Newsmax's Morris Laughably Denies Abortion Will Change Much if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned Topic: Newsmax
Dick Morris may be on the right side of history in calling out Tucker Carlson's embrace of Russia and Vladimir Putin, he's still fully capable of spectacularly wrong takes. He spent his May 3 Newsmax column denying that things would change much on the abortion front if Roe v. Wade is overturned, as suggested by a leaked draft decision in a Mississippi abortion case:
To hear the howls of the left and the cheers of the right, you would think the Earth was shifting under our feet with the report that the Supreme Court had decided to overrule Roe v Wade. The fact is that not much will change.
The Mississippi law under review only bans abortions after 15 weeks, almost up to the start of the second trimester. It does nothing to limit them before 15 weeks — four months! If you don’t know you are pregnant after four months, you need more than a pregnancy test. You need to have your head examined.
Especially with the 15 week deadline publicized and well known, it is almost inconceivable that a pregnant woman would be surprised to learn that she is with child after 15 weeks.
And, even then, the possible court decision does not make abortion illegal. It just lets the states do so if they wish. At least half the states will likely vote to keep the procedure legal. So with a little bus fare, likely to be available from the millions being donated to pro-choice groups, would solve the problem.
The CDC reports that 92.7 percent of all abortions take place in the first 13 weeks weeks of gestation, when the procedure would still be legal in all states. Only 6.2 percent are done between the 14th and 20th week and less than 1 percent thereafter.
Meanwhile, just a cople hours after Morris' column was published, a Newsmax article by Charlie McCarthy pointed out the reality:
Legislators in 13 states have passed laws to limit or restrict access to abortion that would go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, CNN reported.
In some cases, the law requires an official. such as an attorney general, to certify that Roe has been struck down before the law can take effect, CNN reported.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia are among nine states that had abortion restrictions before the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Those restrictions never were removed.
Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and South Carolina are among states that have approved near-total bans or laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks, though many of them have been blocked by courts.
Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming are states with "trigger laws" ready to go into effect almost immediately if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Given that several states would restrict or completely outloaw abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it sure looks like a lot more than 10 percent of abortions would be made illegal.
WND's Lively Still Trying To Defend Putin Topic: WorldNetDaily
Scott Lively has been spending less time lately spreading his vile homophobia and more time defending Vladimir Putin before and after his invasion of Ukraine. He did that again in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column, insisting that Putin get a "fair hearing":
The same corrupt elites who orchestrated both the 2014 anti-Russian coup in Ukraine and the 2020 anti-American coup to remove President Trump are now focused on regime change in Russia itself. The key to their plan is demonizing Vladimir Putin as the new Hitler. Our whole country seems to have been swept up in the smear campaign, but we Americans, especially we conservatives, should not be so quick to surrender our right to informed consent when the potential for a nuclear WWIII is on the line.
I am writing this article in my four capacities as 1) an attorney, 2) a pastor 3) a missionary with extensive relevant experience in Russia and the former Soviet Union, and 4) a serial victim of serious media character assassination.
As an attorney, I am reminding everyone that one of the fundamental bedrock principles of American jurisprudence is a) innocence until proven guilty, b) by a court of competent jurisdiction, c) after a careful review of ALL the relevant evidence, d) as presented, explained and defended by competent legal counsel, and e) in a balanced, rules-based adversarial contest designed to ensure that the truth of the matters at issue will prevail. This is America's gold standard of fairness: the best in all the world since the dawn of civilization, which has set us apart from, for example, third-world dictatorships that convict people without trial in the court of public opinion with no counter-evidence allowed because it's banned as "disinformation."
Lively then tried to make the argument that Russia is more Christian than the U.S. and that Putin was unfairly being Saul Alinsky'd:
As a missionary with extensive relevant experience in Russia and the former Soviet Union, I can testify from firsthand observation that today's Russia is not only NOT a Communist country, but is (point for point) arguably more Christian in its culture and policies than the now Marxist-controlled United States – a fact I am ashamed and distressed as a patriot who loves my country to have to admit. I have never personally met or interacted with President Putin, so my opinion of him is based on publicly available sources, such as his speeches and media interviews. However, I have assessed the mentality and character of the Russian people in hundreds of interactions spanning all levels of their society and believe them to be the closest to American conservatives of all the peoples of the world that I have encountered in my missionary and personal travels through 66 countries. And they – the Russian people – are overwhelmingly pro-Putin. He is to his people the equivalent of Donald Trump, but with a much higher percentage of the population behind him (although every day Biden remains in office, Trump's support rises).
The only possibility of escape from the Saul Alinsky trap is to present counter-evidence to the smear narrative, which is impossible if that evidence is censored as "disinformation" by the government and media moguls. I successfully broke free from the trap by doing something too interesting to the public for my enemies in government and the media to suppress: I ran for governor of Massachusetts and showed my true self to the people during that campaign. But Putin literally has no defender of significance in the U.S. to counteract the character assassination – and so, for all the reasons listed above, I am making this humble effort.
Lively then decided to play dumb, declaring that he can't possibly know if Putin is a war criminal because the government and media are liars and really, when you think about it, none of us compare to Jesus:
To be absolutely clear, I don't know if Vladimir Putin is guilty of any of the specific acts of which he has been accused over the years. I personally don't trust the accusers in the Biden/Obama Defense, State or Intelligence agencies and the media and neither should any American conservatives, because we've all been smeared by the same people for years. That doesn't mean Putin is innocent, but it does mean that we should all recognize our personal investment in ensuring he gets a fair evidence-based hearing and that we shouldn't just join the media-inflamed lynch mob against him. I hope we can all agree that edited and spun TV news reporting is NOT trustworthy evidence. (Can I get an Amen from the pro-lifers, Second Amendment and Trump supporters here?)
It's not just that we have a duty to seek and speak truth, and a huge investment in preserving the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but we ought to be wondering WHY they're suppressing open discussion on Putin and Russia so aggressively and HOW we might benefit by knowing whatever truths the media may be hiding from us.
I do know that the first rule of character assassination of a public figure is to never allow the public to compare the target with other public figures as a measure of their merit, but only to compare them to a hypothetical perfect alternative. We saw this in the gross mistreatment of President Trump when every one of his flaws, real and imagined, were spotlighted and magnified while similar or comparable flaws in every other politician were simply ignored or whitewashed.
If we're going to try Putin in the court of public opinion, the least we can do is compare him point for point not with the perfect standard of Jesus Christ, but with other current and recent world leaders. How does Putin compare, for example to Joe Biden? Justin Trudeau? Boris Johnson? Emmanuel Macron? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Angela Merkle? Barack Obama? Have any of them killed foreign enemies? Conducted military operations on foreign soil that harmed civilians? Sabotaged political rivals? Consorted with billionaire "oligarchs"? Making fair comparisons is a duty we owe to ourselves, as much as to those being smeared.
