MRC Still Censoring All Mention Of Bozell's Son Arrested At Capitol Riot Topic: Media Research Center
When Brent "Zeeker" Bozell IV, son of Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, was arrested for his participation in the Capitol insurrection, the MRC censored all mention of it on its websites. That put the MRC in a bit of a pickle, since Bozell pere effectively endorsed the riot on Fox Business (a MRCTV headline claiming that he condemned it notwithstanding). Well, it's been more than a year since Zeeker's arrest, and the MRC is still in full censorship mode. But it's not like there hasn't been any news on that front.
In March 2021, Bozell IV had four additional charges added to his crimes -- obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, entering a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in the Capitol building, acts of physical violence in the Capitol and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building -- after videosurfaced of him breaking a window and entering the Senate floor. Despite the clearly incriminating evidence against him, Bozell rejected a plea deal prosecutors offered him in July 2021. His then-new lawyer is John Pierce, who has represented killer Kyle Rittenhouse and other Capitol insurrectionists. We've noted that Pierce has been accused of harassing his ex-wife and of using a defense fund he created for Rittenhouse to promote himself. Pierce later went AWOL on his clients and got blamed by Rittenhouse for his infamous hangout in a bar with the Proud Boys. Way to pick 'em, Zeeker!
Bozell's attorneys then tried to get the charges against him dropped over purported technicalities; that motion was dismissed in February. That's the latest update we've found, and his case is still apparently slogging through the courts.
But Zeeker's dad and the rest of the MRC don't want you to know about this (let one question who is paying for Zeeker's attorneys). We'd say it would be bad for business, but the MRC is already backtracking on its denunciations of the insurrection and attacking the Jan. 6 House committee for looking into it.
MRC Cheers Ricky Gervais' Latest Round of Transphobia Topic: Media Research Center
The last time we checked in, the Media Research Center had flip-flopped on Ricky Gervais, from hating for criticizing Christians to loving him for hating transgender people like it does. That newfound love affair has continued: A July 2020 post by Randy Hall touted Gervains ranting that "cancel culture" is "a new, weird sort of fascism," going on to deny that "people who want free speech want to say awful things all the time." Of course, we've documented how the MRC has eagerlydefended right-wingers who love to say awful (and factually false) things all the time, as if there was a constitutional right to lie and mislead.
In a December 2020 post, Gabriel Hays cheered that Gervais "shows no fear in the face of his and his fellow comedians’ arch-nemesis, cancel culture. In a recent interview, the British comic declared that he’ll never stop saying whatever he wants, even if he has to 'stand up on a bench and shout shit.'" Some might say he's participating in that act right now.
Fast forward to May, when Gervais released a comedy special on Netflix chock full of anti-transgender insults; one reviewer noted that "Four minutes into the special, Gervais dives into material about the trans community seemingly calculated to draw controversy." Naturally, the MRC got off on this and couldn't wait to proclaim Gervais' hate as the new "free speech." Elise Ehrhard gushed in a May 25 post:
Ricky Gervais' is one of those rare left-of-center comedians who revels in mocking woke cancel culture and elite arrogance. In SuperNature, his new Netflix comedy special released on Tuesday, he makes sure to offend everyone left, right or center in pursuit of constructing actually funny jokes.
Some of the jokes work, some don't, but none tiptoe around anyone's feelings, no matter how sensitive the subject. There are no "safe spaces" in a Ricky Gervais show.
Straight out of the gate in the opening minutes, the comedian offends feminists by making jokes about a lack of good female comedians. He tries to think of a funny living female comedian and comes up with....Dame Edna Everage, a legendary British character performed by a man.
He soon segways into the topic that's currently unleashing the most left-wing hate against him - transgenderism.
Gay Inc. has reacted angrily to Gervais' special. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) called it "dangerous" and Pink News labeled it an "anti-trans garbage fire."
During the special, Gervais alludes to tranny anger over his comedy.
"I talk about AIDS, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, pedophilia, but the one thing you mustn't joke about is identity politics," the 60-year-old said. "The one thing you should never joke about is the trans issue. 'They just wanna be treated equally.' I agree. That's why I include them."
Needless to say, the hour-long show includes plenty of subjects usually forbidden by social justice warriors, from ethnic jokes to laughing about fat people.
In fact, there's little Gervais considers out-of-bounds. For Gervais, political correctness is more dangerous than personal offense.
Ehrhard didn't explain what, exactly, "Gay, Inc." supposedly is; perhaps she wants it to be some sort of secret group that only becomes more sinister by being so vaguely defined. She continued with a complaint about a branch of Gervais' humor she actually didn't like, presumably because it didn't involve making fun of the political enemies she's paid to hate:
Notably, SuperNature also targets conservatives, such as when Gervais brings up the issue of abortion. After repeatedly touting the wonders of nature, Gervais is surprisingly cavalier about the anti-nature practice of killing unborn life.
He decries what he calls "this propaganda machine that goes, 'Liberals, they're aborting babies at nine months, pulling them out of the vagina, liquidizing them.' Like, crazy conspiracy theory, right?"
Partial-birth abortionand other late-term abortions aren't conspiracy theories. It may shock Europeans, but in the United States Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to birth. Perhaps Gervais should learn about Kermit Gosnell or Planned Parenthood's baby parts business in the U.S.
As an atheist, Gervais also likes to skewer religious believers. His routine includes mockery of Christians, Muslims and even Hindus (there is a snippet about reincarnation). No religion is off-limits.
We're guessing that Ehrhard thinks the tranny and fat jokes are the ones that worked, and his jabs at conservatives are the ones that didn't. That might cost him future right-wing brownie points that his transphobia might not be enough to overcome.
When Joe Biden took the oath of office to become president – or, should we say, presidential pretender – I was morose.
It was not an easy rigged election to take. Come on, man! Do you really think Biden got an astonishing record 81,284,666 votes – more than Barack Obama did? I believe the last three numbers – but no way did he win legitimately. He probably got half that many. He didn't even campaign. He never left his house.
