The Media Research Center has been laboring to protect Fox News' Tucker Carlson from the fact that his replacement theory conspiracy found an echo in the Buffalo shooter. Leave it to Tim Graham go to on a campaign of misdirection by using a promotion for his May 16 podcast to try and mislead about what replacement theory is:

Bill Maher attacked the notion that the federal government would run an effort against "disinformation" broadly defined. When a racist teen shot up a Buffalo supermarket, disinformation broke out as liberal outlets raced to connect it somehow to Tucker Carlson and Fox News.

The New York Times and The Washington Post admitted they couldn't prove the Buffalo shooter had even watched or enjoyed Tucker's show, but they aggressively smeared the ten deaths on him anyway. "Measuring the extent of Mr. Carlson’s influence in spreading replacement theory may be impossible," admitted the Times. "But controversies around the host’s use of 'replacement' rhetoric appear to have at least helped drive public curiosity about the idea.

On the reliably liberal Reliable Sources, CNN host Brian Stelter brought on black journalist Wesley Lowery -- whose book on race was titled They Can't Kill Us All -- to insist that Tucker and Laura Ingraham often sounded like white supremacists, and tossed in Ben Shapiro and Andrew Sullivan for spice. Stelter suggested other conservatives were also responsible, but they can't help but suggest Fox is well, an Enemy of the People, at least the non-white people.

This anger at "replacement theory" energetically ignored that liberals have been delighting in the notion of a more multi-racial America for decades. The cover story in the April 9, 1990 edition of Time magazine happily projected that "in the 21st century -- and that's not far off -- racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. will outnumber whites for the first time. The 'browning of America' will alter everything in society."

Actually, Tim, pointing out demographic changes and claiming they're part of an evil conspiracy are two completely different things.

In the podcast itself, Graham managed to find humor in the Buffalo shooting, chortling that "they never to the gun range for a mass shooting," then asserted that the media "saw opportunity" in the shooting by blaming Carlson. Citing reporting that the shooter said he was radicalized online, "There's no indication that [the shooter] watched Carlson's program. Yeah, who needs proof?" going on to launch a whataboutism rant:

This is the game that they play, and that is that if you merely suggest that Democrats are interested in importing their voters, you're for killing black people in a supermarket. You don't have to prove Tucker Carlson is a mass murderer whisperer, you just find echoes and emanations and numbers of associations. Buffalo McCarthyism? I mean, you couldn't call people a communist if they praised Fidel Castro to the skies, hmmm, Barbara Walters? All these people who said the kindest possible things about communist autocrats -- you know, but you can't call them a communist, probably you couldn't really say there's no proof that the liberals wanted us all in the United State of Fidel Castro BUT dot dot dot.

[...]

If there is a clumsy Crayola conspiracy theory, this is it.  "Supermarket shooter equals Tucker! I don't even have to spell Tucker correctly!"

Graham then rushed to defend Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik for spouting similar ideas:

And it's not just the Fox News hosts. The Washington Post also had a story coming in to the new week ripping Elise Stefanik -- yeah, they tweeted this out this notion: "Stefanik echoed racist theory allegedly espoused by Buffalo suspect." Smeary smeary guilty guilty! What do we actually find? Well, Elise Stefanik ran Facebook ads that claimed this about the Democrats: “Their plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” All right, that's a conspiracy theory, right? They're importing voters. But somehow this leads to "Stefanik echoes racist mass shooter." This isn't journalism, this is midslinging, this is a negative campaign commercial disguised as a news story.

Graham then exhibited a surprising lack of self-unawareness by accusing others of doing what the MRC has been doing for 30-plus years:

I just don'e like the energy that's out there right now. And it's the whole energy of we have to make Republicans quit, we have to shut Fox News down. Right? There's this whole lame-o thing -- if you go to the lame-o liberal sites, what are they out there saying? You know, "white supremacist shooting means you need to re-evaluate advertising on the  Fox News Channel." We all know -- and this was all over conservative Twitter -- they cannot prove that this thug shooter has ever paid attenton to Tucker Carlson anywhere at any time, whereas theguy who shot at the Republicans on the softball field in Alexandria, Virginia, had professed his love for Rachel Maddow's show. Does that mean Rachel Maddow encouraged the shooting of Republicans? That was generally not the conservative spin.

So why is that Graham's spin now? Even the conservatives pushing that spin never found anything beyond a Facebook like, whereas the replacement theory promoted by Carlson -- who serves as the largest megaphone for it -- closely echoes the shooter's replacement theory.

Graham then insisted that it's not really racist to point out there there's a conspiracy by Democrats to import foreign voters, no matter how racist that actually sounds:

It's somehow  -- if you suggest that Democrats want to import voters to win elections, this is somehow voila, white supremacy! We all understand that the Democrats really do believe that we're gonna -- yes, we're going to be aggresively pro-immigrant, we're going to be pro-immigration. They believe in what you might call Univision theory, which is the more -- yeah, the more people we import from Central and South America, the more Democratic voters they're sending in. Somehow they're not racist when they're supporting this theory because they're saying it in a positive way. If you say it in a negative way, it's bad. So for example, in 2008 if I suggest Rachel Maddow is a lesbian  -- this is a factual statement, I got my head handed to me anyway at the time because I said it in a disapproving tone. This is the way it works, apparently.

Now, you can find examples of Fox News hosts suggsting that Democrats want to import voters, but how is this white supremacy? I mean, if Wesley Lowrey and his ilk suggest to us that black lives matter more than white lives -- 'cause don't you dare say all lives matter -- does that qualify as black supremacy? I know for a fact Welsey Lowrey does not get to run around claiming, "Oh, the other guys, they're are the racial dividers, they're the ones that are making life difficult in America. The other guys are disturbing the peace." No, Wesley Lowrey is a guy whose whole career is built on systemic racism, systemic racism, systemic racism, riding grievances all the way to the Pulitizer Prize.

As if Graham's entire career is not built on riding grievances to, well, maybe an MRC Bulldog Award and more Mercer money.

Graham went on to huff that liberals are the real racists for accurately noting America's changing racial demographics:

The reality is we can tell you as people who have been around for 35 years the liberal media have been gleefully pushing this idea of Amercia's white minority for decades. They've been delighting in the idea of "the browning of America," and they hever thought that sounded racist or racially hostile or racially inflammatory.

Graham then claimed that immigrants might change "white Western ideas" and declared that a legitimate concern, declaring that "yes, you can make concerned who might wear a hat that says 'Make America Great Again' -- I don't have that hat --  but the idea that you're going to import immigrants to change what America stands for, what America is, yeah, if you're a Republican that might concern you."At no point did Graham provide any evidence that there is a Democratic project, overt or clandestine, to import foreign peopel for the express purpose of replacing white conservatives but insisted this theory is "falling apart" because immigrants are becoming Republicans.

Graham didn't really help his case here. Whataboutism is a distraction, not an argument.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:35 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The leak of a draft opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade and, thus, the right to have an abortion, gave CNSNews.om yet another excuse to attack President Biden for not imposing his Catholic faith on the entire country.