But never fear -- despite his decision not to actually examine the evidence, Lively has declared he looked into it enough and is giving Putin his continued stamp of approval:
I've done my due diligence and, on balance, believe Putin is a relatively a good leader of his people – far better than Biden – and certainly not a Hitler. Again, I'm not saying Putin isn't a flawed man. I'm saying the accusations against him should be tested in a fair hearing. None of us should unthinkingly parrot war propaganda from people we have good reason not to trust. We should instead demand that our golden standards of discerning truth are applied to these questions. Wouldn't you demand the same for yourself if you were the target?
The fact that Lively is endorsing Putin even after numerous reports of war crimes tells us that there's good reason not to trust him.
MRC's Double Standard On Legislative Descriptions Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Bill D'Agostino complained in an April 28 post:
If you relied exclusively on broadcast or liberal cable networks for your news, you’d likely be surprised to learn that Florida’s recently-passed education law was not officially titled, “the Don’t Say Gay law.” An MRC analysis found that TV networks almost exclusively referred to the law by this politically-charged epithet, with most outlets only using the law’s official name — “Parental Rights in Education” — one or two times in the past months.
MRC analysts examined all broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC) and liberal cable (CNN, MSNBC) coverage of Florida’s latest education law between February 1 and April 28. During that time, we found 230 instances in which anchors, analysts, and contributors referred to the law as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, but only 18 cases where they used its official name — the “Parental Rights in Education” bill.
Labelling can be a very effective means of controlling political discourse, and it’s one the media use frequently. By relying almost exclusively on the Democrats’ framing, the media are conditioning their audiences to react negatively to this legislation.
D'Agostino isn'tgoing to tell you that the MRC is guilty of the same thing he accuses non-right-wing media of doing. A search of the MRC's archive shows that it called the Florida bill (and other similar bills across the country) and "anti-grooming" bil, despite the word "grooming" appearing nowhere in the bill, let alone its name. It happens in these articles:
Telemundo Hostesses Try, Fail in Condemning Florida's Anti-Grooming Law -- Kathleen Krumhansl, March 30
They’re being bullied by lefty employees for not more forcefully endorsing the sexual grooming of grade schoolers. -- Matt Philbin, March 22
Florida House Bill 1557, the anti-grooming bill that currently awaits approval from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis -- John Simmons, March 23
The whole awful monologue could not end, of course, without a stab at Florida's anti-grooming law, "The Parental Rights in Education Act," which protects children in kindergarten through third grade. -- Elise Ehrhard, March 27
MSNBC Lies About FL Anti-Grooming Law, Smear DeSantis Spox -- Kevin Tober, March 30
School boards everywhere are rising up to combat Florida’s anti-grooming bill. -- John Simmons, April 1
Florida’s anti-child grooming “Parental Rights in Education” law -- Kevin Tober, April 3
Noah didn't use the opening to attack Florida's new anti-grooming law. -- Elise Ehrhard, April 3
The anti-grooming laws being enacted throughout the nation, and which grant parents the right to educate their young children on the subjects of sex and gender identity -- Kathleen Krumhansl, April 6
Last month, Disney attacked Florida's anti-grooming legislation, the Parental Rights in Education Bill. -- Elise Ehrhard, April 18
"Look, there's policy disputes, and that's fine," DeSantis said last month when Disney started opposing his anti-grooming bill -- John Simmons, April 21
No wonder Disney employees pressured their CEO to oppose Florida's anti-grooming legislation. -- Elise Ehrhard, April 27
We all know where Disney stands on Florida’s new anti-grooming law, “Parental Rights in Education” -- Elise Ehrhard, May 6
The alleged “Protect Our Kids Fund” gives “impacted students, teachers and families” resources to help deal with DeSantis' anti-grooming bill -- Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, May 9
If critics of the law are not allowed to call it what they believe it does despite that decription not appearing in the bill, the MRC isn't either. But then, the MRC has never felt that the rules it demands others follow apply to itself -- which makes it look utterly hypocritical.
WND Mad That Obama Called Out Misinformation Topic: WorldNetDaily
Obama Derangement Syndrome still reigns at WorldNetDaily, if the reaction to his speech criticizing the spread of misinformation is any indication. Of course, WND is a major purveyor of misinformation, particularly aboutObama, so maybe it feels a little threatened about being implicitly called out. Editor Joseph Farah ranted at Obama's speech in his April 26 column:
In a major speech last week, Barack Obama called for even MORE censorship, MORE cancellations, MORE demonetization and more violations of the First Amendment by Big Tech.
He described himself as "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist" but immediately clarified that it did not apply to U.S. social media companies – the largest purveyors of news content and opinion in the country.
I guess to Obama news content and opinion are safe to be disseminated for now – as long as they run offline in more traditional media, like print.
In fact, he demanded that online social media go further to diminish what he called "disinformation."
Obama warned that dangerous people were using social media to distract the public. He wasn't speaking of the Big Tech giants. Rather it is Vladimir Putin, who keeps Russia in the dark about what goes in Ukraine. It's Steve Bannon, who advocates for America First.
"People like Putin and Steve Bannon for that matter understand it's not necessary for people to believe disinformation in order to weaken democratic institutions – you just have to flood the public square with enough raw sewage," he complained.
He complained there was no way to distinguish online between "a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Anthony Fauci and a miracle cure pitched by a huckster."
The wide variety of content on the coronavirus and vaccines, Obama said, was concerning, as some people chose not to get vaccinated.
"People are dying because of misinformation," he said.
No, last time I checked, people are dying because of Big Pharma's misinformation.
Actually, the last time we checked, WND was avidlyspreadingmisinformation about COVID and its vaccines, so it's entirely likely that such misinformation has taken the lives of WND readers (and doesn't Farah need all the readers he can get these days?). Farah concluded with an unsurprising money beg:
WND has been here before with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the intolerant left and Big Tech. We've been through the nightmare of being attacked by the Digital Cartel, for our standards of conservative values and our Christian perspective. We've been DEMONITIZED, CANCELED and DOWNSIZED against our will. Please support us to stay in the fight. Read HELP WND – before it's too late!
WND columnist Jack Cashill -- who spends most of his days writing anti-Obama screeds despite the fact that he left the presidency years ago -- served up a similarly hateful and paranoid take on Obama's speech in his April 27 column that made the headline claim Obama went "full Orwell":
The thrust of his speech was that "regulation has to be part of the answer" in combating online "disinformation." As Obama made much too clear he and his pals get to determine what is and is not disinformation.
The former president makes almost no attempt to hide his biases. A sentence that reads, "People like Putin and Steve Bannon, for that matter, understand it's not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions" does not inspire a whole lot of confidence in the deplorable half of America.
Nor does a sentence that reads, "There are still brand name newspapers and magazines, not to mention network news broadcasts, NPR [and] other outlets that have adapted to the new digital environment while maintaining the highest standards of journalistic integrity."
One idea Obama supports is for school districts to teach "our kids to become critical thinkers who know how to evaluate sources and separate opinion from fact." To this end, Obama asks, "Does this person who's typing in his mother's basement in his underwear seem a credible authority on climate change?"