Since the earliest days of the Biden occupation, I have been dreaming, fantasizing and thinking about what might be coming next. Three days after Biden became the Impostor in Chief, it came to me. Four days to get it in print – Jan. 24, 2021, to be exact, at 5:48 p.m. It was called "Why wait for 2024?"
Trump is seemingly more popular than ever. He's beloved by ordinary Americans. They know that Joe Biden is simply serving the ruling class he has so loyally served to undo everything Trump put into place. The true uprising Donald Trump began will not simply fade away. He not only made America great again, he gave America hope again.
Joe Biden will face a series of impeachment attempts to his "presidency" as soon as the new 2023 session of Congress begins – the first day!
Republican representatives are literally queuing up for the fight of a lifetime. And, though no president has ever been successfully convicted of a crime in the Senate resulting in expulsion from office, Biden could break the mold. He's a historic case.
Biden may be the most unpopular president EVER. Trump says he's at least three times worse than any other president of the United States. I say he's a total joke – and is discrediting every other man who occupied the office. His vice president, Kamala Harris, is even more hapless as the first "black" woman to hold the office.
There's a new expression designed for the pair by Steve Bannon. "Elections have consequences. Stolen elections have catastrophic consequences." In other words, both of them must be dispatched quickly to save the nation. The order of the impeachments must be considered carefully, meticulously, prudently and thoughtfully.
Why? Because it will result this time in a complete regime change. That's important. It has never been done before. It must be thought through – not in haste.
They claim it's Joe Biden – ask anybody who works at CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, the Washington Times, even Fox News.
But it's becoming a sick joke.
Biden is too old, too demented, too cognitively challenged, too MEAN and hopelessly unpresidential to be in the running. And Kamala – his vice president? That would be an even bigger joke.
It wasn't that long ago that this question was seriously asked about the president.
In fact, it was just four years ago – with President Donald J. Trump.
Wayne Allyn Root, a syndicated columnist for WND and Townhall, called Biden in October "a brain-dead zombie puppet, incapable of knowing the difference between his wife and sister. I'm certain his wife, Jill, feeds him baby food in the White House basement – in a mask."
Root has two candidates for the acting president – Barack Obama and George Soros.
Joe Biden has said it. I think he really means it. And this, once again, proves his own illegitimacy.
Last week he slammed the MAGA movement, led by his worst enemy, Donald J. Trump, who called it simply Make American Great Again. How truly subversive!
Biden labeled MAGA, which he alternatively called MEGA, the "most extreme political organization that's existed in recent American history."
I would have to say that today's Democratic Party is the "most extreme political organization that's existed in recent American history." We should bury it once and for all in real, untampered-with, old-fashioned elections for at least 100 years.
"The message has been repeated like a drumbeat: The ends justify the means."
It always has with the hard left. And that's what Biden has become. Either that, or he's lost his mind.
Folks, we have another Israel-hater in the White House. We have another Communist in the White House. We have another God-hater in the White House.
These are incredibly confusing times, lots of lies being told, lots of misinformation and disinformation being spewed by the media and Big Tech.
Do you want to know where America is today in historical and biblical terms?
It's where ancient Israel was before being destroyed by God.
We can learn from every verse of the Bible – and need to – especially when they speak to us about our own experiences. That's why they were written. That's why they were recorded. That's why God spoke them. That's why the Bible is the bestselling book in the history of the world. That's why these ancient words, above all others, have been preserved for us today.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, will be with us just a little while.
Before Joe Biden thoroughly ruins our lives, here's another scandal you should know about.
I know there have been plenty of "bad judgments" that have severely affected us in the U.S., from the Afghanistan withdrawal, his insistence on canceling fossil fuel opportunities in America to fight "climate change," the inflation nightmare, his secretive "don't ask, don't tell" policy of inviting a record invasion of illegals from all over the globe into our country, the supply chain crisis, the baby formula shortage, record crime, blaming Donald Trump and his supporters for an "insurrection" in the Capitol that Nancy Pelosi planned and … well, lots of additional embarrassing decisions we can't even take the time to get into here.
Oh, let's not forget that Biden is an illegitimate president to start. He had to know what the "2000 Mules" film proved while the rest of the media covered it up for the Democrats who actually planned to rig his election.
The FBI did dirty work on cleaning up another walking Biden scandal. No, that does not include the "investigation" of Hunter Biden, which seems never to be completed or acknowledged. This time it was his daughter, Ashley.
Will this be enough for the new Republican super-majorities expected next year to impeach "creepy Joe" and replace him and Kamala Harris as president and vice president with President Donald Trump? See tomorrow's column on just how that can actually be accomplished.
MRC Lashed Out At Beto O'Rourke For Channeling Anger Over Texas School Massacre Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went into kneejerk gun defense mode after the Texas school massacre. When Texas Democratic gubertnatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke confronted Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and accurately pointed out that he was "doing nothing" to prevent further mass shootings, the MRC quickly pivoted to attack O'Rourke and anyone who noted the accuracy of his remarks. Alex Christy kicked off the whining:
After Texas Democratic gubernatorial nominee Beto O’Rourke made a fool of himself by selfishly interrupting the Wednesday press conference where Texas officials updated the public on the Uvalde school shooting, MSNBC’s Katy Tur declared the officials were wrong, because it is partisan and Chuck Todd added Republicans should be aware that they live in a glass house.
Coming out of the press conference, Tur declared America doesn’t care about murdered children, “It is not a good day to be with you. It cannot be a good day when we live in a country that shrugs its shoulders children as are being murdered.”
Christy also claimed that "Tur also falsely added that AR-15s are designed for war." In fact, they were.
Curtis Houck nonsenically used O'Rourke's real first name in an attempt to dismiss him as a "failed presidential candidate":
Wednesday afternoon’s press conference on the Uvalde, Texas school shooting descended into shenanigans during what should have been a solemn occasion to update the public on the investigation when Democratic gubernatorial candidate Robert O’Rourke heckled Governor Greg Abbott (R) and other elected officials, blaming them for the murder of 19 children and two teachers. Naturally, the broadcast networks refused to speak out against O’Rourke’s antics and barely acknowledged O’Rourke’s party ID.