A May 3 article by Craig Bannister repeated right-wing talking points in noting that "as multiple news outlets have reported, in 1981, as a Democrat [sic] Delaware senator, Biden voted for a constitutional amendment that – like the overturn of Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court is currently considering – would have enabled each state to pass a law regarding the legality, restriction or prohibition of abortion." Another article that day by Melanie Arter complained that Biden said if the Supreme Court does end up overturning Roe v. Wade, "it would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question." 

Susan Jones complained that "President Joe Biden said the apparent leak to Politico of a majority Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade means "we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law." She then groused in a May 4 article when Biden raised the prospect of conservatives desiring to separate LGBTQ children from classrooms:

President Biden is among the Democrats warning that dire consequences will flow from a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, if such a ruling is issued later this year, as a leaked document suggests.

A number of Democrats have asked what else conservatives will attack -- the right to birth control? Same-sex marriage? Even biracial marriages?

[...]

Jones declared that "The draft majority opinion leaked to Politico specifically addresses the concerns raised by politically motivated Democrats," and that "Abortion, unlike birth control, marriage or even segregating LGBTQ children, involves a third party -- the unborn baby."

In fact, legal experts note that Alito's draft opinion also argued that  there is no broad constitutional "right to autonomy," an argument that underpinned other legal decisions such as gay marriage and consensual sexual relations, and there's no reason why right-wing activists wouldn't use Alito's arguments to try to overturn gay marriage and contraception rights as well.

A May 5 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman returned to an old tactic by quoting a Catholic bishop attacking Biden as a "heretic" and "apostate" for forcing all of America to abide by his Catholic faith, adding: "Although Presiden [sic] Biden is a Catholic, he supports abortion and Roe v. Wade, as well as 'gay marriage' and other practices that violate the teaching of the Catholic Church. By supporting those things and speaking in their defense, Biden is, in the objective order, backing heresy and causing scandal. An apostate is someone who has essentially abandoned their faith."

An anonymous CNS writer grumbled in another May 5 article:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday, answering a question about the possibility the Supreme Court may overturn Roe vs. Wade and recalling his role as Judiciary Committee chairman during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork, stated his belief that his rights come from God.  

“‘I believe I have the rights that I have not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I’m just a child of God,’” Biden recalled telling Bork during those hearings.

Biden then seemed to suggest that the “right to privacy,” under which the Supreme Court placed an alleged “right” to abortion, was one of the rights that comes from God.

The writer who refused toput his or her name on this piece did not explain why privacy is not a legitimate right.

Thirty minuites later, there was a follow-up attack:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday morning explained his position in favor of legalized abortion by recalling that he had once told Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork that he possessed the rights he had because he is a “child of God.”

Later that same day, Biden issued a statement declaring Thursday the National Day of Prayer.”

There was no explanation for why these two articles could not have been combined into one, which wold have been more journalistically efficient and convenient for its readers.

Yet another May 5 article by Chapman touted how the right-wing group CatholicVote "is calling on President Joe Biden and other public leaders to denounce the call by pro-abortion activists to protest at Catholic churches this Sunday and to rally outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. " Chapman identified CatholicVote as only a non-profit group" while he made sure to describe Ruth Sent Us, which made the protest call, as a "radical pro-abortion group."

Arter groused in a May 6 article that "When asked whether President Joe Biden supports any limits on abortion, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that 'he supports the right of a woman to make choices about her own body with her doctor.'"

Of course, dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue had to weigh in, using his May 9 column to lash out at various pro-choice protest at Catholic churches -- perpetrated by "vandals" and "fascists," in his telling, though forcing all Americans to adhere to  Catholic theology is its own form of fascism -- huffing that "It is shameful that our 'devout Catholic' president has not said a word about any of these anti-Catholic incidents. ... This is another example of bigotry, yet Biden can't bring himself to call it for what it is — rank anti-Catholicism."

Posted by Terry K. at 2:14 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, June 12, 2022 3:57 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Even though Barack Obama left the presidency more than five years ago, the Media Research Center continues to have flare-ups of Obama Derangement Syndrome. When Obama paid a visit to the White House in April, Kevin Tober melted down in an April 5 post:

Hours after former President Barack Obama returned to the White House to tout the Biden administration’s efforts to expand Obamacare, the evening newscasts returned to their old habits of gushing over their first true love: Barack Obama. While they were drooling over the former President, they spent their entire broadcasts ignoring the latest layer of the ongoing Hunter Biden scandal.

The evening newscasts spent a combined three minutes and two seconds on the Obama visit to the White House. This compares to zero time spent on Hunter Biden.

Since the MRC is also obsessed with Hunter Biden, Tober devoted a good chunk of his post to highlighting how "Back in reality, Fox News Channel’s Special Report covered the latest news out of the rabidly metastatizing Hunter Biden scandal."

NBC's Al Roker simply teasing an upcoming interview with Obama was enough to set off Kyle Drennen in an April 6 post, whining about how "Roker was already swooning as he confessed that he was “so excited” for the softball chat that would preach climate activism and promote Obama’s upcoming nature documentary series on Netflix." Drennen then complained at length that Roker's "adulation for Obama has been equally strong over the years," going on to huff: "Given that history, viewers can expect similar Obama-gasms from Roker in next week’s interview with the former president."

When the actual interview dropped a week later, Drennen complained about that too:

During an interview with former President Obama conducted on Monday and aired on NBC’s Today show Wednesday morning, weatherman and climate activist Al Roker actually worried that the brutal war in Ukraine was distracting from pushing a left-wing environmental agenda. Obama replied by trying to use the conflict as an excuse “to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.”

[...]

During a portion of the friendly chat aired on the 3rd Hour Today show, in the 9:00 a.m. ET hour, Roker was shown wondering: “During your presidency, you protected more public lands, more waterways, than any previous administration. Now that you are a private citizen, is climate change and the environment one of your top priorities?” Obama declared: “I think it has to be one of the top priorities for all of us.”

The purpose of the interview wasn’t just to push the left’s radical climate agenda, it was also promote Obama’s latest project, as Roker explained: “Now, his new Netflix series, Our Great National Parks, showcases some of the world’s most spectacular settings....The former president serving as both executive producer and narrator.”

Tim Graham also complained about the Roker interview in his April 15 column:

Whenever Barack Obama grants an interview to one of his adorers in the media, one who arrives bathed in the glow of servility, everyone should be reminded that this is a major reason why people don’t trust the media.

In every interview, Obama is treated as a global celebrity and as the wisest of wise men. One can understand a journalist offering more tender inquiries to an ex-president, but there is no difference in tenderness between now and during his presidency.

Look no further than NBC’s Obama interview by weatherman Al Roker, which aired on April 12 and 13. “Scrutiny” or “accountability” are not words that apply. NBC and the other liberal media outlets seek to put Republican presidents on trial, and put Democrat presidents at ease.

Thern again, scrutiny and accountability were nowhere to be found when Graham gave a softball interview to former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany -- who infamously abandoned her job after the Capitol riot -- a couple weeks later.