I suspect he is at least as credible as a man who purchased two new multi-million dollar beachfront properties despite his expressed worry about "caravans of lost souls wandering a cracked earth in search of arable land, regular Katrina-sized catastrophes across every continent, island nations swallowed up by the sea."
The source of Obama's greatest worry, of course, is the 2020 election. He repeatedly chastised Republicans, Trump most notably, for "saying an election was stolen without a shred of evidence." The stolen-election gambit, argued Obama, allowed Republicans to "target black and brown communities" with "voter suppression" schemes.
Bottom line: Obama and the Democrats are worried. Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, John Durham's continued probe of the Russia collusion plot, the impending release of Dinesh D'Souza's vote fraud exposé, "2000 Mules," and the likely flipping of the House in November, threaten their control of the narrative.
It may be time for a new George Floyd.
Laua Hollis also ranted about the speech in her April 28 column:
Last week at Stanford University, former President Barack Obama offered one of his characteristically gaslighting speeches in which he intoned solemnly about the dangers of disinformation: "You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing, that citizens no longer know what to believe."
Are those warnings? Or instructions? After all, Obama is a disinformation pro. Years ago, he bragged to author Richard Wolffe, "I actually believe my own bulls–t." He lied to the American public about his truly terrible deal that gave Iran billions and let them pursue their work toward a nuclear bomb. (Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes infamously laughed and preened about this particular deception.) Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, neither protects patients nor is affordable. Obama gave speech after speech in which he promised Americans that they could "keep their doctors" and "keep their plans" – lies so egregious that Politifact named them the 2013 "Lie of the Year." One of the bill's architects, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera that "lack of transparency" was necessary to pass the law, because of the "stupidity of the American voter."
Advertisement - story continues below
So, the fear and loathing of disinformation only goes one way.
Well, WND certainly doesn't fear disinformation enough to stop publishing it -- or understand that its love of misinformation is why it's a failing business.
Newsmax Columnist Whitewashes Story Of Capitol Riot Insurrectionist Topic: Newsmax
Michael Dorstewitz laid it on thick in his May 18 column, starting with the introduction: "After a 16-month hiatus due to a series of setbacks, Brandon Straka is restarting the #WalkAway campaign, a movement he launched in 2018 to encourage former fellow liberals to #WalkAway from the Democratic Party."
Those "setbacks" were linked to Straka's participation in the Capitol riot. First, according to Dorstewitz, was Facebook shutting down the page for Straka's WalkAway campaign which claims to encourage people to quit the Democratic Party and become Trump MAGA types. For the second, Dorstewitz cranked up the whitewashing drama:
The second setback came 17 days later when "an FBI team in tactical gear [raided] my apartment Monday morning, January 25that dawn, came in and [took] me out of bed, put me in handcuffs, [took] me to jail and [presented] me with a search warrant for a team of FBI agents to start stripping my apartment of computers, hard drives, phones, iPads, camera equipment, clothing, etc."
Straka's crime was accepting an invitation, as the head of #WalkAway, to speak at the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. While there, he shot a video at the east entrance to the Capitol.
Straka observed that "It was on the west side that people were breaking windows and struggling with officers."
After shooting about eight minutes of video, he turned around and left.
The camera caught a brief scuffle between an officer and a demonstrator. When Straka got home he posted the video to social media without bothering to look at it.
He told Newsmax that:
• "I never went inside of the Capitol.
• "I was never accused of going inside of the Capitol.
• "They know I didn't engage in any violence, any vandalism, in any theft, or any destruction."
Nevertheless, he was charged with two felonies: knowingly occupying restricted grounds and impeding an officer in the line of duty.
By contrast, as a more honest media outlet reported, Straka "admitted to recording himself telling the mob to 'go go go' as they reached the Capitol and telling rioters who were wrestling a shield away from a US Capitol Police officer to 'take it, take it.'" Straka also tweeted in the midst of the riot, “Patriots at the Capitol- HOLD THE LINE.” Further, the judge -- a Trump-appointed one at that -- pointed out that "He still persists in this idea that it is okay to storm the Capitol to contest an election, and that's not what we do in this country. People who do that are not patriots."
Meanwhile, Dorstewitz was fully invested in making Straka into a victim:
Then Justice Department lawyers dragged the case out with five continuances during the course of a year before offering to drop the felonies in exchange for a guilty plea on the misdemeanor — but it came with a catch. He had to make several false admissions of "fact."
"I can't even describe into words what that has done to me," he said. "It's just destroyed my reputation."
When Straka is asked why he made the admissions and pled to the misdemeanor, he responds, "Are you paying attention? Are you seeing how these cases are being handled?"
Jan. 6 defendant Matthew Perna is a case in point. His family said he was "bullied to death" by government lawyers despite having committed no violent crime. He eventually took his own life for basically entering the Capitol building wearing a MAGA cap.
Yes, participating in a violent insurrection does tend to destroy one's reputation. Dorstewitz apparently didn't ask Straka what statements he made under oath he has decided are now false (something that might put him in further legal trouble for lying to authorities). Also, if Perna's only offense was "wearing a MAGA cap," there would have been no need for him to kill himself. In fact, he was a QAnon conspiracy believe who did violate the law by entering the Capitol, and videotaped himself while there.
In addition to whitewashing Straka's participation in a violent insurrection, Dorstewitz's other purpose was to hype the relaunch of the WalkAway campaign, touting how Straka says he's "working with a development company to build our own social platform" that will be "a cancel-proof platform where we can rebuild that community," as well as an upcoming rally, after which he quoted Straka enthusing, "We're coming back!" That rally was apparently such a bust that we could find no news coverage of it, even in right-wing media.
NEW ARTICLE: How CNS Appeased Putin Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com spent the weeks and months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine cheering Vladimir Putin's right-wing-friendly rants about "woke" culture and portraying President Biden as weak for not stopping the invasion. Read more >>
MRC Bummed That Bogus Lawsuit Against CNN's Lemon Was Dropped Topic: Media Research Center
When a man sued CNN host Don Lemon over alleged sexiual assault in 2019, the Media Research Center couldn't move fast enough to cover the salacious details. Curtis Houck yelped in a post touting the lawsuit:
Mediaite managing editor Aidan McLaughlin broke the news< early Tuesday night thatCNN Tonight host Don Lemon is facing a lawsuit by a man seeking damages after he claimed Lemon assaulted him at a Long Island bar in July 2018.
Put simply, the news couldn’t have come at a worst time for CNN. Along with their hideous ratings and constant ridicule, Monday night featured the release of the now-viral video of Cuomo Prime Timehost Chris “Fredo” Cuomo being confronted and trolled by two individuals, which escalated to Cuomo going on an expletive-laden rant threatening to throw them down stairs.
McLaughlin reported that the lawsuit “was filed in Suffolk County on Sunday and seeks unspecified damages for ‘emotional pain and suffering.’”
In a statement to McLaughlin, a CNN spokesperson chose not to decline comment citing an ongoing legal matter. No, sir! Instead, they bashed plantiff Dustin Hice that he’s “previously displayed a pattern of contempt for CNN on his social media accounts.”