To her credit, correspondent Janet Shamlian conceded that not only was O’Rourke’s stunt “very clearly staged,” but it was planned well in advance thanks to “two people across the aisle from me” who saved him seat so he only had to enter just prior to the start of the press conference.
ABC also chose to not give [Lt. Gov. Dan] Patrick the light of day and instead followed O’Rourke’s charade woutside. While carrying his remarks, ABC included a (D) in a chyron.
We don't recall Houck ever calling Ted Cruz by his real first name, Rafael.
Christy returned to whine that late-night TV hosts "praise[d] Beto O’Rourke’s stunt in the push for gun control. P.J. Gladnick thought it was a big deal that a reporter admitted that O'Rourke's interrpution of Abbott was planned (as if that has never happened in politics) and also insisted on using his first name:
On Wednesday, just as a press conference about the tragic school shooting in Uvalde featuring Texas Governor Gregg Abbot was commencing, it was rudely interrupted by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Robert Francis O'Rourke who attempted to upstage the event. Was this a highly inappropriate political stunt by a losing candidate? Well, according to CBS reporter Janet Shamlian it was "very clearly staged" by the O'Rourke campaign.
As could be predicted, this case of honesty by a CBS reporter on what transpired at the press conference caused outrage by many on the left.
Michael Ippolito, meanwhile, melted down over Teen Vogue defending O'Rourke:
Following the horrific shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Governor Greg Abbott (R) held a press conference Wednesday that provided details about the deadly shooting. As important information was being discussed, Beto strode to the front of the audience and interrupted Governor Abbott bawling that the mass shooting was his fault.
He’d turned a grim press conference into political theater. Beto was escorted out of the conference, booed by parents and community members. To Teen Vogue, though, Beto is a hero.
[Writer Emma] Specter depicted Beto as the voice of an angry community. “It was cathartic to see O’Rourke express some fraction of the frustration and rage that people across the country are feeling in the wake of the shootings in Uvalde, Buffalo, Laguna Woods, and every other U.S. city that has become associated with a senseless and unimaginably traumatizing mass shooting,” she wrote.
Teen Vogue is sensationalizing those who stand on massacred children.
Days after the incident, Clay Waters was still whining about O'Rourke in a June 5 post:
It looks like Democratic hopeful Beto O’Rourke’s run to unseat Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will be greeted with the same partisan enthusiasm by the New York Times that it showed when O’Rourke failed to knock off conservative Sen. Ted Cruz despite massive out-of-state help in 2018.
Witness reporter Jazmine Ulloa’s piece in Saturday’s paper, “For Beto O’Rourke, Talk of Gun Control Has Become Both a Political Risk and Reward.” Beto's grandstanding at a press conference now looks....good?
Waters went on to sneer, "His talk of confiscating your AR-15 doesn't sound so tone-deaf any more?" and denied that O'Rourke's anger was "resonating" in the state. On the other hand, if it wasn't resonating, the MRC would not have devoted so much time and space to repeatedly attacking him or anyone else who's just as angry about mass shootings as he is.
CNS Mark Levin Stenography Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
Since CNSNews.com has decided to devote less time to Mark Levin stenography (not enough interns, apparently?), we're going to reduce our Mark Levin Stenography Watch to quarterly instead of bimonthly. But first, we have four months of Levin stenography to document since we last checked in. How did they go for CNS' favorite right-wing radio host? Let's tally up the stenography:
That's 19 articles from April through June, for a total of 25 through the first half of the year -- well off CNS' usual pace. And nine of these came between late May and the end of June, meaning that its Levin stenography is still heavily reliant on interns. Wonder how Levin feels about that.
MRC Still Complaining That TV Shows Critique Cops Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is keeping up its recent narrative of attacking TV shows that don't praise law enforcement unconditionally. We've already noted its hate for the crime drama "61st Street," and it has attacked other shows as well. Dawn Slusher complained in a Feb. 27 item:
It’s no secret how CBS’s Magnum P.I. reboot feels about police officers. They’ve previously defended BLM violence as “patriotism,” labeled police as “the bad guys,” and claimed good cops are “guilty by association.” On Friday, they continued their hateful bias with a storyline so far-fetched it would almost be laughable if it weren’t for the serious repercussions it could have on this dangerous anti-cop climate in which a record number of police officers are being attacked and murdered across the country.
Slusher glossed over the fact that cops in this storyline are crooked and working to protect their corrupt boss; instead, she's mad that a policeman in uniform -- despite being clearly corrupt -- was shot by Magnum:
Magnum suggests they celebrate “taking down a bunch of crooked cops.”
I guess we should be grateful they aren’t promoting an ACAB message, but this storyline is still dangerous because it adds fuel to our hateful anti-cop culture at a time when ambush attacks against police officers were up 91% in 2020 and an historic number of officers were shot in the line of duty in 2021 - 346. Of those shootings, 63 were fatal.
No one’s rooting for bad guys, but knowing how many good cops have been gunned down makes this show’s tone-deaf depiction of a uniformed officer being shot in cold blood very unnerving. Thank God Magnum P.I. is followed by Blue Bloods, which has consistently backed the blue and accurately depicted the sacrifices police heroes make for our protection. Hopefully their messaging will cancel out Magnum P.I.’s anti-cop agenda.
Slusher is lying, of course. It's clear from the episode (even if Slusher doesn't make it so) that "Magnum" is not "anti-cop" -- it's anti-corrupt cops. Of course she would like the pro-cop propaganda of "Blue Bloods"; indeed, the following week she praised an episode of "Blue Bloods" for having "touched on the challenges faced by officers in today’s anti-cop culture and delivered a powerful storyline that defended the honor of our heroes in blue."
A March 7 post by Elise Ehrhard complained that "The Equalizer" didn't follow right-wing narratives on anti-Asian attacks by blaming black people for them:
The CBS series The Equalizer became a hit last year by keeping its focus on entertaining an audience. This year, it's determined to abandon that successful strategy in order to hector its viewers with left-wing ideology instead.