When Obama gave a speech calling for combatting online misinformation, the MRC unsurprisingly took offense. Graham played whataboutism in an April 10 post:

Naturally, CNN didn't find anything funny in David Axelrod and Jeffrey Goldberg honoring their hero Barack Obama with a spot at their conference on "Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy."

This came during a week when Obama was honored for Obamacare, and the liberals all forgot Obama won the "Lie of the Year" from PolitiFact in 2013 for "If you like your health plan, you can keep it.

[...]

Usually, the "disinformation" cops and "fact checkers" think all of the dishonesty comes from the right wing. Obama was surprised after PolitiFact gave the "Lie of the Year" to "Death panels" (2009) and "Government takeover of health care" (2010).

Graham then seemed to endorse bogus anti-Obama birtherism because he took some literary liberties in his memoir:

The CNN team thinks Obama is uber-qualified because of the "infamous" birther theory promulgated by Evil Orange Man, and they aren't going anywhere near Obama making up his own fairy tale in his memoir about staying in Hawaii with Daddy until he was two (he left with Mommy for the mainland soon after he was born). He also made up "composite girlfriends," but he's the scourge of disinformation.

Two days later, Catherine Salgado complained about Obama's endorsement of exposing online haters hiding bnehind anonymity:

“I am close to a First Amendment absolutist,” former President Barack Obama said last week, even as he called misinformation potentially “fatal” and suggested “modifications” to online anonymity.

The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Obama at his left-wing mag's “ Disinformation and Erosion of Democracy” conference. Obama more than once used seemingly pro-free-speech language during the event hosted by The University of Chicago’s law school.

“I believe in the idea of not just free speech, but also that you deal with bad speech with good speech,” he said. Obama added, however, that disinformation, or the “systematic effort to either [sic] promote false information [or] to suppress true information for the purpose of political gain, financial gain, enhancing power, suppressing others, targeting those you don’t like,” is a threat.

Obama added that “editorial choices…combined with any kind of ethno-nationalism or misogyny or racism can be fatal,” noting further “that is the media ecosystem that we now are occupying.”

Obama’s comment on anonymity was particularly relevant. “In some circumstances, it’s important to preserve anonymity, in terms of–so that there’s space in repressive societies to discuss issues,” he said. ”But as we’ve all learned, it’s a lot harder to be rude, obnoxious, cruel, uh—or lie when somebody knows you’re lying and knows who you are, and I think that there may be modifications there that can be made.”

There have been many recent attacks on online anonymity. The hacked private information of donors to the anti-COVID-19 mandate Freedom Convoy was spread across the internet. The Canadian government then froze some Freedom Convoy-connected cryptocurrency wallets.

Salgado did not explain why online haters must be allowed to hide behind anonymity.

Salgado also grumbled that Obama said that “If people are given different information, they can process differently," adding: "That sounds like what Big Tech and Big Media did before the 2020 election. Both restricted information unfavorable to then-Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden in a way that the Media Research Center found to have changed the election results." As we've documented, the MRC's conspiratorial findings were fueled by right-wing polls it puirchased, one of which came from Trump's own campaign pollster.

Graham rehashed much of his earlier Obama derangement in his April 22 column, going on to rant: "This underlines why the liberal media should not be trusted in a 'disinformation' fight. They have a frustrating tendency to put themselves on the side of 'information' and conservatives on the side of 'disinformation.' Don’t try to argue it’s more complicated than that. They’re not listening."

Graham and the rest of the MRC love to put scare quotes around "disinformation" when a non-conservative is calling it out, but never when a fellow right-winger is making the accusation. Graham also offers no evidence why he and the MRC should be trusted on this issue more than anyone else.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:03 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, June 12, 2022 1:05 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah hasn't written a lot about Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- he's still too busy promoting election fraud conspiracy theories to devote much time to it -- but when he has, it's generally and unsurprisngly been centered on blaming President Biden. Right after the invasion, Farah ranted in his Feb 24 column:

We saw war break out in Ukraine yesterday.

It's understandable, while the news is focused on it, that our eyes should be diverted there. But that may be where our enemies want us looking.

Maybe we should be instead focused on what's coming next.

What are we missing because of America's gross incompetence?

[...]

So what is Biden still missing? What's his next misstep? What's his next incomprehensible move?

He's seemingly doesn't see the fact that there is an alliance between Russia, China and Iran that could quickly develop into WORLD WAR III.

Don't doubt for a minute that Putin invaded Ukraine without the approval of China's leader, Xi Jinping. He may choose to take on Taiwan in the next three years while Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, are still in power. What about Iran? Iran understands that the Russian operation gives it a blank check to continue attacking countries in the region – possible even Israel.

[...]

And now Joe Biden has made it all-too-possible to become a reality – or at least a prequel – for a world-ending nightmare scenario.

What else should we expect from hapless Joe Biden?

Anything less?

We have just less than three years left before he leaves office. Three years – it's an ominous amount of time.

Can we sustain the world as we know it in the meantime?

We are on the brink of the most dangerous period the world has possibly ever known – thanks to Joe Biden.

It's time to pray and repent!

Farah expanded that blame to all liberals in his column the next day for purportedly blocking discussion of China:

No one in the United States bothers to talk about the China virus anymore – especially the radical left. It's one of the topics you can't talk about in polite company.

Nor can we talk about the Uighurs, a people living in Chinese concentration camps and marked for extinction through forced abortions.

Why can't we talk about it?

Because we don't have a free press anymore thanks to Big Tech – another one of the allies of the Chinese Communists.

All Joe Biden would say about the Chinese insofar as their position on Russia and Ukraine is that they will be "stained" by it. He was careful to say nothing further because Beijing has the goods on him. He was former business partners with Russia, China and Ukraine.

Also, China may have helped Biden to pull off his BIG STEAL of the 2020 election.

Joe Biden is thoroughly compromised.

But so is GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell. He's owned by China. So is Nancy Pelosi. So are many, many Democrats and a fair amount Republicans.

Farah whined further in his Feb. 28 column:

When Russia first assaulted the Ukraine in 2014, Barack Obama, the great humanitarian, sent Ukrainians blankets. The second time he attacked them, Joe Biden, the man who had taken bribes from Ukraine, diddled, waffled and did virtually nothing. He's still spending weekends in Delaware. Who knows who's in charge?

In fact, by 2015 the Obama adinistration had sent $120 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including weapons, armored vehicles and medical supplies.

Farah used his March 7 column to praise Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelensky as a proud "Hebrew warrior," apprently oblvious to his own columnists trashing Zelensky as a failed leader for not capitulating to Russia.

In his April 5 column, Farah called on Henry Kissinger, of all people, to back up his anti-Biden take, which also leaned a bit into supporting Russia (and repeating the Obama blanket falsehood):

I'm hardly a fan of Henry Kissinger.

I've never thought that much of the man while I was on the right or the left.

The former secretary of state is a globalist at best. But he explained the correct path for Ukraine while both Barack Obama and Joe Biden were doing nothing about Russia's threat until it was too late.

His words were prescient, given that he was writing this in 2014, when Russia was preparing to gobble up Crimea on the eve of its invasion and occupation.