The CNN shrill added that Hice’s lawsuit “follows his unsuccessful threats and demands for an exorbitant amount of money from Don Lemon” and that Lemon “categorically denies these claims.”
Of course, Houck is paid by the MRC to heap "constant ridicule" on CNN.
The MRC continued to follow the lawsuit and make reference to it when it felt Lemon needed to be taken down a notch for refusing to be a right-wing shill (which, as you'll note above, Houck couldn't quite spell correctly). In a September 2021 post, Nicholas Fondacaro went the whataboutism route to lash back at Lemon for committing the sin of criticizing Fox News: "Lemon had some nerve to warn that lies ruin lives, when just last year CNN had to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann after they spent days smearing him as a racist. Especially since he was facing a sexual assault suit." As we've noted, it's likely that the Covington students didn't get much more than token go-away money given that CNN never had to issue a correction or apology to the students.
The next day, Fondacaro uncritically parroted a Fox News story on a lawsuit update (and, like Houck, appeared to get off on repeating the graphic claims made in the lawsuit:
According toa Fox News Digital report Tuesday, the sexual assault accusations against CNN’s Don Lemon is expected to land in court sometime in January 2022. This development came just as allegations of sexual harassment were raised against Lemon’s close friend and fellow CNN prime time host Chris Cuomo last week.
“The attorney for the man who accused fellow CNN host Don Lemon of a sexually charged assault expects the case to finally end up in court early next year after a prolonged legal process,” said senior media reporter Brian Flood.
The report noted that it’s been two years since the lawsuit was filed in August of 2019 “accusing the ‘CNN Tonight’ host of assault and battery at a bar,” and three years since the alleged incident took place. A combination of a “lengthy discovery process and the coronavirus pandemic” was what had kept them from getting to court.
The details in the lawsuit were graphic and showed a side of Lemon not seen during his normal show, but perhaps his annual drunken benders as part of CNN’s New Year’s Eve debauchery:
And in a statement to Fox News, accuser Dustin Hice called out the sexist double standard being applied to his allegations because he’s a man and not a woman:
In November, Fondacaro touted Lemon's accuser appearing on the radio show of a former Fox News host, both of whom trashed Lemon:
Don Lemon accuser Dustin Hice made an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s SiriusXM radio show on Monday to detail the alleged sexual assault he experienced at the hands of the CNN anchor in 2019, which is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. Hice also disclosed that Lemon has made three settlement offers through his legal team, which were rejected because “money is not what I’m after.”
After noting that CNN had labeled him as an “extortionist,” Hice declared: “Money is not what I’m after here. I just want to not live the rest of my life in regret, and to have a clear conscience, and to have closure from this situation.”
As part of an examination of how Lemon disparages people on his show and refused to practice civility while proclaiming his own greatness, Kelly shared a montage of some of Lemon’s lowest moments. In his reaction, Hice lamented: “The man, his moral compass points right into the gutter.”
In his comments about CNN, Hice called out the network for filling their ranks with sexual deviants:
Again, Fondacaro repeated the graphic claims Hice made against Lemon.
But it turned out that all of the MRC's salaciousness and hatred spewed at Lemon went for naught, as Fondacaro was forced to tacitly concede in a May 2 post:
The closely watched and highly salacious sexual assault case against CNN host Don Lemon has been dropped according to reporting by Puck News co-founder Dylan Byers and a statement from his accuser admitting he misremembered what happened. Lemon’s legal team lashed out at media outlets for ever daring to report on the allegation, calling it a “case-study in unethical and uninformed reporting.”
According to a statement from accuser Dustin Hice, he claims he misremembered the events of the night in question and seemed to be withdrawing his lawsuit.
“After a lot of inner reflection and a deep dive into my memory, I have come to realize that my recollection of the events that occurred on the night in question when I first met CNN anchor Don Lemon were not what I thought they were when I filed this lawsuit,” he said.
Of course, Fondacaro censored the full story of how bogus Hice's claims proved to be. Not only was Hice order to pay Lemon $77,000 for legal fees, he refused to comply with discovery requests and two of the witnesses Hice planned to call ended up becoming witnesses for Lemon's side after they changed their stories.
Fondacaro then repeated the discredited graphic claims AGAIN, even though he had just written a couple paragraphs earlier that they were discredited. He sure seems desperate to believe the worst about Lemon -- perhaps because he has been inculcated by the MRC to believe the worst about anyone who's not as right-wing as him.
Fondacaro then tried to invent a nonexistent scandal by engaging in a dubious between-the-lines reading of the statement issued by Lemons' sttorney: "Curious. Does that mean Lemon has had other such accusations leveled against him that haven’t been reported?" He then whined that Lemon's attorney called out the right-wing media for jumping on the story in an attempt to slime Lemon by breathlessly hyping uncorroborated claims:
The statement closed was an attack on the media that covered the story.“I hope that many in the media have learned their lesson on misreporting the facts and jumping to conclusions,” the law team huffed, despite admitting earlier in the statement they advised Lemon to be quiet. “The reporting on this story by many outlets has been a case-study in unethical and uninformed reporting.”
Byers suggested that this part of the statement was “likely referring to Fox News, Megyn Kelly who gave it oxygen.”
In his interview with Kelly, Hice said he was having a difficult time getting witnesses to testify because people were scared of Lemon since celebrities like him wield a lot of power in the Hamptons.
It's rather hypocritical of Lemon to decry reporting on apparently false accusations against him when he was all-in on the lies against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Needless to say, Fondacaro didn't admit he was one of the right-wing hype men pushing those bogus allegations. Also, Fondacaro is effectively complaining that Lemon's attorney did what the MRC did a few months back when it tried to delegitimize non-right-wing media outlets that reported on Juissie Smollett's claim of being a victim of a hate crime before additional reporting raised questions about the veracity of his claim. Also, the claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh have never been definitively proven to be false, however much Fondacaro hopes (or has apparently been brainwashed into believing) this is the case.
MRC Endorses Keeping Women Under Surveillance Lest They Cross State Lines To Get An Abortion Topic: Media Research Center
For all the Media Research Center's wailing (read: pushing a right-wing narrative) that the Biden administration's planned Disinformation Governance Board would be a "Ministry of Truth," it has no problem witih Big Brother-style tactics when it comes to enforcing right-wing orthodoxy on abortion -- to the point that it endorsed the idea of monitoring and tracking women lest they have an abortion. Tierin-Rose Mandelburg served up her Big Brother take in a May 12 post:
Aspen Institute wants less digital surveillance. Why? So that women can travel to abort their babies without anyone knowing.
In a May 11 Zoom lecture with Aspen Institute, speakers emphasized the importance of digital privacy in order to protect women who still want to kill their babies in areas where abortion is outlawed. The Aspen Institute speakers essentially pushed for less surveillance so that women won’t get in trouble when they commit the crime of abortion.
With the potential overturn of Roe V. Wade, abortion “rights” will no longer be set at the federal level but instead, decided by individual states. This is a big step for the pro-life movement as many red states will outlaw abortion — as they should.