In this week's episode, 'Chinatown,' on Sunday, the show tackled the issue of anti-Asian attacks in New York City. It portrayed the culprits as ignorant, working-class white guys who get away with crimes because of a racist and indifferent police system. The episode avoided an elephant in the room -- the majority of anti-Asian attacks in major U.S. cities are black-on-Asian crimes, according to U.S. Justice Department statistics.
But uncomfortable conversations were out-of-the-question in the episode. The show instead relied on a clichéd woke narrative about a group of working-class white males stalking Asians in New York City's Chinatown.
Ehrhard went on to complain that "In 2020, Democrats falsely accused then-President Trump of scapegoating Asians because he criticized communist China's role in the Covid-19 pandemic" -- but she didn't explain how it was "false."
A May 9 post by Ehrhard complained that an episode of "S.W.A.T." featured a right-wing militia that was anti-cop:
The "no cops" part is an intriguing addition to the list, considering there is a real domestic terrorist organization that has called for the abolition of police. Oddly, the episode never mentions Black Lives Matter (BLM) when discussing anti-cop rhetoric. Is Hollywood now going to pretend that this is a right-wing issue instead?
By contrast, more than 50 active or retired law enforcement, military or government service employees took part in the Capitol riot, so that plotline may not be as far-fetched as Ehrhard wants you to think.
WND's Lively Has Another Rainbow Meltdown Topic: WorldNetDaily
Every authentic Christian (and Torah-faithful Jew) knows that the rainbow belongs to God, not the "gays." But how many realize that the hijacking of the rainbow by the LGBT movement is a leading sign of the imminency of the last days Antichrist kingdom? Cloaking itself in God's rainbow represents far more than just arrogant disregard for God's teachings in the Bible; it is living proof that Lucifer himself is the spiritual head of the triumphal "pride" celebrations taking place across the world this month.
Satan's obsession from the beginning has been to take God's throne for himself – and that is exactly what the "pride" movement represents. Indeed, the only glimpse the Bible gives us of what God's throne in Heaven actually looks like is the Apostle John's testimony in Revelation 4:3: "At once I was in the Spirit, and I saw a throne standing in heaven, with someone seated on it. The One seated there looked like jasper and carnelian, and a rainbow that gleamed like an emerald encircled the throne."
The rainbow signifies the presence and authority of God, which is why He chose that symbol to seal His covenant with mankind after Noah's flood.
The rainbow is your warning sign. If you condone, let alone celebrate, "gay pride," you choose the side of Lucifer against God and earn for yourself a share of the wrath to come. Moreover, even if you consider yourself righteous in believing the Bible about LGBT sins, failure to meet your Watchman duty to warn the wicked of these truths puts their blood on your hands.
From Genesis to Revelation the Bible shows that God does not mess around when it comes to this category of sin. Please remember that, and your duty to speak plain truth, whenever you see His rainbow being defiled.
MRC's Houck Hypocritically Lashes Out At Jean-Pierre Again Over 'Softball' Interview Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck has alreadystaked out a narrative to depict new White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as an incompetent diversity hire, and he pushes it again in a June 7 post in which he hypocritically lashed out at ABC for not trashing Jean-Pierre like he would:
ABC’s Good Morning America has had a reputation of corporate whoring, liberal fluff, and superficial nonsense, so it made sense Tuesday as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre appeared for a nine-minute-plus softball session with co-host Robin Roberts over the economy, “gun violence, abortion rights,” “her trailblazing role,” and what “representation means” to her.
Throughout an obscene six teases for the interview, co-host Robin Roberts boasted of how Jean-Pierre was “breaking barriers” and while lamenting all “the challenges” “facing President Biden.”In other words, the skids were greased.
Needless to say, Houck offered no comparison with the greased skids Trump White House press secretaries like his beloved Kayleigh McEnany were given when they appeared on Fox News. And his attacks on ABC's alleged "corporate whoring" ringhollow as well given how the MRC whores out its "news" division to promote corporate initiatives. Houck continued to whine:
Roberts began with platitudes, gushing she had “been looking forward to having this opportunity especially today because with gun violence rising to the top of the agenda,” adding that ABC was doing its part for the administration by having all its news shows focus on guns.
Lamenting that Jean-Pierre had to start her job with two high-profile shootings, Roberts put the ball on the tee: “[T]here's been no major federal gun control in nearly 30 years, so what is the President doing to change that? What can he do?”
Jean-Pierre has been prone to lack an ability to speak coherently without prepared notes, so her answer to a softball question meandered through nothingness for nearly two minutes with all Roberts being able to do was off another softball about Biden’s involvement in Senate negotiations[.]
Houck has never criticized McEnany's binder of prepared notes, so he's being hypocritical yet again for nbashing Jean-Pierre over it.
Houck concluded by attacking Roberts for asking about Jean-Pierre's historical status and, again, for not hating her enough:
Roberts wrapped with fawning praise for Jean-Pierre as “[t]he first black, the first immigrant, the first openly gay person” with her job and an open ended question about “what does representation mean to you”[.]
And even the goodbye was gooey from Roberts: “Very kind of you to say. Well, Karine, thank you so much. I know that you have busy, busy days and means a lot you some spent time with us this morning. All the best to you.”
CNS' Jeffrey Also Implicitly Blaming Democrats For Federal Spending (Which He Didn't Do With Trump) Topic: CNSNews.com
After years of refusing to blame Donald Trump for increasing the federal debt by $8 trillion, CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey flip-flopped and made sure to blame President Biden for the federal debt accumulated under his watch. In addition to explicitly blaming Biden for the deficits, he is implictly blaming Biden and Democrats for increased tax revenue. A Feb. 10 article by Jeffrey claimed:
The federal government collected a record $1,516,952,000,000 in total taxes through the first four months of fiscal 2022 (October through January), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
The record $1,516,952,000,000 in federal tax collections included $824,571,000,000 in individual income taxes; $469,468,000,000 in social insurance and retirement taxes; $112,248,000,000 in corporation income taxes; $32,359,000,000 in customs duties; $25,800,000,000 in excise taxes; $8,951,000,000 in estate and gift taxes; and $43,554,000,000 in what the Treasury statement calls “miscellaneous receipts.”