[...]

To sum up his evenhanded approach to this long simmering catastrophe, Kissinger advised that Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

Ukraine should not join NATO. And it should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.

Kissinger was also cognizant that both the U.S. and Europe need to show greater appreciation for the historical and ethnic ties binding Russia and Ukraine while never ceding Ukraine's sovereignty to Russian control.

In retrospect, the war could have been avoided – by statecraft, if the "grown-ups" didn't ignore all the signs and dangers.

The U.S. should have done more sooner, for example, preparing the Ukrainians militarily – as Donald Trump did after Obama sent them blankets. And if Biden was the "expert" on Ukraine in the Obama administration, he should not have seen it as his personal honeypot with Hunter preying on it.

Farah hasn't dedicated a column to the Ukraine situation since. Since silence is arguably assent, we can presume that even a Biden Derangement Syndrome sufferer like Farah has decided he approves of Biden's overall handling of the situation.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:05 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, June 19, 2022 11:48 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck kicked off his final week of having Jen Psaki to kick around as White House press secretary by writing about an "exit interview" she did with Fox News' Howard Kurtz, cheering how Kurtz hit right-wing talking points by asking about "media access to President Biden, rumors about her move to MSNBC, and Twitter being a liberal echo-chamber." Houck didn't mention that his beloved Kayleigh McEnany would never have sat for an exit interview with CNN's Brian Stelter (or that she didn't do her job at all in the final two weeks of Donald Trump's presidency).

Houck returned to anti-Psaki hostility in writing about the May 10 briefing, maliciously interpreting Psaki's words while fluffing the latest person in the briefing room's Fox News seat:

Filling in for Fox’s A-Team of Peter Doocy and Jacqui Heinrich, correspondent Alexandria Hoff joined The Psaki Show on Monday and Tuesday, as Jen Psaki began her final week at the podium, and Hoff made it count by joining other reporters in grilling her on the threats to Supreme Court justices due to the leaked draft opinion on abortion. 

Starting with Tuesday, Hoff called out the Biden administration’s double standard when it comes to what they claimed were threats to the lives of school board members as “the Department of Justice was very swift in responding” and whether they’ll do the same toward (actual) threats to Supreme Court justices like Samuel Alito.

In response, Psaki predictably claimed Biden opposes “violence, threats, and...intimidation of any kind,” but then droned on about how Republicans are raging hypocrites when it comes to (alleged) school board threats, Michigan election officials, women seeking abortions, or January 6. Interspersed with that, Psaki said the administration “continue[s] to encourage” such protests and intimidation tactics.

[...]

Psaki defended the mental terrorizing of justices and their innocent families, boasting that “the protests...have not turned violent” and “[j]ust because people are passionate” and< “fearful about their own healthcare,” “it does not mean they’re violent.” 

"Mental terrorizing"? Isn't that what Houck has been doing to Psaki for the past year and a half?

Houck used his summary for the May 12 briefing to tout the latest manufactured right-wing outrages:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki went before reporters Thursday for her penultimate press briefing and she made it one to remember as she falsely claimed it’s “a conspiracy theory” taxpayer dollars are funding free crack pipes despite intrepid reporting from the Washington Free Beacon that government-funded “safe smoking kits” contain crack pipes.

And on more conventional topics, Psaki squared off with a number of journalists over the administration being caught flat-footed amid a nationwide baby formula shortage and an increasing hostility by President Biden and the White House toward the 70-million-plus non-Democrats as dangerous, “ultra-MAGA” fanatics.

Houck kicked off Psaki's last day, on May 13 by lashing out yet again at Psaki (while backhandedly admitting she did a good job) while praising Peter Doocy and all the other right-wing reporters who lobbed biased questions at her:

Friday marked the end of an era with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki departing the Biden administration after over 200 editions of The Psaki Show, filled with humorous and tense moments. Simply put, Psaki was effective in having served as the chief spin officer and lying propagandist for President Biden amid a litany of crises as he himself has spent much of his presidency hiding from sustained questioning. 

Hired away from CNN, Psaki is poised to move to MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s streaming platform Peacock, which itself has been wrought with ethical concerns.

Fox’s Peter Doocy became a household name alongside Psaki for their many exchanges on everything from hot dogs to horses to inflation to sex ed in schools. As we’ve coined it here at NewsBusters, Doocy Time was appointment viewing for the Fox correspondent’s uncanny ability to ask questions the liberal journalists around him weren’t asking and in a way that was brief, respectful, and tough.

Doocy wasn’t the only person who stood out during Psaki’s tenure. Softball artists included usual suspects such as Yamiche Alcindor, Andrew Feinberg, and April Ryan while journalists who often joined Doocy in tough questioning included the Steven Nelson, Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann, former Fox colleague Kristin Fisher, and current colleagues Jacqui Heinrich, Alexandria Hoff, Edward Lawrence, and wife Hillary Vaughn.

This was followed by a Doocy-heavy list of top "moments" from Psaki's tenure.

Houck waited three days before writing up the final Psaki press briefing, spending much of it complaining about her making "gooey platitudes" and an "emotional, eye-rolling series of thank you’s" before going on to seemingly endorse disruptive "heckling" from a reporter from Today News Africa.

Houck was silent on the fact that this was a much classier way of ending a tenure than McEnany, who read a statement the day after the Capitol riot, fled the podium and never held another presser in the final two weeks of Trump's presidency. Then again, he was too busy tossing softballs to mention it in his interview with McEnany in April.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:45 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily judging the alleged neutrality of journalism of another news outlet breaks the irony meter -- neutrality being one of the many words that can't ever be used to describe WND's work. Yet that's what WND did in an anonymously written May 8 article:

It's likely few people still believe newspapers are neutral providers of "news," after the legacy media's agenda to suppress bad information about the Biden family's international business schemes and portray everything President Trump accomplished as bad over recent years.

The few who still held on to that ideal now likely are having their beliefs shattered, as the Denver Post has given up any pretense of neutrality with an article that promotes abortion, and directs readers where to donate money for the operations of the lucrative industry.

A report at Campfire Colorado pointed out, "The Denver Post has taken liberal activism in the press to a whole new level tonight – the newspaper is literally directing donors to an Act Blue page supporting 'Abortion Funds and Pro-Choice Groups.'"

That Act Blue organization is a donation platform for Democrats that lets donors "contribute online to Democratic campaigns, political action committees and outside groups…"

The report charged, "It’s time for everyone to acknowledge the Denver Post is a liberal activist organization." 

WND didn't explain why informing its readers about such issues breaks "neutrality" principles. In fact, it arguably enhances them by proving such information and not forcing people to go elsewhere -- abortion is still a legal procedure after all, and it's simply providing information about a legal service.

WND, of course, would censor this information from its readers -- and it proudly declared its bias at the top of the article. A money beg proclaimed how WND is staffed by "Christian journalists" purportedly offering "uniquely truthful reporting." If one defines falsehoods, misinformation and conspiracy theories to be "uniquely truthful reporting," then sure. And the fact that it's criticizing another media outlet for providing factual information is more evidence of WND's heavliy slanted bias.