Wafa Ben-Hassine from the Omidyar Network stated “The situation with the possibility of overturning Roe V. Wade just kind of demonstrates and highlights why it’s so important for us to move our attention back to the role of data brokers as well as the amount of consent that we have as users.” Data brokers are essentially the middle-men. Applications receive data from users, data brokers receive that data and then they sell and distribute it. Ben-Hassine is advocating for more privacy on our cell phones so that women can travel to get abortions even when it becomes illegal.
“This is all about users, about people, not giving consent to something and then having the long term, slippery slope implications of what that means,” Ben-Hassine claimed. Yeah, I bet the babies being killed from abortion aren’t consenting to their own slaughter but who cares about them anyway, right? My body, my choice?
Mandelburg didn't explain exactly why the right to privacy doesn't exist for women if they are thinking of having an abortion and traveling to a state where it's legal to do it. Instead she went on to whine that participant Wen. Ron Wyden "coined the phrase 'uterus surveillance' which he, though he has no uterus, was highly concerned about". Of course, "uterus surveillance" is something Mandelburg very much wants.
Mandelburg then upped her heated rhetoric by likening women who have abortions to serial killers:
During the meeting I submitted a question. I asked if these limited surveillance expectations should apply to other criminals too or just criminals of abortion. For example, if data is collected that pinpoints a serial killer to a specific crime, should that data be used against them or not? My question was not addressed in the Zoom nor in the email I sent Aspen afterward. Go figure.
Of course, the difference is that the legality of serial killing does not change by state. It seems that Mandelburg is so bloodthirsty against abortion that she wants to see women imprisoned and executed fror having one.
Mandelburg concluded by reiterating her call for a Big Brother state and restating that pregnant women have no right to privacy or freedom of movement:
Should Americans have the right to privacy? Yes, but not when that privacy comes at the expense of innocent lives being aborted. Aspen Institute and every speaker they had on today advocated for more data privacy simply so that women can get away with the crime that is abortion. Talk about empowerment, am I right?
Mandelburg seems to be missing the point that her desired outcome of regulating abortion on the state level means that if abortion is legal in a certain state, it's not a crime for a woman to have one there, nor is it a crime for a woman to travel to that state to have one. Mandelburg is effectively endorsing a massive police state against women, and she offers no guidance on how that would work without violating the principles of freedom right-wingers like her purport to uphold.
The MRC freaked out about this discussion so much that it devoted a second post to it, from Jeffrey Clark on May 16. Clark managed to avoid saying the quiet part out loud like Mandelburg did, instead focusing on good old-fashioned George Soros conspiracy-mongering:
A shadowy organization funded with millions from radical leftist billionaire George Soros is now pushing for less digital surveillance and a freer world — for abortion, that is.
The Aspen Institute held a May 11 virtual roundtable to strategize how women can have secret abortions. The meeting followed soon after a Supreme Court leak appeared to signal the end of the infamous pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973) decision.
The Aspen Institute hosted speakers from a variety of powerful leftist groups, including the Omidyar Network and the Ford Foundation. One guest, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) attacked pro-life advocates as “extremists,” and called data tracking of women “uterus surveillance.”
But behind the scenes, two organizations within Soros’s Open Society network previously funneled massive amounts of cash into the Aspen Institute, totaling at least $3,039,780 between 2003 and 2020.
This is not the first time that Soros has pushed radical pro-abortion groups. The leftist mogul gave at least $25,274,455 to 11 radical abortion groups like the Planned Parenthood Action Fund between 2016 and 2020. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in 2019 that the median cost for an abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $500. That is, Soros’ funding of 11 radical pro-abortion groups would be enough to pay for 50,548 abortions.
Clark then huffed that "Wyden absurdly claimed that overturning Roe is a “truly draconian infringement on women’s freedom and privacy” as he painted a dystopian world for women seeking abortions" and mocked one speaker for pointing out that states are considering criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion -- seemingly oblivious to the fact that just four days earlier, his co-worker endorsed that "absurd" draconian and dystopian monitoring of women to prevent them from engaging in freedom of movement in corssing state lines.
Posted by Terry K.
at 3:36 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 8:11 PM EDT
Farah Marks WND's 25th Anniversary On The Brink Of Extinction Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah did an early celebration of WorldNetDaily's then-upcoming 25th anniversary in an April 22 column:
What has WND been through over the last 25 years of being America's first independent, alternative online news enterprise? What HASN'T it been through?
We can't wait for May 4, 2022, when we celebrate our 25th anniversary, and begin our 26th year of continuous daily news reporting.
The path to a quarter century of operation has never been strewn with rose petals. No sir. Uh-uh. No way!
There repeatedly have been existential crises that have been overcome through prayer and bona fide miraculous solutions. Believe me – we're on the cusp of one now.
Farah then served up his usual self-hagiogrphy about WND's history, followed by the usual money beg.
When WND's actual anniversary rolled around in early May, Farah cranked out a three-column series to congratulate himself and play victim. In the first, Farah proclaimed himself a visionary for starting WND: "And I saw most of the establishment press did not. In fact, I saw a cozy, symbiotic and unhealthy relationship developing between the corporate press and state power. I vowed WND would never fall prey or be seduced by that temptation." Actually, Farah and WND werequitecozy with state power when Donald Trump was in the White House.
Farah went on to defend WND's embrace of Trump's Big Lie:
I warned it would result eventually in what happened in the 2020 election when it was rigged for Joe Biden. Without a free press allowed to blow the whistle on it, it was inevitable. And you remember how we just couldn't talk about the results of the election – even on Fox News. Everyone in the press said you couldn't talk about it. Big Tech refused to report any of it besides repeating the lie that it was "the most secure election in American history." It was not. WND would not go along with the charade. So we paid the price at the hands of Google and Facebook – and still are. UNBELIEVABLE! This is happening in the land that once believed in the sanctity of the Constitution!
It's a travesty. It's just not right.
In reality, we have repeatedlydebunked WND's reporting on claims of election fraud, meaning that the folks who are "not right" here and committing a jopurnalistic "travesty" are Farah and WND.
In the second column, Farah rehashed his version of WND's innitial success: "We did it! We were successful. We did really good journalism. And we were the biggest, baddest, conservative and avowedly Christian online news publication in the world. We were at our pinnacle until 2016 – and over the next three years, we nearly became ... extinct."
In the final column, Farah rewrote history on WND's bogus obession with Barack Obama's birth certificate:
Do you remember who the president was just before Trump?
Yes, it was Barack Obama.
He took a dismal view of our No. 1 bestseller on him titled "Where's the Birth Certificate?" You may recall it came out when he was seeking reelection in 2011. We beat the drum on that issue for years, starting even before he was elected. Until the book's release, NO ONE COULD PRODUCE THE SIMPLE DOCUMENT – including the governor of Hawaii. But then Obama turned the search over to his favorite law firm – later to become notorious as his "fixers," Perkins Coie, later to become even more notorious for the hoax they conspired in for Hillary Clinton – the lies about Trump known as the "Russia, Russia, Russia" hysteria.
Other than WND, none in the press was skeptical about the birth certificate story. No one else even examined it – not in the blue state of Hawaii or elsewhere. We did. Perkins Coie got a free ride for the story – just for releasing the document.
I think so.
Farah convewniently forgets that WND initially reported that the original birth certificate Obama's campaign released in 2008 that after a "separate WND investigation," it "found the document to be authentic." After people remembered that, WND added an "editor's note" to the article trying to argue that "authentic" didn't mean authentic.
Farah then went into his bogu sob story that "WND has been DEMONETIZED by Google and YouTube as of last year" and begged for money "to help us keep our dignity and honor for our continued commitment to publishing and persisting despite what we've endured over the last five years." Dignity and honor are not words people associate with WND's history of reporting.
MRC Touts Right-Wing Tirades From Celebrities, Censors The Walkbacks Topic: Media Research Center
Some hot takes simply don't age well. But the Media Research Center would rather be a hot-take factory, cranking out clickbait -- while staying silent when those hot takes get walked back. Jiseph Vazquez gushed over a unlikely famous-for-being-famous person in a March 10 post:
Billionaire socialite and TV star Kim Kardashian had some pretty blunt words of advice to give to the current generation of women in business — “work.” But she added expletives for emphasis.
Kardashian told left-wing magazine Variety in an interview about her family’s “new reality TV reign” that she had “‘the best advice for women in business.’”
Her advice was pretty straightforward: “‘Get your fucking ass up and work. It seems like nobody wants to work these days. You have to surround yourself with people that want to work.’”
She continued: “‘[Y]ou have one life. No toxic work environments, and show up and do the work.”
Addressing the question of the criticism Kardashian has received for being “famous [just] for being famous,” Kardashian retorted: “We focus on the positive. We work our asses off. If that’s what you think, then sorry. We just don’t have the energy for that. We don’t have to sing or dance or act; we get to live our lives — and hey, we made it. I don’t know what to tell you.”
Kardashian’s tough love advice was enough to send the politically correct crowd in the liberal media into a crazed frenzy.
Perhaps leftists in the media can’t stand it when a businesswoman thinks for herself and is willing to be forthcoming on the grueling motivation it takes to be a successful entrepreneur.
Only in the right-wing world of the MRC can a largely staid industry publication like Variety be dismissed as "left-wing."
So excited was Vazquez that Kardashian was mouthing right-wing talking points that he censored the fact that she walked it back a month later:
Kim Kardashian finally cleared the air over her viral “get your fucking ass up and work” comment from earlier last month.
Speaking on the Not Skinny But Not Fat podcast, Kardashian said, “I try to be so positive, it really did teach me something. No matter what, even if you’re having an off day in the way that you communicate, you really can’t when you’re in my situation and in my position.”
“I think some people, it resonated with them, some people — it really offended people. If you know me, you would know that I would never never try to single a certain group of women out. Especially women,” she continued. “I want everyone to win. Truly, I think there’s always enough to go around. I love supporting all my friends and small businesses and any women I meet.”
Kardashian continued, “It will definitely teach me to be careful in the sense of like, I don’t care what kind of day or mood, or what other question was coming in that, that tripped me out and got me — maybe my tone was different, but I still — it made me sad that it was perceived that way cause I would never want to hurt anybody or intend for that to be offensive.”
In a March 2 post, Mat Philbin cheered actort Sam Elliott for embracing right-wing homophobia by trashing a movie for having an LGBT theme:
Sam Elliott is retiring from acting. At least, he doesn’t seem to want to work in Hollywood anymore. If he did, he wouldn’t have uncorked a glorious rant about a “piece of shit” Oscar-nominated movie and its LGBT sacred cow(boys).
According to Variety, the iconic horse opera star doesn’t have much use for “Power of the Dog” and the “allusions of homosexuality throughout the movie.” Elliott was on a podcast when he went off on the movie, comparing the actors to Chippendale dancers. “That’s what all these fucking cowboys in that movie looked like,” Elliott said. “They’re running around in chaps and no shirts.”
Clearly the whole picture gave Elliott saddle sores. It remains to be seen how Hollywood responds to Sam. And the horse he rode in on.
Only in the right-wing world of the MRC is homophobia "glorious." Philbin even cheered that Elliott trashed the film's director, Oscar winner Jame Campion: "What the fuck does this woman from down there know about the American West? Why the fuck did she shoot this movie in New Zealand and call it Montana?"
Elise Ehahard followed up in a March 27 Oscars-bashing post by cheering that Elliott "rightfully" trashed the film. But just as unsurprisingly, the MRC censored the fact that a few weeks later, Elliott apologized for his hateful tirade:
Sam Elliott has publicly apologized for his criticism of the critically acclaimed Western film "The Power of the Dog" after facing fierce backlash for remarks that many perceived as homophobic.
"I wasn't very articulate about it. I didn't articulate it very well," he said at the event. "And I said some things that hurt people and I feel terrible about that."
Elliott -- whose prolific acting career includes performances in many Western-themed movies, including "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "Tombstone" -- went on to acknowledge that the gay community had been "incredible" to him during his career.
"I mean my entire career, from before I got started when I was in this town. Friends on every level and every job description up until today," he added. "I'm sorry that I hurt any of those friends and someone that I loved. And anyone else by the words that I used."
Elliott noted that he had praised Jane Campion as a "brilliant director " during the "WTF with Marc Maron" appearance.
"I can only say that I am sorry, and I am," he added.
But apologies for hate don't draw right-wing eyeballs to the MRC -- the original hate does, and it doesn't want to screw up the narrative by having to walk it back.
Stenography: CNS Now Treating Every Musk Utterance As 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
After following its Media Research Center parent in flip-flopping on the evilness of Elon Musk after his decision to try and buy Twitter, CNSNews.com has moved on to following in the MRC's foosteps by treating seemingly every public utterance he makes as a "news" story. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman cheered Musk's endorsement of right-wing talking points on the Biden administration's planned Disinformation Governance Board in an April 29 post:
In response to comment that the Department of Homeland Security is now operating a "Ministry of Truth," like in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 billionaire businessman Elon Musk tweeted, "This is messed up."
On Wednesday, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, testified before Congress and revealed that his department is now operating a "Disinformation Governance Board." Its alleged purpose is to monitor speech and look for “mis- and disinformation” to protect "election security" and "homeland security.”
Mayorkas' revelation was roundly denounced by many Republican lawmakers, civil libertarians, and legal experts.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a non-profit government watchdog, tweeted, "'Ministry of Truth'" is trending [on Twitter] because Biden admin appointed a radical leftist to run a censorship board in the Department of Homeland Security a few days after @ElonMusk purchase of @Twitter announced."
Chapman did not note whether Fitton offered any evidence to back up his suggestion that the creation of the board is directly linked to Musk's attempts to purchase Twitter. Then again, Chapman is a slavish stenographer for Judicial Watch.