At the same time that it was collecting this record $1,516,952,000,000 in taxes in the first four months of fiscal 2022, the federal government was spending $1,775,947,000,000. This resulted in a deficit of $258,995,000,000.
Jeffrey's use of the full dollar amounts violates Associated Press style on dollar amounts, which calls for using the words "million," "billion" and "trillion" instead; Jeffrey's aim here is political by making the numbers scary. While Jeffrey did not mention Biden and Democrats by name in his article, the accompanying undated file photo features Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
It was lather, rinse, repeat for the following few months. Jeffrey wrote in a March 10 article that "The federal government collected a record $1,806,838,000,000 in total taxes through the first five months of fiscal 2022 (October through February), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today." More whining about the size of the deficit, accompanied with a picture of Biden, Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.
An April 13 article updated the numbers with the ones from March, adding that "This also marked the first time that federal tax collections have exceeded $2 trillion in the first half of a fiscal year. The photo was a different picture of Biden, Pelosi and Schumer.
Like the other articles, this one complained that a certain federal agency spent the greatest amount of that money, even more than the military did:
The Department of Health and Human Services spent $793,880,000,000 in the October-through-March period of this fiscal year, leading all federal agencies in spending. The Social Security Administration was second with $622,933,000,000. The Department of Defense-Military Programs was third with $358,398,000,000.
The next highest category of spending was interest paid on Treasury debt securities, which was $290,289,000,000 in the October-through-March period.
A May 13 article detailed spending for April, featuring a picture of Pelosi even though she is not mentioned anywhere in the story. Jeffrey reworked the numbers for May in a June 10 article:
The federal government collected a record $3,374,629,000,000 in total taxes in the first eight months of fiscal 2022 (October through May), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
Before this year, the largest October-through-May federal tax collections came in fiscal 2021, when the Treasury collected $2,833,846,070,000 in total taxes in inflation-adjusted May 2022 dollars.
The Department of Health and Human Services continued to lead all federal departments and agencies in spending through the first eight months of fiscal 2022. It spent $1,054,754,000,000. It was followed by the Social Security Administration, which spent $839,061,000,000; the Department of the Treasury, which spent $769,511,000, including $423,100,000,000 for interest on the federal debt and $346,411,000,000 on “other” expenses.
The Department of Defense-Military Programs placed fourth, spending $470,865,000,000.
This month's file photo was of Pelosi and Schumer, neither of whom are named in the article.
MRC's Graham Remains At War With Fact-Checkers Who Check Conservatives Topic: Media Research Center
It's been a while since we checked in on how the Media Research Center's Tim Graham has tried to complain and nitpick media fact-checks of conservatives in order to portray them as biased -- a task he regularly fails at. How is that war is going for him? Let's go back to Jan. 27, where Graham was setting up a narrative:
At the top of their home page, PolitiFact begs for donations by proclaiming "Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy." But this "independent fact-checker" routinely betrays a tilt by coming out more aggressively to “correct” rhetorical or factual attacks on Democrats.
At the end of Biden’s first 100 days, we reported our study of PolitiFact found they published 13 fact checks of the president, and 106 fact checks of the president’s critics. In other words, they’re much more sensitive about someone “lying” about Biden than they are about Biden lying.
Now, after reviewing Biden’s first year, a NewsBusters study shows the same pattern continues. Overall from January 20, 2021 through January 19, 2022, MRC analysts found Biden was fact-checked 40 times, while Biden critics were checked on 230 occasions.
Many of the fact checks about Biden are about “Facebook Posts,” “Viral Images,” or “Instagram.” Those rulings often translate into content warning flags on social media. The shutdowns of Biden critics don't just happen on PolitiFact, but on Big Tech platforms.
These numbers, presented out of context from the total number of fact-checks on all politicans that PolitiFact has done or even the number of alleged false statement Biden has made ,shows that Graham refuses to consider the fact that Biden simply does not make very many false statements or that his fellow right-wing haters are quite invested in spreading lies about him. Also note that Graham puts "lying" in scare quotes when describing anti-Biden falsehoods being debunked but does not do so when using the word to describe what Biden says. Cherry-picking numbers while censoring others that might be more inconvenient to your political narrative is not "media research."
The next day, Graham was ranting that a Rrepubilcan candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia was busted spreading a false claim, dismissing the falsehood as a mere "quibble":
On January 24, PolitiFact wrote a “fact check” throwing a “Mostly False” rating at Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears for an TV interview with Fox News on Martin Luther King Day asserting “When it comes to CRT, it is definitely being taught in some form or fashion. We know that last year, the Loudoun County school board spent about 300,000 plus dollars, that’s real money, that’s going to jail money, to bring CRT in some form or fashion to the school system.”
One factual quibble was worthy: Loudoun Country spend $300,000-plus dollars for “equity training” over several years, not in 2020. Whether that quibble matters to parents there is a different question. It should matter to Fiske that Loudoun County officials lied about only spending $34,167 on seminars.
PolitiFact attempted to argue the Equity Collaborative was brought in for a much broader effort about the discipline policy and overall treatment of minority students, and then altered its conclusion:
At no point did Graham (or the right-wing Daily Caller source he cited to back up his numbers) prove that every single penny of that money paid only for "critical race theory," nor did he prove that addressing equity issues in schools has any direct tie to CRT. Instead he tried to confuse the issue even further: "They were developing systemic-racism education in 'curricular and instructional efforts.' It's exactly as Sears asserted on Fox News, that the Left is 'playing semantics' on its efforts to impose 'equity training' on teachers and students."
Graham is engaging in what anti-CRT activist Christopher Rufo advocated: make CRT such a toxic term that any school lesson that even remotely touches on racism can be redefined as CRT and, thus, become a rallying cry for right-wing activists who don't like public education in the first place.
A Jan. 29 post featured Graham whining that a Facebook claim about having to "show papers" when eating in a restaurant when it actually meant just showing you've gotten a COVID vaccine was flagged for taking the situation out of context, along with a bizarre shot at the publication doing the fact-check:
In other words, it's accurate for some cities, but not for America in its entirety, so -- "missing context!" [USA Today writer Daniel] Funke admitted it's not WRONG, it's ....overly broad.