And if this article was so neutral and factual, why did the reporter refuse to put his or her byline on it? Where they afraid they were going to be criticized or mocked for writing such a ridiculous piece? That's a definite lack of transparency on WND's part, which makes readers not trust its brand of journalism even more. No wonder WND is continuing its slide toward oblivion.

Posted by Terry K. at 3:55 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Tim Graham complained in an April 16 post:

On Thursday night, Fox News anchor Bret Baier filed a short item on wealthy gay California Democrat mega-donor Ed Buck being sentenced to 30 years in prison for the methamphetamine overdose deaths of two black men. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS broadcasts haven't touched it. Buck had donated $500,000 to mostly Democratic causes since 2000.

This story was on the front page of the Los Angeles Times on Friday, but the networks were absent on the story, just as they were when Buck was convicted in July of 2021. You can find the story online at the network news sites. They are much more detailed that Baier's anodyne brief.

Graham might have a point ... if his organization wasn't systematically censoring mention of notable conservatives caught in sleaziness.

In February 2021, Ruben Verastigui -- who had worked as an aide for the Senate Republican Conference and as a digital strategist for the Republican National Committee, worked for anti-abortion groups (also speaking at the antiabortion March for Life in 2013) and designed social media ads for Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign -- was arrested on charges of possessing and distributing child pornography; prosecutors said that Verastigui graphically discussed his love of videos depicting child abuse in a group chat. A week before Graham's post, Verastigui was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. None of the Media Research Center's three main online outlets -- NewsBusters, CNSNews.com and MRCTV -- mentioned Verastigui and his crimes.

A couple months after Verastigui's arrest, Josh Duggar -- reality TV star and onetime official at the right-wing Family Research Councl whom the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com had promoted but attempted to ignore when allegations of child molestation surfaced in 2015 -- was arrested on charges of possessing child porn. Last month, he was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for his crimes. Again, CNSNews.com and MRCTV, though NewsBusters briefly alluded to it in a December 2021 post by Kristine Marsh bashing a cohost on "The View" for pointing out -- or, in marsh's words, making a "garbage analogy" -- that initial supporters of Jussie Smollett's claim of being a victim of a hate crime before the allegation was disproven were no different than "Republican politicians who took photos with Josh Duggar, when he worked for the Family Research Council, years before allegations of molestation and child pornography came out," offering up the odd defense that "Duggar wasn’t accusing others of a hate crime against him before the truth came out, as in Smollett’s case." As if being a child molester didn't conflict with the "pro-life" narratives of the FRC.

Don't expect Graham to actually whether Fox News covered the Verastigui and Duggar stories. Despite the organziation's name, "media research" isn't Graham's job -- and he's afraid to criticize Fox News in any case -- but manufacturing biased talking points is.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:24 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last year, CNSNews.com repeatedly lashed out at the Conservative Political Action Conference for committing the offense of not hating LGBT as much as it does. This year's main conference in February, there apparently wasn't enough non-hateful LGBT-related contemnt for CNS to get worked up about, so instead it ran two articles doing stenography for CPAC speakers:

• DeSantis Hails Florida 'Freedom,' Slams 'Faucian Dystopia' and 'Brandon Administration'
• Sen. Kennedy: Arlington Cemetery Is Why You Should 'Stand Your A** Up for the National Anthem'

In May, CPAC did something that most people would considermore offensive than failing to hate LGBT foplks -- it held a conference in Hungary, which is 1) not the United States and 2) led by a notorious right-wing authoritarian, Viktor Orban.

CNS, however, remained silent about the conference -- not even to report on speakers appearing there, even though they included Fox News' Tucker Carlson, former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and a special pretaped message from Donald Trump.

Then again, Orban is one of CNS' favorite right-wing authoritarian leaders for lating immigrants and, yes, LGBT people. But even CNS had to concede that Orban engaged in a power grab at the start of the COVID pandemic. But CNS cheered Orban's additional hatred for LGBT people last year. An article last October noted that "A new natural gas contract between Russia and Hungary has sparked protests from Ukraine, which says that the agreement will undermine its national security.

CNS has since reported a little about Orban's semi-friendliness toward Vladimir Putin despite Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Pat Buchanan cheered in a February column praising nationalism movements how Orban "does not regard Putin's Russia as an enemy of his country, and provides economic incentives for Hungarian families to have more children," while an April column by Ted Galen Carpenter tried to portray Ukraine as less free than Hungary, "which is a frequent target of vitriolic criticism among progressives in the West because of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s anti-globalist stance and his conservative domestic social policies."

So CNS still loves its some right-wing authoritarianism in the form of Orban -- it's just a lot more quiet about that these days.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:34 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center still wasn't done defending the honor of replacement theory after the Buffalo massacre. Tim Graham's May 18 column served up a whitewashed definition then -- as is Graham's style -- played whataboutisim over it:

In the wake of the horrible Buffalo supermarket shooting, liberal journalists lunged at the opportunity to blame the mass murder on conservative and Republican messengers.

On CNN, S.E. Cupp was especially egregious in accusing the right-wingers of “amplifying” a “white replacement theory,” claiming the Democrats expected the influx of immigrants (largely illegal) would eventually lead to red states turning blue. Whites are not being replaced. Democrats just hope they’re outnumbered.

[...]

These attacks seem completely blind to the notion that their own liberal media outlets stir up racial animus, ethnic animus,and religious animus. They turn neighbor against neighbor. They thrive on getting people angry and afraid. They have ratcheted up the political tension for ages.

[...]

There’s nothing wrong with being combative. Being divisive is essential to politics: vote for Us, not Them. But there is something transparently ridiculous in crusading against “divisive vitriol” in politics while you spray it with a fire hose.

A post by Bill D'Agostino pretended that noting that demographic changes might benefit Democrats was exactly the same thing as right-wingers portraying it as a racist conspiracy theory in an attempt to take the heat off Fox News host Tucker Carlson for obsessing over it -- and besides, Carlson isn't saying the quiet part out loud so it can't possibly be racist:

If speaking candidly about Democrat-engineered demographic change causes mass shootings, then the media are culpable for the tragedy in Buffalo.

In the wake of a racially-motivated mass shooting that killed more than ten innocents over the weekend, leftwing journalists have heaped blame onto Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, as well as politicians like Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) for promoting what they call “replacement theory.”

Though it’s hard to find a universally accepted definition of replacement theory, its central tenet appears to be that reducing the proportion of white Americans, relative to the total population, is an outcome that some in power are seeking deliberately. But if that’s a conspiracy theory, it’s one that both the media and the Democratic Party have subscribed to for decades:

It’s indisputable that America’s demographics are changing — the percentage of white Americans has been declining since the ’70s — and that Democrats view nonwhite or minority voters as a key constituency.

Since even the media will happily acknowledge those facts, it appears the magical ingredient turning this data-based reality into a full-blown white supremacist “conspiracy theory” is the notion that the demographic change is being orchestrated. Indeed, there are ugly interpretations of this theory that attribute the phenomenon to nebulous groups like “the elites,” or “the Jews,” or simply some shadowy “Them.”

