouldn’t allow him." In fact, Twitter did not suspend Trump until after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot he helped to instigate (and in which Bozell's son participated), meaning it did not affect the 2020 election. And even then, the MRC itself could find few instances of Trump getting "censored" (read: violating its terms of service) only 65 times by "big tech" as of a few weeks before the eleciton.
The MRC then flooded the zone with mocking reaction pieces:
Vazquez returned to whine that "A left-wing outlet funded by liberal billionaire George Soros whined that the world’s richest man’s plan to purchase Twitter was a threat to democracy." He then rehashed an old complaint that the group, Free Press, "tried to get the Federal Communications Commission to censor former President Donald Trump’s coronavirus briefings as 'hoaxes.'" Given that Trump was using those pressers to spread misinformation, that's not too extreme of a question to raise.
Vazquez concluded with his own censorship demand: "Take a seat, Free Press." Just like the MRC to not practice what it preaches.
WND's Brown Melts Down Over Caitlyn Jenner Joining Fox News Topic: WorldNetDaily
Every once in a while, WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown likes to remind us of just how homophobic and transphobic he is. When Fox News hired Caitlyn Jenner as a commentator, Brown used his April 1 column to demand that conservatives reject Fox News:
For those who have watched Fox News over the years, it is no surprise that they announced the hiring of Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner with great fanfare and hype. In the words of CEO Suzanne Scott, "Caitlyn's story is an inspiration to us all. She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community, and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience."
Perhaps these words could be used as an epitaph on Fox's legacy. Mark the day carefully.
All the talking points are in order in Scott's short, effusive statement: Jenner's transition from Bruce to Caitlyn is "an inspiration to us all." This famous biological male is "she." And LGBTQ+ activism is something to celebrate. You go, girl!
Surely this is the death knell for Fox, even if it remains large and influential for decades to come. It has lost its voice and sold its soul. And with what moral authority can Fox call on Jenner to speak against "Lia" Thomas competing against women? Is this Fox's new message? "Transitioning is fine and sex and gender are whatever you perceive them to be. Just play fair!"
[...]
The cat has long been out of the bag when it comes to Fox's core values.
In fact, without mentioning specific names here, a friend of mine who is a publicity agent told me a few years ago that, while he wanted to land me an interview on one of the biggest shows on Fox, it would be hard for him to get past some of the show's gay producers.
In short, just because Fox was pro-Trump doesn't mean Fox was (and is) pro-Bible (as if support for Trump equated with support for the Bible).
And just because Fox is more conservative politically and fiscally than CNN or MSNBC doesn't mean that Fox is conservative morally or spiritually.
But again, this should not come as a surprise.
So, if you want biblically based views, go to people who base their lives on the Word of God. If you want news that is more conservative on some issues than the left-leaning networks, go to Fox (and some others). But by all means, do not confuse the two, especially at a time when trans activism threatens to undermine the very nature of male and female, not to mention threatens women's sports and even our fundamental freedoms of speech.
He concluded with one more rant: "Ironically, despite Fox's incessant (and often well-placed) criticisms of President Biden and his administration, Fox made its unfortunate announcement on the same day the Biden administration announced its aggressive support for radical trans activism – beginning with the transitioning of children. Mark the day."
NEW ARTICLE: The Peter Doocy Protection Center Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went into full defense mode after President Biden muttered an insult at him -- then laughably denied it was obsessed with the story even after generating days of content about it. Read more >>
CNS Publishes Men's Rights Activist Topic: CNSNews.com
In February and March, CNSNews.com published a trio of columns by Edward E. Bartlett with a curious theme. Bartlett's Feb. 7 column was dedicated to deflating the "hoax" that domestic violence against women increases during the Super Bowl, declaring, "So on Sunday, Feb. 13, let’s invite everyone to relax, enjoy the big game, and not be distracted by dishonest claims of a 'spike' in domestic violence or human trafficking."
In his March 8 column, Bartlett complained that the Violence Against Women Act violated the constitution and insisted that "men and women were equally likely to engage in domestic violence" and that VAWA became "a feminist crusade to stereotype men as abusers, weaken the family, and expand the power of the state."
With the federal Violence Against Women Act currently being considered in Congress, one would expect that all forms of domestic violence, including female-on-female abuse, would be the focus of vigorous debate. But it’s not. For example, during the recent Oct. 5 Senate hearing on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, not a peep was said about abuse in same-sex relationships.
So what’s going on?
The Centers for Disease Controlsuggeststhat among all partners, female-initiated physical (not sexual) violence is more widespread than the male-perpetrated variety. Each year in relationships, 4.2 million men suffer from physical violence, compared to 3.5 million women.
When you zero in on abuse rates in same-sex lesbian couples, the numbers fly off the charts.
[...]
The typical framing of partner abuse as men abusing women does an enormous disservice to persons in abusive lesbian relationships. Each year, half a billion dollars of taxpayer money goes to the Violence Against Women Act. Republican and Democratic lawmakers should join together to assure this milestone law is rooted in science and fact, not gender ideology.
Bartlett clearly wants to push the idea that women are aggressors and liars and that men are docile victims. The CNS bio of Everett describes him only as "president of the Coalition to End Domestic Violence." But there's much more going on.
As the Nation documented, Bartlett is a so-call men's rights activist who is also the head of a group called Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, part of a group of right-wing organizations that claim there is a crisis of false rape allegations against male college students. (Interestingly, the Nation identifies SAVE's primary funder as Hans Bader, an attorney who is also a CNS columnist.) Bartlett also works in the Department of Health and Human Services, and he used his position as well as his presidency of SAVE to help nudge Trump Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to develop new rules for handling sexual assaults on college campuses that narrowed the scope of what colleges are allowed to investigate, increased the evidentiary bar that must be met for colleges to take action and removed some protections from victims.
Even more interestingly, SAVE has been affiliated with an organization that procures mail-order brides from Russia. A woman who worked at both SAVE and the bride service, Natasha Spivack, fought to strip protection for immigrant women under a 2012 revision of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that they were supposedly abusing the system by making false claims of abuse -- presumably in part because her mail-order bride company was ordered to pay $434,000 in damages to a Russian immigrant woman who was abused by the man who paid the firm to procure her.
Again: The guy who runs this organization is a person CNS has decided would make a great columnist.
CNS Questions Russian Money To 'Anti-Energy Activists,' Silent On Russian Money To GOP Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister wrote in an April 5 CNSNews.com article:
Twenty congressmen are calling on House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to hold a hearing to investigate potential efforts by Russia to undermine U.S. energy independence by funneling funds to anti-energy-production environmental groups in the U.S.
“Given the current global conflict, it is crucial that the Committee exercise its investigative powers to shine a spotlight on alarming reports of Russia’s attempt to buy influence in U.S. politics through domestic environmental groups,” says the letter sent to Maloney on Thursday.
“Russia’s energy sector plays an important role in facilitating its militaristic ambitions. Russia’s energy sales substantially support the current attack on Ukraine,” the letter explains.
The 20 members of Congress are requesting a hearing on alleged coordinated attempts by Russian entities to buy influence and finance U.S. environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an effort to reduce the energy security of the United States.
Bannister was silent, however, on Russian money being funneled to Republican politicians. For example:
Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-British citizen with ties to Russia, donated more than $6 million to Republican PACs, many linked to GOP politicians in 2015-15.
Two Republican operatives were charged last year with funneling money from a Russian national to Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
Russian oligarch Andrey Muraviev was indicted in March for funneling donations to Trump through two men who had already been accused of making illegal donations.
A donor to Republican Sen.Tom Cotton has received donations from a hedge fund investor who's making money off Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Donation pleas at the end of every CNS article claim that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor." If that was true, wouldn't Bannister have mentioned all this Russian money going to Republican politicians?
MRC Writer Frets Over Those Poor, Canceled Russian Athletes Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center sports blogger John Simmons started writing about the Russian war on Ukraine the right way, with a Feb. 22 post cheeriing European soccer officials for pulling a tournament final out of St. Petersburg -- though he couldn't resist getting in a needless partisan dig, sneering that moving it "would be more nerve than President Biden had when he had the choice to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics, but chose not to." That was followed by a Feb. 28 post on how "more and more Ukrainian athletes have chosen to take up arms to defend their homeland, then a March 3 post on Riussian oligarch Roman Abramovich deciding to sell his Chelsea soccer team in Britain.
Since then, however, Simmons' focus has been on how unfair it allegedly is that Russian athletes have been barred from competing in various world events. He lamented in a March 8 post:
The ostracism of a Russian presence from sports leagues continues.
On Monday, the NHL announced they cut ties with the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), a professional hockey league based in Russia, making it nearly impossible for the NHL to sign anyone playing in that league.
[...]
Unfortunately, Russian businesses have not been the only ones to suffer because their globally ambitious government decided to launch an invasion.
At the start of the 2021-2022 NHL season, five percent of all players on opening day rosters were Russian. That's not a lot, but it seems many of these athletes have received an unjust amount of abuse and ridicule in recent weeks.
Thanks to the invasion, Russian and Belarusian-born hockey players who play in both the NHL and other professional and amateur leagues in North America have received numerous discriminatory comments based solely on their origin.
Simmons tried to walk a fine line on the issue:
While the sports world was right to remove numerous international competitions from taking place in Russia, this level of hatred towards the players specifically is way out of line. The majority of these players and organizations (like the KHL) do not support Putin’s actions and have no power over their leaders or what they decide to do. As long as they do not post “Down With Ukraine” messages on social media or say anything that would imply that they are happy with what is going on, they should not receive this level of hatred.
The day after, though, Simmons cheered former NHL star Jaromir Jagr for raising money to help Ukranian victims of the war. On March 10, though, he was back to lamenting that the Chelsea soccer team was facing sanctions due to Abramovich's ownership:
So basically, a soccer team that had nothing to do with Abramovich's potentially shady business dealings or status within Russia now has their traveling funds slashed, their revenue stream strangled, and the ability to keep their players under contract stripped from them. This begs a question: how much of this is a serious attempt to hold Putin and his cronies to account and how much is simple cancel culture?
In this particular case, no one within the Chelsea organization has supported the war or condoned Russia’s actions, and yet everyone in Chelsea’s camp is suffering major consequences -- right down to the fans.
Well, yes, shady dealings tend to have a lot of collateral damage involving innocent people. Simmons lamented some more about collateral damage in a March 18 post:
The future of Russian soccer just took a massive blow.
Russia had been suspended and prevented from competing in World Cup qualifiers, and the nation appealed and pleaded for FIFA’s (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) ban to be removed. But on Friday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) denied Russia’s request,meaning that Russia will still be suspended.
[...]
Just like the economic sanctions placed on Premier League team Chelsea F.C., it's difficult to know if these measures are really all that effective in holding Vladimir Putin accountable. Most Russian athletes have not supported Putin, so punishing the players and sports teams who have nothing to do with him seems like an overreach.
Simmons' whining on behalf of Russian athletes continued in an April 20 post:
Apparently, the sports world still has a thing for banning Russian athletes from competitions.
Wimbledon announced that Russian and Belarusian tennis athletes will not be allowed to compete in the iconic tournament, but those same athletes can compete in the French Open as neutral athletes.
"In the circumstances of such unjustified and unprecedented military aggression, it would be unacceptable for the Russian regime to derive any benefits from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with The Championships. It is therefore our intention, with deep regret, to decline entries from Russian and Belarusian players to The Championships 2022," the All England Club said in a statement.
The desire to hold Russia accountable for their actions is noble, but punishing athletes that have nothing to do with the war seems to be a miscalculation of what will solve the problem.
Simmons whined somemore about the decision in a post the next day:
Wimbledon's senseless decision to ban Russian athletes from the iconic tournament has drawn lots of backlash from the tennis community at large.
Novak Djokovic, who knows a thing or two about being on the receiving end of stupid decisions from governing tennis bodies, blasted the decision as "crazy."
[...]
?Nearly all Russian athletes across sports have said they do not support any actions from the Russian government involving the invasion of Ukraine, and are being treated unfairly for something they are not involved in. No athlete, regardless of the country, should be held to that standard.
Yes, Simmons still thinks that it was a "stupid decision" to bar a selfish unvaccinated athlete from playing a tournament in the middle of a disease surge that wash killing hundreds of people a day during a raging pandemic.
The complaining continued in an April 26 post about how Wimbledon decided to let unvaccinated athletes like Djokovic play but not Russian athletes: "Logic would suggest that you should not hold athletes who have nothing to do with a major conflict accountable for a country’s decision. But then again, logic is in short supply these days." Logic would also suggest that athletes who choose to remain affiliated with a warmongering authoritarian leader should have to feel the consequences of that decision, but that seems lacking on Simmons' side.
At least one tennis player is disgusted with Wimbledon’s decision to ban Russian athletes from this summer’s tournament.
Victoria Azarenka, who at one point in her career was the No. 1 tennis player in the world, wants the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to protest and combat the ban.
"If you are asking me if I agree with Wimbledon or see their reasoning after being on a personal call with them, I don't see their reasoning,” Azarenka said. “It does not make sense and it does not connect to what they are saying. I have made my stance very clear on the issue. I will never, ever support war.”
Azarenka gets it. It’s not like any Russian or Belarusian tennis player is a sellout for Vladimir Putin and his political actions, so it doesn’t make sense that anyone born in those countries should have to face this wacky form of punishment.
Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro appears to have issues with women, if his insistence on smearing the co-hosts of "The View" is any indication. A coven, of course, is word used to describe a gathering of witches, so it's clear that he believe "The View" hosts are evil simply for expressing opinions he is paid to hate. (We assume he'a not referring to 
It's effectively a corporate mandate at the Media Reearch Center that all employees are to hate transgender people and anybody who doesn't, and its "news" division CNSNews.com has fallen in line with that ditkat. When President Biden marked the Transgender Day of Visibility, CNS was ready to lash out. Susan Jones was first out of the gate with a March 31 
How humor-impared is the Media Reserach Center? It decided that a Stephen Colbert joke was a statement of fact that needed to be fed into the right-wing outrage machine. When Colbert made a joke about being willing to pay $15 a gallon for gas because he drives a Tesla, Joseph Vazquez 
So-called transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell and an injurious form of mental illness. Belief in same exhibits a level of mental sickness in the afflicted individual that's beyond rationality; but to demand the public participate in this mental sickness transcends reality.
When it was rumored in February that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was thinking of leaving her position, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck -- whose hatred for Psaki has been reinforced every day he smears her and fluffs Peter Dopocy -- was eager to [pounce in a Feb. 28 
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh complained in a March 21 
A week after the Media Research Center 
Craig Bannister wrote in an April 5 CNSNews.com 
If you thought the Media Research Center 
Every once in a while, WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown likes to remind us of 
In February and March, CNSNews.com published a trio of columns by Edward E. Bartlett with a curious theme. Bartlett's Feb. 7 
Media Research Center sports blogger John Simmons started writing about the Russian war on Ukraine the right way, with a Feb. 22 