He seems to be "missing context" in avoiding the "show your ID" part, not just proof of vaccination. He doesn't include DC. But this is like saying it would be "misleading" to say USA Today is a "national" newspaper, where there are many places across America you can't buy a copy.
Graham then went on to huff that USA Today was engaged in "harassment" of this Facebook user by fact-checking him:
I sent this message to Funke on Twitter: "I'm a little mystified why you would jump to 'correct' a Facebook post from a guy with 427 followers. That's some 'misinformation' threat?" And: "Why not focus on Mayor Bowser and how she is "missing the context" that asking for an ID sounds like it's not 'racist' when it's about COVID."
Funke does claim this little meme was shared. "The post accumulated more than 3,500 shares within two days." But it certainly looks like a media Goliath picking on a conservative David.[...]
USA Today notes that this harassment of Facebook users is funded by a grant from Facebook. You donate to liberal newspapers, you get liberal spin disguised as "missing context" checking.
Graham brought his "context" argument to Feb. 7 post, insisting that it was Fox News being taken out of context, not then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki:
John Sexton at Hot Air reports that a Washington Post "fact checker" came rushing to Team Biden's defense in an article titled "How an out-of-context Jen Psaki clip led to days of Fox coverage."
On the Obama-bros podcast Pod Save America, White House press secretary Jen Psaki went full Stelter and shamed Fox for covering something that the liberal networks weren't covering -- rising crime in American cities.
Sexton makes a great point that Psaki herself wasn't really accurate in describing what aired on Fox.
This isn't "independent fact checking." It's acting like Psaki's Psecret Pservice.
It's Psaki and Usero who aren't reflecting the event as it occurred. Sexton points out that it's Fox News that is being taken out of context. Psaki was laughing about a chyron from The Fivew hich aired on January 24. They aired an 11-minute segment which included that chyron over Jeanine Pirro. Why cover that topic that Monday? Because two NYPD officers had been shot the previous Friday night, and both died (one after this aired). That's the "soft on crime consequences" Psaki pretended were in an "alternative universe." She was suggesting it was....Fake News. Psaki wasn't watching the show, she was commenting on the chyron. Then they're upset Fox mocked her as unserious on crime. Pirro wasn't even mentioning Biden!
The Post robots don't have to like Fox News Channel, but if you're writing for "The Fact Checker," it might be a good idea to actually watch the Fox News video in question here. Or at least admit Jen Psaki's Fox News remarks were uninformed about what was actually discussed.
Graham doesn't have to like the Washington Post -- indeed, he gets paid quite well to hate them -- but presuming that any and every fact-check of a conservative or any purported failure to fact-check a non-conservative is solely because of "liberal bias" is a sad way to live your life.
In a March 15 post, Graham again handwaved someone's actual false claims -- this time ex-Trump adviser Stephen Miller -- to complain he was being victimized for being the subject of a fact-check over his claims about Vice President Kamala Harris at a meeting of European leaders:
First, it's true that Miller cited the wrong European president, but it's obvious from the video that Harris tried to defer to the Romanian leader. You go first!
But as usual, the real issue is selection bias. Why is this small flub in a video clip worth a fact check? PolitiFact rarely checks CNN or MSNBC shows (because they're all liberals). Last week, a guest told Rachel Maddow's substitute host Ali Velshi the embarrassing falsehood that "Hitler didn't kill ethnic Germans," which was corrected by the Auschwitz Memorial people, but PolitiFact somehow couldn't locate that viral clip.
It seems obvious that PolitiFact is trying to whack Fox News as a misinformation channel and control the damage of these strange Harris performances in front of the press.
Is that the same "selection bias" Graham has when he can never seem to find any bias at Fox News?
CNS Editor Still Covering Up Huge Amount Of Federal Debt Under Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey is continuing to obsess about the federal debt under President Biden the way he refused to under President Trump. He huffed in a Jan. 26 column:
When President Joe Biden was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the federal government's debt stood at $27,751,896,236,414.77.
When his first year in office ended on Jan. 20, 2022, it stood at $29,867,021,509,573.92.
That means that during Biden's first 12 months in office, the federal debt grew by more than $2 trillion — or $2,115,125,273,159.15 to be exact.
How do you put that in perspective?
The United States of America had existed for 210 years — and 40 presidents had served as this nation's chief executive — before the debt first topped $2 trillion in 1986.
Jeffrey's attempt at "perspetive," however, glossed over the debt created by a certain Republican president:
Then it rose to $10,626,877,048,913.08 by January 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama took office; then to $19,947,304,555,212.49 by January 20, 2017, when President Donald Trump took office; then to $27,751,896,236,414.77 on January 20, 2021, when Biden took the oath.
Jeffrey is certainly not going to point out that the federal debt under Obama went up only $1 trillion more over eight years that Trump accumulated in four. Instead, Jeffrey attacked Biden for signing a COVID relief package.
Jeffrey was at it again in a May 4 "news" article:
The federal debt has increased by $2,650,725,664,597.74 since President Joe Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021, according to the official numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
At the close of business on Biden’s Inaugural Day, the federal debt stood at $27,751,896,236,414.77, according to the Treasury. At the close of business on Monday, the most recent day for which the numbers are available, the debt was $30,402,621,901,012.51.
The increase from the $27,751,896,236,414.77 debt on Biden’s Inaugural day to the $30,402,621,901,012.51 on Monday equals $2,650,725,664,597.74.
The word "Trump" appeared nowhere in Jeffrey's article, even though Biden's pace of debt is roughly that of Trump's.
MRC Still Defending Herschel Walker Over Things They Attack Democrats For Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson stood by carpetbagging Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker when he was credibly accused of domestic abuse, insisting that it can't be true because charges were never filed. As Walker continues to show how poor a candiate he is who is merely coasting on his fame as a football player, the defense has switched to the MRc's resident New York Times-hater, Clay Waters.