But Carlson and Republican members of Congress have made it abundantly clear that they believe America’s shifting demographics are the intended outcome of the Democratic Party’s immigration policies. That’s no white supremacist theory; at worst, it’s a cynical political talking point.

[...]

Given Democrats expect the growing nonwhite population of America to support them, how can anyone argue their incredibly lax immigration policies aren't aimed at securing an electoral majority? Did they not expect to benefit from their proposed “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants?

[...]

In the context of immigration, it seems the term “replacement” only became a dirty word once those in power realized voters didn’t view it as favorably as they did.

It’s no secret that the Democratic Party expects to benefit from America’s changing demographics (although some recent data calls that theory into question). But regardless of whether the “demographics are destiny” thesis proves true, the establishment media can’t run away from their track record of endorsing it as a strategy for their favorite political party.

Kyle Drennen complained that on MSNBC, "unhinged leftist and supposed marketing expert Donny Deutsch" called out the racism of replacement theory, going the whataboutism route in response:

He urged Democrats not to “run from this fist fight” and pleaded: “Call out Tucker Carlson, call out the politicians, and make this – make them own it. This is a Republican platform. It’s the racist Republican replacement theory.”

Deutsch was almost identically repeating the same screed he performed on Tuesday afternoon’s Deadline: White House, when he told host Nicole Wallace that Democrats should make the GOP “the party of Tucker Carlson” and horrendously tried to blame Republicans for the mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo: “You see the 10 people who got killed in Buffalo, you own that.”

[...]

Despite MSNBC defensively accusing Republicans and Fox News of promoting “replacement theory,” it’s the leftist media that have routinely stirred up racial tensions by cheering demographic changes across the country as a political advantage for Democrats and doom for Republicans.

Drennen linked to D'Agostino's post as apparently the definitive statement on what the MRC narrative is on replacement theory, as did Nicholas Fondacaro in bashing "The View" co-hosts for talking about it:

As NewsBusters research analyst Bill D’Agostino reported, Democrats have viewed immigration policy as a means to achieve their policy agenda and it’s something we know liberals and the media have been vocal in touting for years. But it has since found its way to the Ministry of Truth for deletion.

But as the rest of the cast of The View were simply trying to paint the theory as a racist conspiracy theory, Goldberg didn’t seem to understand what was being discussed. On Monday, as they were going to a commercial break, she scoffed: “well, if it was that easy, wouldn’t your friends have disappeared?” “Think about it,” she requested.

Now Goldberg could just be being facetious in that she’s taking an issue that they claim is of dire importance to iron out and making a joke of it. She could also be trying to lie to viewers about what the theory is about and what people believe. The least morally objectionable is that she simply is that ignorant.

Chief MRC replacement theory defender Clay Waters was at it again in another May 18 post:

If “replacement theory” requires an unnamed cabal, it’s interesting that Republicans specifically blame not some “cabal” but Democrats. Also, Republican concern is less about culture per se than voting power: The fear is that Democrats are indeed trying to change the demographics of the country by importing new Democrat voters from Latin America, thus possibly changing the electorate in their favor (though with the recent trend in Hispanic voting patterns toward Republicans, who knows?) Many also favor voting rights for illegal immigrants. No “replacement theory” necessary.

Curtis Houck similarly huffed in his attack du jour:

CBS Mornings kept up its race-baiting campaign Wednesday in reaction to the act of terrorism against the black community of Buffalo, New York with a segment about the great replacement theory that tied Fox News and “many conservative politicians” to the racist alleged gunman and included the fear that black men might now be gunned down at random if they live in the Midwest.

[...]

Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King fretted that the “Buffalo shooting highlights once again how a once-fringe, racist, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is accepted by many Americans” with the great replacement theory being the “belief that there is a plot to replace white people with people of color.”

King then painted conservatives and Republicans (of which there’s over 70 million Americans) as riddled with white supremacists: “Now, it was first presented among white supremacists and on extremist websites. Now, many conservative politicians and pundits promoting some form of replacement theory.”

CBS then played clips from Tucker Carlson, Newt Gingrich, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that ranged from talking about the “theory” to merely opposing the Democratic Party’s immigration policies.

Waters returned to complain that thte New York Times wasn't following right-wing definitions of what replacement theory is and isn't: "Of course, Tucker Carlson was a target, accused of spreading 'replacement theory,' which has come to mean anything race- or immigration-related that a hostile liberal wishes it to mean." He then played his own version of whataboutism by referencing the shooting of three Asian-American women in Dallas in which the alleged perpetrator was "a 36-year-old black man." Who's the one playing the race card now, Clay?

Jeffrey Lord played historical whataboutism in his May 21 column, pretending that the Democratic Party of 100 years ago -- no, really, he cited a century-old New York Times editorial that criticized allowing blacks to vote and the party's platform from 1840 -- is exactly the same as the party of today:

So what do we have here in the wake of the Buffalo shooting?

What we have is a liberal media that is studiously stone cold silent on the Left’s and the Democratic Party’s 200-year plus history of the most vividly blatant racism imaginable. The very racism that the Buffalo shooter absorbed and used to murder ten human beings solely because of their skin color.

And so the liberal media projects the Left’s  own history on race to….Tucker Carlson and Fox News.

Laughable? Yes. Disgraceful? Certainly. Will they stop projecting their own history on others?

Will they even stand up and demand Joe Biden and his party apologize for that history?

Not a prayer.

Lord seems not to have noticed that it's no longer 1840 and that the parties have changed places on racial issues.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:49 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily writer Art Moore just loves to misrepresent scientific articles to advance conspiracy theories against COVID vaccines. He did it again in a May 12 article:

A new peer-reviewed analysis of data published in the prestigious British scientific journal Nature found a 25% increase in emergency calls for cardiac arrest and other sudden-onset coronary issues among young adults.

The researchers compared data for ages 16 to 39 years old for the same time period in 2019 and 2020, the Epoch Times reported.

Significantly, the researchers concluded the increase in emergency heart issues was associated with COVID-19 vaccination, not with COVID-19 infections.

The team – led by Drs. Christopher Sun of the MIT Sloan School of Management, Eli Jaffe of Israel's National Emergency Medical Services and Retsef Levi of MIT – analyzed data collected by Israel's National Emergency Medical Services between 2019 and 2021.

"An increase of over 25% was detected ... compared with the years 2019–2020," they wrote. "[T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group [16 to 39] but were not with COVID‐19 infection rates."

The scientists concluded: "While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals."

Moore omitted a lot from that description  -- which he rather lazily lifted from an eight-day-old article at the right-wing Epoch Times, a longtime misinformer about COVID vaccines. Both Moore and the Epoch Times got the journal's name wrong -- the study appeared in Scientific Reports, not Nature, though the journal is hosted on Nature's website. Moore did leave a clue in noting that two of the researchers were associated with the MIT Sloan School of Management and not a medical organization; as a fact-checker pointed out, this was a statistical analysis not a clinical one, meaning that data and not patients were examined. The fact-checker also highlighted other issues with the study:

• The study analyzed EMS call data, meaning that people who went to the hospital by themselves were excluded -- which account for about half of similar cases.
• Vaccine-induced myocarditiscould have been more accurately diagnosed from clinical data instead of the EMS data the study used.
• The EMS data did not distinguish myocarditis cases between those induced by COVID infection or the vaccine.
• The study authors stated that they did not establish "causal relationships" between vaccines and heart problems.
• The authors also stated that an increase in heart problems could have been created by other non-vaccine-related issues, including delay of care due to pandemic fear or lockdowns.