CNS then started piling up the Musk-fluffing articles, many of which also echoed right-wing narratives:
CNS also published more pro-Musk commentaries. A May 9 commentary by Ron Paul declared that "Any doubt that many progressives have abandoned their commitment to free speech was erased by the hysterical reaction to Elon Musk’s effort to purchase Twitter and return the company to its roots as a free speech zone." And a May 27 commentary by Michael Rechtenwald absolved Musk of any previoius sins because he claims to support "free speech" by buying Twitter because he now has conservatively correct enemies:
Many criticisms have been leveled against Elon Musk — that he’s part of the elite, that Tesla has been the beneficiary of government handouts and exemptions, that his transhumanist Neuralink is a brain-data-mining operation. Yet his planned purchase of Twitter, his supposed free-speech absolutism, and his subsequent renunciation of the Democratic Party as “the party of division & hate” have put Musk squarely in the crosshairs of the woke cartel.
’m not suggesting that Musk is a free-market hero or a lowercase libertarian, but there is little doubt that he’s become corporate enemy number one for the state-backed woke cartel. The battle shaping up between Musk and the regime will prove to be an important one, if only because it pits the power of the latter against a high-visibility manufacturer and the reputed “richest man in the world.” What we will learn is how powerful the woke cartel is and just how far it will go to infringe on property rights and eradicate any remaining legitimate (consumer-based) market criteria — no matter how much its moves reek of hypocrisy or how obvious its vendetta.
There was no mention in any of these articles about Musk's coziness to China or his lack of commitment to free speech in real life.
MRC: Jared Kushner Earned His Saudi Payoff! Topic: Media Research Center
When Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner looked to all appearances like he was cashing in on his White House service in boosting Saudi Arabia by receiving a $2 billion investment for a Saudi investment fund, the Media Research Center knew what it had to do: Distract from the shadiness of the deal by playing Hunter Biden whataboutism and pretend that Kushner actually earned the money. Alex Christy did the deed in an April 16 post:
PBS NewsHour has finally discovered allegations of corrupt behavior in the president’s family. No, not Hunter Biden, but former President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. On Friday’s show, host Judy Woodruff, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart all condemned Kushner’s “shameless” behavior both during the Trump presidency and after.
When it was his turn, Capehart was even more outraged and recalled Kushner’s role in shaping Trump’s Middle Eastern strategy, “it sounds to me like it is MBS giving basically a payoff to—to-- his buddy Jared Kushner, who protected the Saudi weapons sales that Congress was trying to rescind after evidence came forward that MBS ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, who was a global opinions columnist for the Washington Post. And for a senior American — United States official to do that is unconscionable.”
What Capehart and so many others cannot come to terms with is that Trump courted the Saudis by doing a 180 from President Obama’s Iran strategy, which helped the neophyte Kushner being able to secure more Arab-Israeli peace deals in four years than previous administrations, who went about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “right way,” were able to get in seven decades. Meanwhile, between all of his shady business dealings, Hunter Biden has not advanced U.S. interests in any way.
Actually, as we've noted, those deals were with minor countries and have little to no impact on the real issue, the israel-Palestinian conflict. Christy also didn't explain how any of that involved Saudi Arabia, or how Kushner acted the "right way" by by giving Mohammed bin Salman a pass on murdering Khashoggi.
Christy concluded: "A decent segment would not only include references to the current president’s son, but if Woodruff insisted on talking about Kushner, somebody should at least have mentioned his historic policy successes with the Saudis." If Christy was a decent "media researcher," he would had admitted that givng MBS a pass on Khashoggi's death was not a "historic policy success" while not leaning on the right-wing crutch of Hunter BidenDerangement Syndrome.
WND Columnist Thinks Biden Is Burning Down Food Manufacturing Plants -- Then Denies Being A Conspiracy Theorist Topic: WorldNetDaily
Patrice Lewis began her April 29 WorldNetDaily column by listing "curious and alarming string of fires, explosions and accidents hitting food-processing and fertilizer plants across the nation," commenting, "One such accident is a tragedy. Two is an oddity. Three is a coincidence. But dozens? That starts to sound deliberate." She then quickly went to conspiracy territory by blaming President Biden:
Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? Are these events accidental or orchestrated? Are we seeing the beginning of weaponizing food in America? Even Tucker Carlson is asking these questions. As one Twitter user noted, starvation is a great way to control a population. Intentional or not, these industrial accidents will have an impact on America's food availability. That is irrefutable.
Jeff Miller at The Republic Brief pointed out how food companies rarely experience fires or explosions. But right now, anyone trying to connect the dots of these events is mocked as a conspiracy theorist. But at what point do conspiracy theories cross into the realm of fact?
When Biden said we'd have food shortages, I didn't lend him much credence. He's a senile puppet who doesn't know what he's saying most of the time. But maybe, for once, the doddering old man whispered the truth about the people pulling his strings. Certainly his administration is doing everything in its power – from shutting down pipelines to diverting corn into ethanol rather than animal feed – to hamstring farmers and food processors.
As Jeff Crouere at Canada Free Press put it, "It seems as if the president and his administration are doing everything possible to exacerbate the impending food shortage instead of solving it."
But if these attacks were orchestrated, there has to be a purpose or goal behind them. Why would anyone deliberately tighten up food supplies and make products scarce? Is this a planned situation to set up a desired future outcome for the people creating the crisis? Who or what would benefit from this?
As always, the default answer is: Follow the money. However, in this case I believe it's a matter of: Follow the power. Consider this definition of the Cloward-Piven strategy: "A political theory … that advises activists to create radical change by crashing the system. It encourages the orchestration of various crises designed to push society to the breaking point and steer the populace into embracing an authoritarian socialist government." Make of this what you will.
If you go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, you'll find people speculating that food will soon be government controlled. Henry Kissinger's famous line is usually quoted: "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."
Lewis concluded her column by -- despite spending it pushing a conspiracy theory -- she really isn't a conspiracy theorist: "I hate that this column sounds like it was written by a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist. But honestly, so-called 'conspiracies' have been coming true with alarming frequency – so who knows how this one will pan out?" Well, yes, Patrice, when you are spouting a conspiracy theory and citing other conspiracy theorists in support of it and are published by a conspiracy theory-friendly outlet like WND, you do come off looking like a conspiracy theorist. Maybe keep that in mind the next time you're tempted to do that again.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Curtis Houck kept handing out cookies to right-wing reporters in the White House briefing room for staying on message with their predetermined talking points. The cookie beneficiary in the April 29 briefing, as it had been the previous few days, was Fox News' Jacqui Heinrich:
On Thursday and Friday’s editions of The Psaki Show, Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich repeatedly took the outgoing White House press secretary to task over the appointment of Nina Jankowicz, a far-left Resistance fiend to run what many have deemed a real-life Ministry of Truth out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Heinrich wrapped her Thursday Q&A by invoking the so-called “Disinformation Governance Board” that’s set to fight “misinformation ahead of the midterms” and “Hispanic communities especially.”
After she asked about “what this board is going to be doing” and the depths of “their authority,” Psaki claimed she hadn’t “dug into this exactly” other than to state “there has been a range of disinfo out there about a range of topics — I mean, including COVID, for example, and also elections and eligibility.”
The Fox reporter kept up the pressure by citing her TikTok profile and comments in one video in which she accused conservatives and Trump voters of “laundering [disinformation]” and “not support their lies with our wallet, voice, or vote.”
Psaki countered by again blaming Trump and insisting the real mission of the board is “protecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties and the First Amendment” while also countering “disinformation.”
The future MSNBC analyst added that examples include combating terrorism and “misinformation...spread by human smugglers that prey on vulnerable populations attempting to migrate to the United States.”
Heinrich noted it all “sound[s] very worthy, but you've got someone in — from the Department Homeland Security telling people how they should vote,” so it’s worth considering the fact that “critics...say that doesn’t sound right.”
Of course, Psaki ducked by brushing off Jankowicz as just someone “overseeing the work of that board” conceived by Trump.
After the May 4 briefing, it was cookie time for Houck's longtime man-crush, Peter Doocy:
Wednesday afternoon on The Psaki Show, Fox’s Peter Doocy held the White House press secretary under duress with questions on the Biden administration’s reaction to the leaked Supreme Court opinion on abortion, including the President’s claim that Republicans could ban gay students from being in the same classroom as straight students and his phrasing of abortion involving “a child.”[...]
As for Doocy Time, he began with the notion that the administration chose to weigh in on the draft by breaking its pattern of not commenting on leaked materials.
Psaki insisted they weren’t because “the Supreme Court confirmed” it and, after Doocy noted it came out before the Court statement, Biden “made clear we don’t know if this is accurate.” In other words, they did stray from past procedure.
Doocy also asked whether the President believes “the leaker should be punished,” but Psaki reiterated an earlier answer to ABC’s Cecilia Vega that it’s “up for the Department of Justice and others to determine.” Psaki added what matters most “is the fact that women’s healthcare is at risk for millions of people across this country.”
The Fox reporter pivoted to one of Biden’s more incendiary comments from Wednesday morning in predicting Republicans could segregate classrooms based on a student’s sexuality.
Moving to his final line of questioning, Doocy asked: “Why is the President talking about the judgment to choose to abort a child?”
Psaki emphasized it wasn’t a big deal since Biden’s “view on a woman’s right...is well known, well documented, well stated,” which left Doocy to press on the real issue in that “he said ‘abort a child.’”
In Houck's view, the "real issue" is a right-wing reporter cherry-picking words to obsess over for partisan gain.
For the May 5 briefing, the right-wing talking point du jour was outrage over protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices following the leak of a draft ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade. And Houck made sure that Doocy got his cookie:
The Psaki Show got off to a late start Thursday, owed to Jen Psaki announcing she’s leaving the press secretary position (while still playing coy about going to MSNBC). Despite this delay, Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy grilled her on the issue of leftist activists doxxing the conservative Supreme Court Justices and planning to assail their homes (opening them up to possible violence) over the leaked draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But Psaki wasn’t concerned.
After some light sniping back and forth about her leaving, Doocy called out how President Biden smeared Republicans as “extreme” and wanted to know if “the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of justices' houses are extreme?” Ignoring the issue of their homes now being exposed to violence, Psaki rhetorically shrugged. “Peaceful protests are not extreme,” she said.
Doocy immediacy pointed out that “some of these justices have young kids” and “their neighbors are all not public figures.” And when asked if Biden would be “waving off” these leftists that were planning to descend on peaceful “residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland,” Psaki couldn’t care less.
“Peter, look. I think our view is that peaceful protests, there is a long history in the United States and the country of that,” she condescendingly argued. “And we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence.”
With a more direct example of leftist violence, EWTN White House correspondent Owen Jensen later stood up and aggressively pressed Psaki on how “a Catholic church was just vandalized with pro-abortion slogans in Colorado.” She said she had “not seen that report” but “obviously, we don’t condone vandalism.” And as Jensen continued to press, Psaki just spewed polls at him about support for Roe.
That was followed by a post whining that a reporter didn't hate Psaki's designated replacement, Karine Jean-Pierre, whom Houck has previously smeared as a diversity hire for the sin of being black and LGBT:
Minutes after White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki gave the Biden administration’s blessing Thursday for progressives to stage protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, NPR White House reporter Franco Ordoñez sucked up to Psaki’s successor Karine Jean-Pierre, by wondering if she could share “what this means to you” and comment on both “the historic nature” of her appointment and advice for “young girls” and “minority communities.”
The reporter from the taxpayer-funded outlet first congratulated Psaki on her run, but asked if Jean-Pierre “could share some words about what this means to her...and if [she] could talk a little bit about the historic nature of” the appointment as the first black and first openly gay press secretary.
Of course, Jean-Pierre thanked him for the question before stating she had to first “thank Jen” for having been “a wonderful colleague, a friend, a mentor” in addition to being “a true, solid, amazing person.”
The former MoveOn.org spokeswoman insisted she’s “still processing it because...this is a historic moment, and it’s not lost on me” and thus “understand[s] how important it is for so many people out there, so many different communities that I stand on their shoulders[.]”
This from a guy who tossed nothing but softballs at former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany despite her incompetence in the job and absolute refusal to do it after the Capitol riot.
CNS' Jeffrey Serves Up More Softball Interviews Topic: CNSNews.com
In a March 7 CNSNews.com article, Craig Bannister complained that "At a White House event on Friday, Council of Economic Advisers chair Cecilia Rouse was thrown a softball question from a Washington Post reporter who declared that President Joe Biden isn’t getting enough credit for his accomplishments." Needless to say, Bannister will never call out the softball questions lobbed by his boss, Terry Jeffrey, at his interiview subjects. We've already noted the softballs Jeffrey has tossed to his own boss, Brent Bozell, and Reagan hagiographer Craig Shriley in interviews more designed to promote their books than offer any insight into their authors.
But those aren't the only people Jeffrey has been fluffing lately in his interview series (which actually has a decidedly lame name, "Online With Terry Jeffrey"). An April 15 article detailed his interview with Pat Boone, who has a new religious-themed film out. Jeffrey began by reciting Boone's resume -- "Over the course of his career, Boone has sold 45 million records and starred in 15 movies" -- and his first question was about ... the golf course where the movie is set. There were many more golf-related questions. There was nothing about Boone's vicious hatred for Barack Obama that was so virulent that it undermined his nice-guy image.
That was followed by an April 19 interview with biased anti-Biden reporter Miranda Devine, who wrote a book about her obsession with Hunter Biden's laptop. Much of the interivew is Jeffrey prompting Devine to recite her anti-Biden talking points and refusing to challenge her on them. Devine was the reporter who worked with Republican operatives to push the October surprise of Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election. But rather than question her about why she made no effort before the election to provide unimpeachable evidence of the laptop's veracity -- which would have kept the story from being dismissed as Russian disinformation by most observers -- Jeffrey simply teed her up to complain that the story was dismissed.
The goal of these interviews -- aside from the promotional valuye for the interviewees -- is to portray Jeffrey as a serious journalist. But he's not, and the fluffiness of these interviews further undermines that claim.