Waters spent an April 19 post whining that thew Times devoted an article to the unsavory backgrounds (and current behavior) of certain prominent GOP candidates. When the article turned to Walker, he retorted with whataboutism:
[Reporter Jonathan] Weisman poked through old domestic abuse accusations against Herschel Walker, football star turned Republican candidate for Senate in his home state of Georgia. That's funny! Walker is running against Sen. Raphael Warnock, and they were too busy promoting the Democrat to discuss his ex-wife's allegations that he ran over her foot. (Warnock had "fact checkers" fight for him.)
Waters didn't explain why false claims should not have been fact-checked.
The whataboutism continued with Waters bringing up a politician who hasn't held pollitical office in more than 20 years:
The name “Bill Clinton” somehow was unmentioned, a Democrat president who notoriously escaped allegations of sexual harassment and rape thanks to a compliant press that willingly smeared and disappeared his accusers.
Again, Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, and of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.
it's not a smear to point out the fact that Broaddrick has lied under oath -- either to deny a sexual assault by Clinton or to claim one happened -- and that she does, in fact, have credibility problems.
Waters played Warnock whataboutism again in a May 22 post complaining about a "hostile" Times profile of Walker:
Walker is a flawed candidate, prone to exaggeration, as the Times has consistently documented this year, while mostly avoiding Democrat Warnock’s own flaws. Weisman (a white reporter, noted only because race is so important to Weisman here) still managed to be unfair to the black Republican.
He made no mention, not even a condescending one, of how eager supposedly racist Republicans are (as the paper feverishly claimed after the Buffalo massacre) to vote for a black candidate or the historic nature of a black Democrat against a black Republican competing for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia.
After noting “the football star’s history of domestic violence, his admitted struggles with mental illness,” the reporter predicted Walker’s message would fail because of black resentment of the infamous police killing that happened two years ago in Minneapolis.
Meanwhile, Warnock’s gross accusations of a “Jim Crow” assault on voting rights didn’t garner any objections from the Times.
Waters isn't the only MRC employee stuck having to defend Walker. Tim Graham used a May 8 post to grumble about a Washington Post "hit piece" on Walker declaring that "you could tell it would accentuate the negative" just from the headline.He continuyed grumbling that "The quotes [the reporter] uses are overwhelmingly negative, from furious liberals and from local Republican skeptics." Graham was particularly upset that reporter "highlights how Walker isn't always up to speed on policy or politics, such as referring to late congressman John Lewis as a Senator," furiously spinning in response: "Walker's not always wrong, but the liberals pretend he is."
At no point did Graham identify any factual inaccuracy in the article. instead, he handwaved Walker's worst behavior with, you guessed it, Warnock whataboutism:
Rosengren dove deeply into Walker's memoir where he talked of playing Russian roulette and thought about shooting a man who was late in delivering a car he ordered, as well as how officials granted a restraining order after his ex-wife said he threatened to kill her. That's some serious stuff. But you can be sure the Post wasn't digging into allegations from his opponent Sen. Raphael Warnock's ex-wife who claimed he ran over her foot.
Graham wants you to think that what Warnock is alleged to have done (of which there is no police evidence) is just as bad as what Walker has done. It's not, and Graham is being dishonest by claiming moral equivalence.
In Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, protesters peacefully gathered to support and oppose the removal of a Confederate monument in the public square. A white supremacist intentionally drove his car into the protesters, killing one and injuring five. Then-President Donald Trump, during a press conference about the tragedy, said: "I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. ... And I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists – because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." He also said, "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
Critics ignored the "and I'm not talking about" part and accused Trump of defending the attacker and violent protesters as "very fine people on both sides." That lie has become an article of faith for Trump haters.
In fact, as we've documented, others have pointed out that Trump was talking about those who atttended a protest that opposed the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee -- a protest organized by a group calling itself American Warrior Revolution, which considers itself a militia and later effectively blaming liberal counterprotester Heather Heyer for her own death in getting mowed down by a car driven by white supremacist James Fields Jr.
But that wasn't the only purported lie about Trump that Elder felt theneed to try and correct. He used his June 8 column to complain that Trump was called out for mocking a disabled reporter:
One slight problem: Trump did not mock a disabled reporter. Or, stated more accurately, Trump did not mock the reporter for his disability. Here's what happened.
In 2015, Trump claimed that on the day of the 9/11 terror attacks, "thousands and thousands of people were cheering" in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the Twin Towers fell. To back up his claim, Trump pointed to an article co-written by the then-Washington Post reporter Serge Kovaleski. The article said, "Law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation." When asked about Trump's statement, Kovaleski said, "I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating. That was not the case, as best as I can remember."
In response, Trump ridiculed what he considered the reporter's retreat from his 9/11 Post article. At a rally, Trump waved his hands erratically and said: "You've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. Uhh, I don't remember.' He's going like, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said.'"
I had a close friend of over 40 years. His beloved son was born with special needs. I supported Trump in 2016 and campaigned with and for him. Because of Trump's alleged ridicule of the reporter, my friend ended our friendship, despite my best effort to convince him that he was wrong.
First, Kovaleski does not flail his arms as did Trump when he made fun of him. Kovaleski has a condition called arthrogryposis, described by HopkinsMedicine.org as a "variety of conditions involving multiple joint contractures (or stiffness). A contracture is a condition where the range of motion of a joint is limited. It may be unable to fully or partially extend or bend." He does not gyrate as did Trump when he "mocked" the reporter's condition. Kovaleski is a calm and steady speaker.
Second, Trump, for years, has used the same "mocking" gesture to ridicule others, including himself, as well as an able-bodied general, as shown by videos on a website called Catholics4Trump.com.
Kovaleski was not "retreating" from his original report; he was pointing out there was no evidence to back up Trump's claim about Muslims cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Trump is quite familiar with Kovaleski, who had been covering Trump for years; Trump has denied that he knew the reporter or that he was disabled.
Trump is indisputably mocking Kovaleski's disability. Whether Trump used the same gestures to mock non-disable people is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, Elder still wasn't done trying to make his argument:
Investor's Business Daily published a commentary with the headline "Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter and Other Lies From the Left." It said: "The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated. Why couldn't the mainstream media look this up? Gavin McInnes of TheRebelMedia.com and Taki's Magazine did, and he has the video evidence to show that Trump has a history of flailing his arms to make a point. It isn't something he reserved for Kovaleski. ...