Moore also censored mention of an editor's note added to the study: "Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full." Instead, Moore hyped "a growing body of scientific and clinical evidence of severe side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines."

Posted by Terry K. at 6:27 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Among the commentary voices that CNSNews.com has been calling on to spout isolationist and anti-NATO rhetoric at the Russian invasion of Ukraine -- and, thus, effective pro-Russia -- is a familiar name: libertarian Ron Paul. He went on an anti-NATO tirade in a March 1 column:

One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.

NATO itself was a huge mistake.

[...]

NATO's purpose was stated to "guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means." It is a job not well done!

I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!

Paul devoted his March 28 column to Biden-bashing, ranting that a European trip ">may have been the most disastrous – and dangerous – presidential overseas trip ever" because Biden made the reasonable observation that Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," huffing that Biden made "what is essentially a declaration of war on Russia" and concluding, "There is a real problem in the Biden Administration and the sooner we face it the better."

Paul spent his April 11 column accusing the CIA of planting false anti-Russia stories in the media to boost support for Biden's actions in Ukraine:

Readers will recall the shocking headlines that Russia was prepared to use chemical weapons in Ukraine, that China would be providing military equipment to Russia, that Russian President Putin was being fed misinformation by his advisors, and more.

All of these were churned out by the CIA to be repeated in the American media even though they were known to be false. It was all about, as one intelligence officer said in the article, “trying to get inside Putin’s head.”

That may have been the goal, but what the CIA actually did was get inside America’s head with false information meant to shape public perception of the conflict. They lied to propagandize us in favor of the Biden Administration’s narrative.

In his April 25 column, Paul huffed that defense manufacturers were making money on the U.S. and other countries sending weapons to Ukraine to defend itself:

While many who sympathize with Ukraine are cheering, this multi-billion dollar weapons package will make little difference. As former U.S. Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter said on the "Ron Paul Liberty Report" in mid-April, “I can say with absolute certainty that even if this aid makes it to the battlefield, it will have zero impact on the battle. And Joe Biden knows it.”

What we do see is that Russians are capturing modern U.S. and NATO weapons by the ton and even using them to kill more Ukrainians. What irony. Also, what kinds of opportunities will be provided to terrorists, with thousands of tons of deadly high-tech weapons floating around Europe? Washington has admitted that it has no way of tracking the weapons it is sending to Ukraine and no way to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

War is a racket, to be sure. The U.S. has been meddling in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War, going so far as overthrowing the government in 2014 and planting the seeds of the war we are witnessing today. The only way out of a hole is to stop digging. Don’t expect that any time soon. War is too profitable.

Paul used his May 16 column to defend his son, Sen. Rand Paul (whom he weirdly did not note was his son) after he obstructed more U.S. aid to Ukraine:

Sen. Paul put the package into perspective: this massive giveaway to Ukraine equals nearly the entire yearly budget of the U.S. State Department and is larger than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security!

[...]

He wanted at least a bit of oversight on the nearly $50 billion in total that Washington has sent to what Transparency International deems one of the most corrupt countries on earth. Is that really too much to ask?

For Washington, the answer is “yes.” The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was an endless thorn in Washington’s side, because he actually did his job and reported on the billions of dollars that were stolen in Afghanistan.

[...]

The temporary pause is important. It gives Americans a little time to let their senators know that they do not support this ridiculous and wasteful giveaway to Ukraine. Inflation is ripping through the country. Gas prices are through the roof. Our infrastructure is crumbling. The dollar is teetering. And we’re giving money away?

Paul lamented that the aid was ultimately approved in his May 25 column and again defended his son's obstruction efforts:

The Biden Administration claims that Ukraine is winning the war with Russia and that such an expenditure to protect Ukraine's borders is critical to our national interests and worth risking a nuclear war over. 

But protecting Ukraine's democracy is no longer the stated goal of the Administration. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin outlined the Administration's new intention not long ago when he said that the real goal is to weaken Russia.

Biden’s neocons are fighting a war with Russia, but once again Congress has no interest in voting on a war declaration or even in debating whether war with Russia 30 years after the end of the Cold War is a good idea. 

[...]

Congress - with very few exceptions - has opened a financial spigot to the government in Kiev without asking a single question about how and why the money is to be spent. When Senator Paul simply asked for someone to keep track of the $60 billion we shipped over there, he was met with near-unanimous opposition.

An endless supply of U.S. taxpayer money to Ukraine with zero stated goals and zero oversight. Isn’t it time to stand up and demand that both parties in Congress start asking some hard questions?

Kneejerk isolationism and obstrucctionism are not "hard questions."

Posted by Terry K. at 1:20 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, June 9, 2022 4:17 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

We've documented how the Media Research Center was totally on board with replacement theory -- the white supremacist-based conspiracy theory that Democrats are replacing white Americans with swarthy-looking immigrants to boost their election prospects -- before the mass shooting targeting Black people at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket, the alleged perpetrator of which invoked replacement theory in a manifesto that echoed rants by Fox News' Tucker Carlson. After the massacre, the MRC took the approach of denying that replacement theory is racist.

When it was pointed out that top Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik had unmistakably alluded to replacement theory by warning of a "PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION" due to Democrats' alleged "plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington," Nicholas Fondacaro rushed to her defense in a May 16 post, insisting that the co-hosts on "The View" "falsely claimed Stefanik had peddled in 'replacement theory,'" then tried to whiteweash her words: "All Stefanik has said is that Democrats had hoped new immigrants who registered to vote would support them and not Republicans. She also pointed out how that hope was not working out for them and Republicans were seeing historic gains among Hispanic and African American voters.

Kyle Drennen huffed in a post the same day that mentioning that the shooter's embrace of replacement theory echoed that of prominent Republicans and right-wing entertainers like Tucker Carlson was a "politicization of the attack."

Clay Waters -- the MRC's biggest defender of replacement theory -- served up a muddy attempt to parse what it purportedly is and is nott: "It's no conspiracy theory to think Democrats want more immigrants allowed into the United States and to eventually give them the vote, expecting them to vote for the party who granted them citizenship. It’s certainly not an embrace of “replacement theory" to think so.

Kevin Tober sycophantally gushed over Carlson's response to his critics on that night's Fox News show:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson had to be champing at the bit to get back on television Monday night after having to endure an entire weekend of many in the leftist media blaming him and others for the mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York on Saturday afternoon. When Carlson opened his show Tucker Carlson Tonight, to defend himself and his fellow conservatives, he did not disappoint. 

[...]