IBD shut down its right-wing opinion section in 2019. McInnes is the founder of the Proud Boys, the right-wing militia group that played a key role in the Capitol riot. So maybe neither of these sources are the most reliable ones for Elder to cite.
MRC Targets Another Cop Show For Not Fawning Over Police Enough Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is a kneejerk defender of the police, insisting that they should not be criticized at all -- especially in TV shows that pull its storylines from the events of the day -- and it's still complaining about TV show plots that offer even the slightest criticism of law enforcement. Dawn Slusher found a new cop show to hate-watch -- and, thus, target with her own hate -- in an April 15 post:
The last thing we need from Hollywood right now is another anti-cop show that puts the lives of our heroes in blue at risk and contributes to a record high number of officers being ambushed and killed across the country by painting officers as evil monsters out to prey on innocent victims. But that’s exactly what AMC’s new drama 61st Street is all about, unfortunately.
61st Street centers around black track star Moses Johnson (Tosin Cole), a good kid with a promising future despite growing up in Chicago’s impoverished South Side. Michael Rossi (Patrick Mulvey) appears to be the only good cop on the show who’s secretly trying to uncover the bad ones.
And of course, the show isn’t depicting how real-life corruption in Chicago happened and happens under Democrat leadership, and that the city is dealing with a severe increase in crime after leaders defunded the police. Nor are they showing how they’ve had to greatly lower their hiring standards amid staffing shortages due to attrition in the police department, resulting in a spike of applications from those who otherwise wouldn’t be qualified. Nor are they depicting how Democrat leaders spent millions on their own police protection while defunding it for the rest of Chicago’s citizens.
In other words, the Democrat-run city is a mess, and they’ve only made things worse by chasing out the good cops and enlisting lesser qualified ones. Shows like 61st Street only contribute to these problems by furthering an anti-cop climate and widening this country’s racial divide while putting good officers’ safety at risk as mentioned before. Let’s hope it’s canceled before it can do more damage with a second season.
So criminals watching an obscure cable show for escalating attacks on law enforcement when the real problem is Democrats? Who knew?
In fact, Chicago police weren't actually "defunded" -- their budget for this year is nearly $2 billion. What cuts did happen to Chicago police, largely elimination of vacant positions, was driven by pandemic-induced budget deficits. Additionally, crime is also up in cities that didn't "defund" police.
Three days later, Slusher attacked another episode of "61st Street," complaining that characters called for defunding the police -- while failing to note that it never really happened in Chicago -- and huffing that "They’ve made it clear their goal is to make all police look as bad as possible and sway public opinion against them" and blaming "hatred" of police and the purported "defunding" of them for how "so many good officers" are leaving the department. Needless to say, Slusher didn't breathe a word about the notoriouscorruption of Chicago police, making criticism of them having at least some basis in reality.
Slusher ranted in an April 25 post about yet another episode of the show:
How many liberal talking points can Hollywood writers fit into one scene? Apparently a lot if we go by AMC’s new anti-cop drama 61st Street, which managed to rant about feminism, white people, and the police all in one brief scene on Sunday’s episode, “Barefoot and Dangerous.” They even went so far as to claim policing is “just personal security for rich, white folks.”
Again, Slusher is mad that the ugly reality of Chicago police is being pointed out. For instance, it has been documented that Chicago police pull over black drivers seven times more often than white drivers and are more likely to use force against black people than white people -- and it solves murder cases involving black victims at less than half the rate it solves murder cases involving white victims.
Slusher's hate-watching -- and repetition of false narratives -- continued in a May 11 post:
AMC’s super woke, anti-cop drama 61st Street has continued to pour it on thick with their extremist, far-left, Black Lives Matter (BLM) agenda. In the past two episodes, the show has falsely claimed that police presence in schools is a “declaration of war” and that the system can't be reformed, because it supposedly began as a slave-catching patrol and is therefore "functioning as it should." It also denounced the justice system for “locking (black) people up.”
Pushing the false narrative that policing has origins in slave-catching on plantations is rather dubious of the show, but it’s a typical straw man argument used by SJWs in an attempt to bolster their position. Of course, black lives matter, and any cop who is racist and/or abuses their power needs to be held accountable.
But, if 61st Street truly cared about black lives, they wouldn’t be depicting the South Side as an innocent, safe neighborhood as they have. If the show is to be believed, police are the only real threat to residents, when in fact, less than half a percent of black lives are taken during police conflicts.
What they should be showing is the reality that crime is the biggest threat to black lives and that more black lives are lost weekly to criminal violence than all lives lost weekly at the height of the Vietnam War. Defunding police has only made things worse as crime rates have skyrocketed, standards in hiring officers have been lowered, and the attrition rate has soared.
BLM initiatives are actually destroying black lives, yet 61st Street wants to promote them? AND do away with the justice system that has held bad officers accountable? In what kind of world would any of that make sense?
Oh, that’s right. Liberal Hollywood. Too bad their harmful propaganda isn't self-limiting. It has far-reaching effects across the entire country. All the more reason to cancel this dangerous show immediately.
As we've noted, many Southern cities had slave patrols that predated the creation of police departments there, and that all such police operations were created to enforce the existing social hierarchy -- you know, racism and segreation -- before evolving into a force for protection starting in the late 19th century, so it's not a "false narrative" to point out that policing has at least some history in the slave trade.
Slusher's messaging also got confused in the links to the mostly right-wing sources she used to back up her claims about black crime. If black crime is so bad on the South Side, isn't that in large part a failure of police to do their job adequately and that their methods so far have been a failure? And the idea that "less than half a percent of black lives are taken during police conflicts" (taken from a right-wing New York Post column that doesn't reveal the source of the stat or the actual number of blacks killed by police) is hardly the reassuring statistic Slusher wants you to think it is; that number should effectively be zero, and the fact the number is where it's it is also in no small part because of inadequate police training.