Carlson ended by making clear that the truth about the Buffalo supermarket killer tells “you a lot about the ruthlessness and dishonesty of our political leadership.” He added that “within minutes of Saturday’s shooting before all of the bodies of those ten murdered Americans had even been identified by their loved ones, professional Democrats had begun a coordinate campaign to blame those murders on their political opponents.”

The leftist media will do anything to smear Americans who they disagree with. Our media and culture is completely toxic and those who continue to bitterly divide America should be held accountable.

Tober didn't mention that Carlson did not discuss his past enthusiasm for replacement theory during the show.

Tim Graham used a May 17 post to join his underling in complaining that Stefanik was being criticized for her replacement theory-adjacent rantings with a blend of whitewash and whataboutism:

"Overthrow our electorate" is pretty hot talk, but it's quite similar to media outlets who heavily imply this somehow leads to "Stefanik echoed racist mass shooter."

[...]

Sotomayor also mentioned an unnamed Stefanik spokesman explained the ads came "when New York City was debating whether to allow roughly 1 million non-residents the chance to vote only in local elections. City council approved the measure in December, allowing those living in NYC for over 30 days with a work permit — not undocumented immigrants — to partake." 

So is that a "baseless conspiracy theory," that Democrats eagerly want illegal immigrants to vote? You get smeared with murderous racists when you object.

It's all in a day's work at a Democrat rag. Their blogger Greg Sargent also got into the act with"How Elise Stefanik and the GOP sanitize ‘great replacement’ ugliness." 

This is the same partisan newspaper that publishes gushy puff pieces about race-baiting radical Squad congresswomen, from Ilhan Omar to Cori Bush.

Alex Christy complained that "CBS’s Stephen Colbert returned to The Late Show on Monday after a COVID absence to declare that half of Republicans agree with the Buffalo racist mass shooter, including Fox’s Tucker Carlson and Rep. Elise Stefanik," insisting that "opposing giving amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants is not Great Replacement Theory." If that was all Carlson and Stefanik had done, Christy might have a point.

Mark Finkelstein tried to play the same misdirection game Graham did by claiming replcement theory can't possibly be racist if you don't say the quiet part out loud and explicitly reference race:

CNN wants you to believe that the Democrats are a political party . . . above politics. That in fashioning their policies, the thought that massive, record-breaking flows of immigrants across the southern border might help them politically never crosses the Democrats' minds!

And if you disagree? If you think that, in fact, Democrats view those immigrants as, in the phrase that Mark Steyn made famous, "undocumented Democrats," well then, you are a racist, spewing a "garbage" conspiracy theory.

That was the message Monday on CNN's New Day, in a segment centered on the Buffalo mass shooting in which 10 people were killed at a supermarket.

CNN reporter Sunlen Serfaty cast Republicans and conservatives as embracing a "far-right" replacement theory. But when you actually listen to what people said in the clips CNN played, you'll note that they frame their views on Dem immigration policy explicitly in terms of its political implications, eschewing the racial or ethnic concerns that some on the fringe express.

Thus, Rep. Brian Babin said that the Democrat strategy is to replace the American "electorate." Rep. Scott Perry said the Dems' goal is to "transform the political landscape." Senatorial candidate J.D. Vance said that Democrats have concluded that they can't win unless they "bring in a large number of new voters." And Tucker Carlson said that Democrats are "importing a brand-new electorate."

And CNN deceptively edited its clip of Sen. Ron Johnson. They rolled the bit in which he said that Democrats are trying to change American "demographics"--but omitted what immediately followed: "to ensure their -- that they stay in power forever." So Johnson was speaking of the Democrats' political ambitions. But CNN made it appear he was focused on the racial or ethnic implications of their plans.

Fondacaro re-expressed his issues with women by smearing the co-hosts of "The View" as a "clucking coven" as he bashed them for noting there's not much difference between the racism of the Buffalo shooter and "parents storming school boards and saying, 'we don't want the talk about race relations, we don’t want to talk about anti-racism,'" then ranted a bit about "the racism of Critical Race Theory."

It was Waters' turn to defend and whitewash Stefanik in a May 17 post:

After the despicable, racially motivated mass shooting in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni kept the paper’s previous political smears against Republicans going in Tuesday’s paper against a ranking Republican in Congress: "Racist Attack Spotlights Elise Stefanik’s Echo of Replacement Theory.”

The Times is too cowardly to directly accuse Republicans of espousing “great replacement” theory, so Karni engaged in cloudy wordplay to conflate Republican stands against illegal immigration as genocidal.

[...]

Karni buried Stefanik’s sensible response to the story's lead paragraph smears in paragraphs 15 and 16, in which Stefanik noted Biden's call for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million "undocumented," and a proposal to give 800,000 noncitizens the right to vote in New York municipal elections.

Kevin Tober managed not to defend replacement theory in a May 18 post; instead he was mad that MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted that Fox News and owner Rupert Murdoch profit mightily from its hosts pushing it, then played a redirection game: "Claiming the chairman of a major news network and the Republican Party don’t care how many Americans die from mass shootings is beyond disgusting. The premise of the entire controversy is wrong. The mass shooter behind the tragedy in Buffalo wrote in his manifesto that he thought Fox News was out to get him and specifically attacked Murdoch." Tober didn't explain how the shooter sounded so much like Carlson if he thought Fox News was out to get him.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:36 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, June 19, 2022 4:22 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Melanie Arter didn't fact-check this claim by a prominent conservative in a May 10 CNSNews.com article:

The nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was started by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who wanted to limit the number of blacks and Hispanics, which is why “the clinics are predominantly found in minority communities,” Dr. Ben Carson told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

“There is so much going on in our society today that people try to relate back to race. Some of it has to do with race, and some of it doesn't, but there are a lot of people who are trying to divide us, divide us on the basis of race, income, age, religion, gender, you name it - divide and conquer,” he said.

[...]

“Now, looking at this abortion issue that's going on, a lot of people don't realize that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who was a eugenicist. She wanted to limit the numbers of black people and Hispanic people. That’s why the clinics are predominantly found in minority communities,” Carson said.

“It’s really disgusting, and it goes to our history, and why is history so important? Because history gives you your identity, and your identity gives you your beliefs. If you do not have appropriate beliefs you’re easily swayed. You’ll notice when ISIS goes into a place and conquers it, what do they do? They get rid of the history,” he said.

“We have the same people trying to distort and get rid of our history, and we need to understand those things so that we don’t repeat the bad things. You would have thought we learned all those lessons by World War II, but look what is going on right now, today in Europe. It’s horrible,” Carson said.

Actually, the only one who's trying to rewrite history here is Carson. As we've documented, while Sanger was a eugenicist -- as were many people of her era -- there's simply no evidence that she was ever a virulent racist who sought to "limit the numbers of black people and Hispanic people." And since that part isn't true, it also cannot be true that this is the reason that Planned Parenthood clinics are "predominantly found in minority communities" -- a claim that also isn't true unless one uses an extremely broad definition of what a "minority community" is.

Of course, Arter isn't being paid to fact-check conservatives -- she's being paid to serve as their stenographer.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:22 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:59 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink