WND Kept Ranting About Capitol Riot Hearings Topic: WorldNetDaily
After promising that Secret Service agents would rebut Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Donald Trump's behavior after the rally that preceded the Capitol riot -- a promise did not age well, given how those agents have since clammed up and lawyered up -- WorldNetDaily remained salty about the hearings themselves and defended the participants. A July 11 article by Bob Unruh promoted how "the founder of Oath Keepers, one of the organizations whose members are facing charges for the events, wants to confront committee members in person." He served up this oddly benign description of events that day:
Hundreds went into the Capitol that day to express their distrust of the 2020 presidential election results. Some rioted, doing vandalism and such. And as of now, hundreds have been charged with offenses like trespassing and entering a closed government building, and many have remained behind bars without bond since their arrests.
Charges most prominently have been filed against members of several groups that mostly have acted in patriotic situations, like Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
"Vandalism and such"? yes, assaulting police officers has been downgraded as "such" and less of a big deal than vandalism, as far as Unruh is concerned.
WND's columnists kept complaining as well. Andy Schlafly took another bogus whack at Hutchinson in his July 12 column:
Democrats had been counting on televised congressional hearings about the pro-Trump rally at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to be the game-changer they need to retain power, but their strategy hasn't worked. According to a new Harvard/Harris poll, 53% consider the hearings biased, 63% believe Congress should be working on more important matters, and 67% say the hearings are dividing our country.
The fizzling of implausible testimony against Trump has boomeranged against the J6 committee. The nonpartisan Secret Service disavowed the accusations by the surprise witness Cassidy Hutchinson, whose bizarre hearsay testimony would not be allowed in a real court.
That didn't happen in real life, of course. So Schlafly moved on to throw anything at the wall that might stick, including discredited election fraud claims: "Biden may have been placed in the White House through rampant ballot harvesting and the use of unattended ballot drop boxes, which were just declared illegal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. These ballot dumps, often in the middle of the night, were done by hired Democrat ballot harvesters in battleground states."
In her July 13 column, Betsy McCaughey dismissed the hearing as a "miniseries" that are "as balanced as one of Josef Stalin's trials, or justice under Kim Jong-un." She then played whataboutism: "Why would anyone watch this unapologetically rigged process about a topic that pales in comparison to watching your quality of life and future plans destroyed by soaring prices?"
Michael Master returned for a July 13 column to justify the riot and bash the committee for not parroting Trump's Big Lie about election fraud:
On Jan. 6 of last year, a political rally of a quarter million people was held where Trump and his supporters petitioned the Congress for a redress of grievances concerning the 2020 election. Mike Pence and the Democrat-controlled Congress ignored that request for a redress.
Yes, a riot by less than a thousand people of those quarter million also happened on Jan 6. But the issue of the redress is still not resolved. That, not the riot, is the big issue, which the Jan. 6 Committee is ignoring. And it is looking more and more that Trump was correct in asking for the redress.
If Republicans retake the House in November, this should be its immediate agenda:
1. Replace the biased J6 committee with a balance of pro-Trump and anti-Trump members, instead of the current nine, who all voted to impeach the president. Then investigate everyone involved with Jan. 6, including Nancy Pelosi, the FBI, Mike Pence and the Capitol Police.
2. Investigate what the Biden administration did that cut the U.S. production of oil and hurt America's oil independence.
3. Empower a special investigator to figure out which states implemented illegal and/or unconstitutional election processes in 2020. Determine how many votes were affected and if the outcomes in those states were compromised, and then determine what do do about it now. Judges have already determined that Pennsylvania and Wisconsin implemented unconstitutional changes. How much did the illegal drop boxes and ballot harvesting in Georgia affect the election? How about in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Virginia?
4. Investigate Joe Biden over the revelations found on Hunter's laptop.
Things will get very interesting if/when Republicans retake the House. Democrats are worried. Karma is a b**ch.
A July 15 article by Unruh did actually notice apparently bad behavior -- which he then tried to bury under his usual right-wing narratives:
The newest turn in the "investigation" going on into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol may be the most interesting yet.
It turns out the Secret Secret deleted its text messages from that time period, after being asked for them.
Other developments have included wild claims by the government that ordinary citizens protesting what they viewed as an unfair 2020 election were trying to overthrow the government that day.
And that the mostly wide-eyed tourists in the Capitol that day actually were intent on killing people.
And much more, all being investigated by Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee that has been interviewing people and staging public performances of select testimony that fits the narrative that President Trump was to blame for everything.
Critics view the committee's work as Pelosi's third attempt at "impeaching-and-removing" Trump – with the goal of making sure he doesn't run again in 2024. Her two earlier attempts during and after his term both failed.
Now the Intercept confirmed the Secret Service erased text messages dated January 5 and January 6.
That's from a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept.
Unruh also tried to attack Hutchinson again:
Also involving the Secret Service was testimony from ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson whose claims that Trump tried to commandeer a limousine to go to the Capitol were immediately debunked by other witnesses.
Throwing doubt on Hutchinson's claims were members of the Secret Service themselves, the report said.
Again, those agents have refused to testify to the committee and have lawyered up in an apparent effort to get out of actually fulfilling their promise.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 83: The MRC's Year Of Freaking Out Over Transgenders Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent the last part of 2020 and all of 2021 in continuous meltdown mode over the idea that transgender people exist and appear in on TV. Read more>>
CNS' Jeffrey Buries The Lead On U.S.-Russia Trade So Biden Doesn't Look Good Topic: CNSNews.com
Part of CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey's anti-Biden crusade in the runup to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was blaming Biden for trade deficits between the U.S. and Russia. He effectively did that again in a July 7 article:
The United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of $1,049,100,000 with Russia in the month of May, according to data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
During May, the United States sold $77,400,000 in exports to Russia and purchased $1,126,500,000 in imports, resulting in the trade deficit of $1,049,100,000.
The last time the United States ran a monthly trade surplus with Russia was in December 1995, according to Census Bureau data. That month, the United States exported $256,700,000 in goods to Russia and imported $227,300,000, resulting in a surplus of $29,400,000.
Jeffrey is violating normal journalistic style by writing out the full numbers with all the zeroes instead of using words like "million" or "billion" because he thinks they look bigger and make his biased point. But Jeffrey buried the lead, which he waited until the fourth paragraph to get to:
Russia invaded Ukraine in February of this year. That month, the United States ran a trade deficit of $2,080,300,000 with Russia. In March, the U.S. trade deficit with Russia increased to $2,645,200,000. In April, it declined to $1,993,600,000. In May, it declined again to $1,049,100,000.
That's right -- the U.S. trade deficit dropped by half between March and May. But that number would make Biden look too good, and Jeffrey, as a highly biased right-wing activist masquerading as a journalist, can't have that. SoJ effrey spent the rest of his article rehashing trade numbers from 2021.
The news on the trade front got even better in June, according to the Census Bureau data Jeffrey cites -- the trade deficit dropped another 40 percent, to $603 million. Again, that makes Biden look good, so Jeffrey did no story at all about it. Good news for Biden is no news at CNS.
MRC Gets Help From National Review In Heathering Alyssa Farah Griffin Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Heatheringof Alyssa Farah Griffin for the apparently unforgivable sin of ceasing to be a Trump toady -- while still being a solid conservative -- got a boost when the right-wing National Review did a hit piece on her. Naturally, the MRC had to lavishly gush over it, and Curtis Houck did the slobbering honors in a July 14 post:
Writing Thursday morning at National Review, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) fellow Nate Hochman penned a scathing examination of CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin, chronicling her rise from a well-known political family to the upper echelons of conservative political communications to liberal media darling and from Trump supporter to skeptic to card-carrying member of The Resistance.
And, upon the story’s publication, Farah Griffin offered a vivid reminder of how the Washington media and political elites have razor-thin skin and vehemently object to even the most gentle outside criticism.
Hochman explained how Farah Griffin has undergone a “change in tone and emphasis” since her start working for her father Joseph Farah at World Net Daily that was then parlayed into running communications for the House Freedom Caucus and Trump administration posts with Vice President Mike Pence, the Pentagon, and the White House as communications director.
As Hochman noted, Farah Griffin seemed like “a conventionally partisan Republican operative.”
However, she’s left that behind, instead drawing a litany of scoffs and dismissals from conservatives as she’s become what Hochman called not only “fervently anti-Trump,” but “sometimes anti-Republican” with newfound friends at CNN and ABC’s The View (where she’s the rumored frontrunner to become the fifth co-host).
When January 6 becomes your cri de coeur and everything else (e.g. abortion, gas prices, inflation, etc.) is secondary while painting a picture that your life is so difficult while also opulent, working people scoff. Farah Griffin should let the world know when she starts consistently having CNN hits and tweets that have nothing to do with January 6 and Donald Trump.
Both Houck and Hochman are well-paid partisan right-wing operatives, so there's no reason to ever think of them as "working class."
Neither Hochman nor Houck explained why criticism of Trump is so verboten that it's enough to get one kicked out of the right-wing bubble they live in (and make their living from). Nor do they explain why she must be punished for trying to run from the Trump taint of corruption and for criticizing his role in inciting the Capitol riot. They also don't cite the chapter and verse of right-wing dogma where it states that right-wingers in good standing are not allow to discuss the riot or blame Trump for it.
When Farah Griffin gave a statement to Hochman stating that she's "fiercely anti insurrection," Houck sniffed in response: "And there it is. All roads have to lead back to January 6." Again, there's no explanation for why she's not allowed to talk about it, even as events like the House committee hearings have kept it in the news. If anything, people like Houck and Hochman need to explain why they stay in the Trump cult despite the mounting evidence of Trump's corruption.
Houck offered a parting shot when he complained about a Twitter thread from Farah Griffin after the hit job was published in which she stated she hadn't read it: "Exit question: Did Alyssa think she’s too important to have to read it?" She knew it was going to be a hit job, and it was; she does not need to read about how much die-hard Trumpers despise her.
The next day, Nicholas Fondacaro returned to reference the National Review's hit job and attack Farah Griffin anew: "The Friday after the National Review published a scathing article calling out The View’s faux 'conservative' Alyssa Farah Griffin, she showed her true blue colors as she falsely accused Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis of scamming his supporters with a recurring donation 'grift.'" Like Houck, he didn't explain how Farah Griffin's departure from the Trump makes her a "faux 'conservative.'" He went on to complain that she is not an extemist anti-abrtion absolutist like he apparently is:
This wasn’t the only lie Farah Griffin told about the political party she purports to still be a part of. Earlier in the show, during a conversation about the 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped and got an abortion (they omitted the part about the alleged rapist being an illegal immigrant), she parroted the leftist falsehood that the pro-life side didn’t care about the babies and women after birth.
“To be pro-life needs to mean supporting moms throughout their lives. It means paid parental leave, it means investing in foster and adoption care,” she said. “Frustrates me so much that my party really cares about them having the baby, but there's no benefits that they’re going to have after the fact.”
In reality, there are many pro-life organizations and charities that support women and babies after birth. In fact, the left hates how crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion mills 3-1 and they want to shut them down.
Fondacaro cited no evidence to prove that she purportedly lied, nor did he explain why it should be left only to "pro-life organizations and charities" to support women and their children and why the government apparently shouldn't.
WND's Attacks On Capitol Riot Hearing Witness Didn't Age Well Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've shown how WorldNetDaily and its columnists lashed out at the House committee investigating the Capitol riot when its hearings began. When former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Donald Trump reportedly lunged at the driver of his limousine to keep him from being taken back to the White House instead of the Capitol, WND was ready to try and discredit her. Bob Unruh wrote in a June 29 article:
Agents of the U.S. Secret Service, bound by oath to support the Constitution and protect the president, are willing to testify that one of the star witnesses put on the national stage by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, wasn't telling the truth when she was under oath.
Fox News reports that two Secret Service agents "are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Donald Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot."
Fox News' source directly contradicted the claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson, who formerly worked for then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
That story hasn't aged well. As we've noted, not only has no Secret Service agent offered their testimony, the ones who said they would -- since identnfied as Trump yes-men -- testify are now refusing to testify and have lawyered up.
Unruh complained later that day, repeating those now-dubious attacks on Hutchinson and adding an attack on the entire committee:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan Jan. 6 committee assigned to "investigate" the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol put on a hastily assembled and urgent show this week, revealing a witness who purported that President Trump literally tried to commandeer the presidential limousine on that day to go to the Capitol.
The truthfulness of that testimony already has been challenged by no less than the Secret Service officers involved, and is doubted because the witness was relaying only hearsay – she hadn't actually been a witness to anything.
But real purpose of the hearing now has been revealed, the Washington Examiner's Byron York wrote.
He pointed out that the testimony of Pelosi's latest witness "was not subject to the kind of basic scrutiny that witnesses receive in a normal congressional investigation."
Then the columnists -- in truth, not terribly disinguishable from WND's "news" content -- weighed in. Laura Hollis went on the attack in a June 30 column:
Everything about the congressional Jan. 6 Committee is political theater. The committee itself, per Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence, could not include any members not already predisposed to find Donald Trump guilty of something. The accusations are outlandish and unsubstantiated. Witnesses' testimony and other "evidence" often lacks foundation or credibility. Most of the committee's performance (I won't call it "work"), substantively and procedurally, would never fly in a court of law.
There are plenty of reasons why these "hearings" are taking place, but finding the truth isn't one of them.
What really happened on Jan. 6, 2021, has not been revealed, and nothing happening in the Jan. 6 Committee hearings will reveal it. Everything they are doing is designed to obfuscate the truth, deceive the American public, entrench the power of the traditional political elite and make an example out of anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative.
Eviscerating Trump is just a sideshow.
Michael Master attacked Hutchinson in his June 30 column:
All of her testimony was personal opinion about the incident and hearsay about conversations from other members of Meadow's staff. Hearsay. No firsthand knowledge, witnessing, or participation. None.
What judge would have allowed such a testimony in a criminal trial? None. This incident represents more violation of due process by this Jan. 6 committee – and more failure.
Did Trump grab the steering wheel of the car and lunge at one of his Secret Service agents? Who cares? So what if he did? Did Trump want to go to the Capitol? Who cares? So what if he did? He stated in his presentation to those 200,000 people who attended his protest rally near the White House that he wanted to march with them "to" the Capitol building "peacefully" so "their voices could be heard."
In addition, the driver of the car, the Secret Service agent, and those people whom Hutchinson supposedly overheard say that none of the incidents Hutchinson claimed actually happened. None of them. None. And they have previously testified to the committee.
So why didn't this committee include those opposing testimonies at their hearing? Because it is just out to get Trump and is ignoring the due process Trump would have if this were an actual criminal court case. No judge would have allowed such hearsay or personal opinions at a criminal court case. No judge would have ignored the opposing testimonies.
The Hutchinson testimony was bogus – and members of the January 6 committee know it. The media know it. Yet, they all continue with it just like Democrats and media continue to claim that Trump colluded with Russians to affect the 2016 election, even after Robert Mueller stated no collusion occurred, and just like they've continued to claim that Jan. 6 was an "insurrection," even after two courts and the FBI stated that it was not, and just like Democrats and media continue to claim that there was no election fraud in 2020.
Like Unruh's "news" articles, Master's column did not age well with the agents' refusal to actually testify.
Hateful MRC Squicked Out By Animated Same-Sex Kiss Topic: Media Research Center
The highly homophobic Media Research Center was predictably squicked out by a completely inoffensive (to normal people) same-sex kiss in the animated Disney film "Lightyear," a prequel of sorts to its "Toy Story" series. Michael Ippolito used a June 22 post to bizarrely cheer that the film didn't do as well at the box office as it supposedly could have and bizarrely insisted that the the movie's audience could only have been "groomers":
The latest Toy Story spin-off, “Lightyear,” which caused controversy over a same-sex kiss scene, had a lackluster opening, according to The Daily Wire
Over its three-day opening weekend, the film made a total of $51 million, an understatement considering the marketability of the Toy Story franchise. Comparatively, Toy Story 4, released in 2019, opened at $121 million.
Prior to the film’s box office bomb, lead actor and famous lefty loony Chris Evans had called those who did not want LGBT propaganda in a kids' movie “idiots.”
“The real truth is, those people are idiots,” Evans stated in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday. "Every time there’s been social advancement as we wake up, the American story, the human story is one of constant social awakening and growth and that’s what makes us good.”
For “Captain America,” a lesbian kiss is as American as apple pie.
Perhaps the true reason for the film's abysmal failure is that Disney has once again produced another terrible movie solely to appease their woke audience. For the groomer kingdom, it’s politics over profit.
Fortunately, they got an expensive lesson about what happens when you “get woke, go broke.”
It's a sign of how much Ippolito and his MRC co-workers absolutely despite the mere existence of LGBT people in real life that they get wildly offended at fictional ones too and screech that people who simply acknowledge their existence must be smeared as "groomers."
Ippolito returned to spew more hate at the movie in a July 7 post, which he began by lazily repeating himself:
Get woke, go broke! After years of shoving leftist propaganda into children’s entertainment, Disney has learned a hard lesson in playing identity politics..
According to BoundingIntoComics, cry-baby “Lightyear” Director Angus MacLane is attacking critics after getting beat by “Minions: The Rise Of Gru.”
Ippolito went on to whine that "McLane does not cite the lesbian kiss scene backlash as the reason for “Lightyear’s” flop but blames internet trolls," then ranted that hewas trying to "convey some grand political message" by acknowledging LGBT people exist.
Only at the MRC is it "political" to acknowledge the mere existence of certain people.
The president of Mexico says that so many Americans are crossing the border into his country to save money on gas, that he’s doubling the fuel supply at gas stations near the border - and putting “over 1,000 kilometers of gas pipelines” at President Joe Biden’s disposal.
In a White House meeting with Biden on Tuesday, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador explained how he’s helping out while the American people are waiting for the Biden Administration to do something about high gas prices:
“In the meantime, while we’re waiting for prices to go down, we have decided that it was necessary for us to allow Americans who live close to the borderline so that they could go and get their gasoline on the Mexican side at lower prices.”
“And right now, a lot of the drivers — a lot of the Americans — are going to Mexico, to the Mexican border, to get their gasoline,” López Obrador said, noting that the price of a gallon of gas is more than a dollar and a half less expensive in Mexico:
“Right now, a gallon of regular costs $4.78 average on this side of the border. And in our territory, $3.12.”
But Bannister didn't mention the main reason why López Obrador would have the ability to do that, and why Mexico's gas prices are cheaper than the U.S.: Mexico's oil industry has been nationalized and is operated by the Mexican government and has more control over gas prices than the private company-driven U.S.
This was followed by a July 15 article by intern Janey Olohan serving up Fox News stenography:
“The government of Mexico, in the middle of a drug war, is taking better care of its citizens than Joe Biden is taking care of his citizens. And that is shameful,” Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stated Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” discussing the steadily increasing price of gas across the United States.
While the price at the pump at U.S. gas stations remains near its record-high set last month, the average cost of a gallon of gas in Mexico is significantly cheaper – so much so that Americans are now filling up their tanks across the border.
Carlson questioned the narrative being pushed by the Biden Administration and liberal media that Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the increase in U.S. gas prices:
“So you have to ask yourself: if we’re paying more for gas because of Putin’s price hike, why isn’t Mexico paying more for gas because of Putin, too? Why is inflation up, when wages are down? This doesn't make any sense.”
U.S. government policies are the reason gas costs more in the U.S. than it does in Mexico, Carlson said:
Olohan touted Carlson noting that "spent $2 billion in subsidies to keep gas prices lower for consumers," but she failed to note that Mexico's oil industry is state-controlled, which give it much more flexibility to do such things than Biden can.
MRC Whines That NewsGuard Downgraded Its Beloved Fox News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's loud andlame war against NewsGuard for committing the offense of pointing out the shoddiness of right-wing journalism has slogged along, heating up again when the news rating organization downgraded the MRC's favorite biased network. Joseph Vazquez raged in a July 22 post:
Leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard is back to show the world why it’s a pathetic excuse for an internet traffic cop by giving FoxNews.com a failing grade while completely undercutting its own complaint.
NewsGuard downgraded FoxNews.com July 18 from a green-shield 69.5/100 rating in December 2021 to a red-shield 57/100, noting that the website “fails to adhere to several basic journalistic standards.” This is coming from the same firm that left the liberal USA Today’s perfect 100/100 score intact after the newspaper removed 23 stories because one of its reporters fabricated sources. NewsGuard even praised USA Today for how its “stories quote reliable sources.”
One of NewsGuard’s contentions with Fox is that the news outlet allegedly fails to handle “the difference between news and opinion responsibly.” Apparently, NewsGuard couldn’t correctly discern the difference, either. A “Corrections” note put at the bottom of its “nutrition label” scorecard for Fox News admitted that an earlier version falsely “referred to Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham as anchors [who cover the news] instead of hosts [who lead opinion shows] of their nighttime Fox News Channel programs.”
As we pointed out when the MRC first attacked USA Today over this, the fact that it identified the problem and corrected the situation while explaining to readers what happened is likely the reason USA Today kept its high rating. By contrast, the MRC still has yet to make any sort of public statement about the Brent Bozell ghostwriting scandal or how one of its bloggers used white nationalist links to flesh out his posts.
Vazquez went on to defend Fox News while also playing whataboutism:
FoxNews.com clearly labeled Ingraham, Hannity and Carlson as hosts of talk shows, which are naturally opinion-based, but NewsGuard apparently couldn’t even be trusted to do its due diligence initially and make the proper distinction.
It’s also interesting how both the leftist The New York Times and The Washington Post don’t disclose covering the news from a liberal perspective, as the MRC repeatedly illustrated, but NewsGuard didn’t seem to take much issue with that. In fact, both newspapers which both have perfect 100/100 scores, were determined by NewsGuard to handle “the difference between news and opinion responsibly.”
Note that at no point did Vazquez -- amid his unceasing tarring of other outlets as "leftist" -- properly admit that Fox News has a right-wing bias. Nor did he mnention that there's little daylight between Fox News" news and opinion sides since they both cover the same issues in the same way. And if NewsGuard's purportedlyly "'leftist" judgment can't be trusted, then by the same definition the MRC's highly biased right-wing judgment can't either on the purported bias of the media outlets it has declared its enemies.
Vazquez continued to whine about Fox News' rating drop in an Aug. 5 post:
It’s hard to take leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard seriously when it gave Fox News a failing grade while complimenting BuzzFeed News’s notoriously phony reporting with a perfect rating.
Leftist outlet BuzzFeed News promoted the Steele dossier, which was used as the pretext for a prolonged federal investigation against former President Donald Trump that bore no fruit. The dossier remains on BuzzFeed News’s website, but NewsGuard continues to give BuzzFeed a perfect 100/100 score.
BuzzFeed News continues to host the bogus January 2017 Steele dossier it published on its website that made erroneous and discredited claims about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. However, NewsGuard still gives the outlet a perfect 100/100 score.
Vazquez censored the fact that, as we've documented, BuzzFeed never presented the Steele dossier as indisputable fact and never vouched for its accuracy. Vazquez then bizarrely attacked BuzzFeed for doing another story:
The outlet actually went to bat for disgraced CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin after he was caught with his pants down masturbating during a Zoom call for The New Yorker, where he was a staff writer. In a piece disguised as news and not labeled opinion, BuzzFeed’s main excuse was: Hey, doesn’t everyone masturbate at Zoom meetings? “Jeffrey Toobin Can’t Be The Only Person Masturbating On Work Zoom Calls,” read the laughable BuzzFeed headline.
BuzzFeed “senior culture writer” Scaachi Koul even wielded Scripture to wokescold Toobin’s critics: “Haven’t we all done something on a work call that, in normal circumstances, we’d never do during a meeting? Let he without sin cast the first stone.”
That’s some hard-hitting journalism, eh, NewsGuard?
Vazquez identified no factual errors in the Toobin story. And if Toobin's cringey incident wasn't newsworthy, why did the MRC spendsomuchtime obsessing over it?
Another Newsmax Columist Tries To Defend Clarence Thomas Topic: Newsmax
Larry Bell wasn't the only Newsmax columnist to offer space to gushing over Clarence Thomas. Michael Dorstewitz did much the same in his June 29 column. Apparently annoyed by Hillary Clinton's description of Thomas as a "person of grievance," Dorstewitz dug up a random anecdote of Thomas not being terrible:
First of all, Clinton was a year ahead of Thomas, so it's doubtful that they even shared any classes. Secondly, no one will die because of the Dobbs decision. Even states that ban abortions make exceptions to save the life of the mother. It's a matter of well-established medical practice.
Bryan Griffin, deputy press secretary to Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, called Clinton's assessment of Thomas "offensive, disgusting, and false," and countered it with a touching anecdote.
He recalled that seven years ago after he'd passed the bar, "I stopped [Justice Thomas] in a lobby in D.C. and asked him if he would do me the honor of swearing me in as a lawyer."
He could have said no. Thomas was a well-known Supreme Court justice; Griffin was a snotty-nosed kid fresh out of law school. But he agreed, and it was no rushed ceremony.
"He invited me to his office at the [Supreme Court] the next day, [after work] and spent hours with me in conversation, earnestly affording me his time and encouraging me. A friend and a law professor accompanied me."
Griffin attached a photo of his swearing-in ceremony as proof, and continued with his story.
"He showed us pictures from his latest vacation with his wife and fondly spoke of the love he has for her," he said. "We discussed America, and from everything he said it was clear he loves this country and the people in it."
And lest anyone assume Griffin was somehow connected, he added, "He did not know me or owe me anything. But he afforded me incredible kindness. I am certain he extends the same to others."
Griffin, by the way, has been living on this anecdote for years, making sure to highlight in his bios for thinktanks he subsequently worked at that he was sworn in by Thomas as apparent proof of his right-wing credentials. Dorstewitz then served up another less-than-objective source:
And Michael Pack, who co-authored the recently-released book, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," can attest to Thomas' willingness to freely give his time.
Both the book and a previously-released documentary film of the same name that Pack produced and directed were the result of more than 30 hours of interviews.
Of course a guy who wrote a book and movie -- with Mark Paoletta, who helped push Thomas' Supreme Court nomination -- is going to be self-serving and say only nice things about Thomas. He has a book and movie to sell, after all.
Needless to say, Dorstewitz is completely silent about the right-wing activism of Thomas' wife, Ginni -- particiularly her work in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential eleciton -- that would seem to demand that Thomas recuse from certain cases before the Supreme Court though he has not.
WND Has An Anti-Trans Meltdown Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily had a bit of an anti-transgender freakout a while back. Art Moore hyped a dubious study in a June 13 article:
An analysis of studies finds that contrary to the claims of the Biden administration and establishment media, lowering legal barriers to make it easier for minors to undergo cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent does not reduce suicide rates.
In fact, there are higher rates of suicide among young people in states that allow the "sex-reassignment" measures, contends Jay P. Greene, a senior research fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy.
He argues that studies finding that "gender-affirming" interventions prevent suicide fail to show a causal relationship and have been poorly executed, employing methods that prevent researchers from being able to draw credible causal conclusions about a relationship between medical interventions and suicide.
"Only a small number of studies make comparisons to a control group –and those studies employ correlational research designs that do not allow causal conclusions, nor have those correlational studies been conducted properly," he argues.
As we pointed out when CNSNews.com promoted the study, critics have demonstrated that Greene's methodology leaves something to be desired; further by his own logic of discounting data from groups that are "activist" in favor of transgenders, Greene's own data should be discounted because the Heritage Fondation is an anti-LGBTQ organization. Moore left his story highly bias by not permitting any criticism of Greene's study at all or even bothering to seek reaction to it from LGBTQ non-haters.
In a June 15 article, Moore whined that the Biden administration cracked down on dubious anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy:
President Biden signed an executive order Wednesday instructing his administration to explore ways it can crack down on therapy assisting people who have unwanted same-sex attractions.
The Executive Order Advancing Equality for LGBTQI+ Individuals, the White House said, addresses the "discredited and dangerous practice" of "conversion therapy."
It also directs the Department of Health and Human Services "to help prevent LGBT youth suicide by expanding access to mental health resources."
And the order calls on HHS to "study and address the disproportionate rates of child removals that LGBTQI+ parents face, especially women of color."
Moore gathered reaction to the executive order only from anti-LGBTQ activists like Ryan Anderson, who laughably called the order "Orwellian."
Bob Unruh used a June 29 "news" article to complain about the idea that transgender people might have rights:
Democrats in Congress have announced their plans to push the divisions in American society even deeper, with a transgender "Bill of Rights" that creates provisions in the law for people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Hill reports Democrats want to build into federal statutes the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock that protects gay or transgender workers from on-the-job discrimination. Their bill would further divide those who are tolerant of another's lifestyle but don't wish to support it, and those who insisted that everyone must be "affirming."
The Bostock decision, reviled by conservatives, ordered that a funeral home management had to accommodate a man dressing as a woman while meeting with potential clients and providing company services to grieving families.
Unruh went on to rant that the Bostok decision "grant[ed] employment protections to individuals based on their sexual proclivity." He's clearly (if not deliberately) unaware that being transgender is not a "lifestyle" or "sexual proclivity."
Unruh had another anti-transgender meltdown in a July 18 article:
The campaign to normalize – even institutionalize – the transgender movement in American society has moved into uncharted territory now, with a fight developing over the study of human ancestors, those historic bones uncovered and subjected to research for race, health, diet, movement and much, much more.
The dispute also could affect the situations in which remains have been found, and research is needed to identify a potential murder victim.
The fight is because those scientists are unable to determine how that dead person identified himself, or herself, or themself, as male, female or another alternative lifestyle choice, while alive tens, hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
It is constitutional expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who has pointed out the looming war over the issue.
Unruh didn't explain what authority a "constitutional expert" could possibly have to speak on issues of anthropology.
This all led up to the July issue of WND's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine, with the theme "What's REALLY behind today's youth transgender craze?" Unsurprisingly, WND imagines conspiracies and the usual suspects:
One obvious factor, of course, is that in today’s increasingly godless, immoral and “postmodern” culture, there are simply lots of broken and deeply disturbed adults who are, right now, “teaching” America’s children. This is not speculation; they publicly advertise this reality on social media sites like Tumblr and TikTok, as the Twitter account “Libs of TikTok” amply documents.
Other factors include powerful LGBT nonprofits like the Human Rights Campaign, which raises tens of millions of dollars off promoting and championing the issue. Mega-corporations like Disney have profit motives intertwined with their radical support for the left’s entire “woke” agenda, however deranged. Liberal suburban parents who fear being labeled bigots, homophobes and transphobes more than death itself are easy recruitment prey for attending – with their children in tow – all manner of “pride parades,” “drag-queen story hours,” “kid-friendly” drag shows in gay bars, and other events featuring transgender activists.
Then there’s the leftist elite’s “1984”-ish obsession with compelling normal people to believe absurd things as a means of controlling their minds. As the history of totalitarianism demonstrates, it’s easier for would-be tyrants to rule a once-free people if, having been pressured to embrace absurdities (in “1984” it was “2+2=5”), they are degraded and intimidated into a more broken, conflicted, polarized and confused version of their former selves.
Furthermore – and critically – LGBT issues serve as the “sharp point of the spear” which the left uses to attack America’s foundational Judeo-Christian culture, which it loathes and fears. No other issue, not even abortion, serves so well as a direct attack on Christians and religious Jews as the LGBT agenda, which enthusiastically wars against the Bible’s clear moral standards.
No wonder the Biden administration, totally controlled by the radical left, is so deeply invested in transgender grooming and recruitment of the nation’s youth, with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra fully supporting taxpayer-funded amputations of healthy body parts of these vulnerable children. Or as Becerra put it so ghoulishly, “We should help those have the life-affirming care that they need.”
But beyond all these factors, there are still deeper, more profound and truly mind-blowing core reasons for this sudden preoccupation, this rabid insistence on grooming America’s children – its most precious resource, the only hope for the nation’s future – to enter the ultra-dark world of transgenderism.
Why, after all, would children with absolutely typical youthful confusion and growing-up pains be deliberately channeled in such an utterly catastrophic direction?
Here’s a hint: Why do you suppose pedophiles are obsessed with sex with pre-pubescent children? There’s absolutely nothing sexually attractive about little children – quite the contrary. But the pleasure derived from sexually violating little children is not so much sexual, as it is the relief and satisfaction derived from corrupting and destroying their innocence. The experience of “putting out the light” of innocence in a child is cathartic, fulfilling and psychically and spiritually relieving to the abuser, who has already lost his or her own innocence.
Ah, yes, the old hateful slur of portraying all LGBTQ people as pedophiles. Managing editor David Kupelian kept up the in his essay for the issue:
Twitter recently banned the term “groomer” as being “anti-LGBT.” However, “groomer” is precisely the right term to describe those involved in today’s widespread phenomenon of “gender activists” indoctrinating, seducing and flat-out recruiting American children into “identifying” as transgender.
He then rehashed hate from his book "The Marketing of Evil," in which he addressed "the high prevalence of homosexual molestation of young people." In fact, there's no evidence that LGBT people molest children any more than heterosexual people do. He concluded by ranting:
Bottom line: Those on the radical left are angry, obsessed – and arguably possessed – and have little regard for the God-given innocence of children. They prove that every day. Their abortion messaging has gone from “safe, legal and rare” a couple decades ago to openly reveling in being able to kill unborn children up to the very moment of birth, for any reason or no reason at all. They indoctrinate America’s youth with toxic doctrines like Marxist “critical race theory” and corrupt them with pornography and explicit “sex education” at absurdly immature ages.
Bottom line: Kupelian thinks everyone who's not a white, right-wing heterosexual Christian like himself is evil and probably a child molester. That hate-filled attitude is one big reason why WND is failing and must constantly beg for money to stay alive.
NEW ARTICLE: Whipping Up A False Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center repeatedly claimed that network news outlets reported that Border Patrol agents were "whipping" migrants -- despite offering no evidence whatsoever that this was the case. Read more >>
MRC's Graham Grouses That Right-Wing Media Were Called Out For Trying To Discredit True Rape Story Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center tried to pretend that it didn't try to push the right-wing narrative that the story of of a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio who had to go to Indiana for an abortion was a hoax. That denial continued in Tim Graham's July 18 podcast, in which he whined that it was pointed out that Republicans "were trying to make hay of it" by pretending it wasn't true until they couldn't, then made the doctor who performed the abortion the bad guy. First, he whined that a Republican governor was questioned about not allowing rape execptions in her state
Excuse me? The Republicans were the ones to make hay out of it? This started with media jerks like Dana Bash on CNN throwing this in the face of Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, pushing and pushing and pushing and shaming -- without a rape exception for abortion, you're making this fourth-grader carry a pregnancy to term. Now, Noem did a decent job trying to sort of fending this off by turning it around and saying, well, why don't we focus our outrage on the abortion -- or on the rapist, why aren't you focused on the rapist and not on the child, and she was like oh, yes, of course, you know. But this is the game: A pro-abortion journalist like Dana Bash is all about shaming and shaming and shaming, and they have no shame about killing the baby. There's no shame for that! At any point or for any reason, there's no extreme. And yet the Republcians are the ones making hay?
Graham switched his whining target to Fox News for not talking about abortion enough: "Fox News is squishy on abortion. Fox News has been eternally squishy on abortion." Finally, he got around to addressing how right-wingers desperately tried to discredit what was ultimately a true story, whining that "hack" Bill Carter called them out and that they aren;t interested in correcting the record:
Fact check false! Right-wing media never, ever wants to acknowlege they're wrong? Earth to Billy Carter: My work principle is, don't say "ever" or "never" unless you can back it up. To say the whole right-wing media do not ever want to acknowledge they're wrong ever -- Fox News corrects things, NewsBusters corrects things. I had one a few years ago where NPR and PBS had done a poll on the approval for Black Lives Matter, and the nubmers were 50 percent and 33 percent, and I got it wrong. I said 33 percent approve of Black Lives Matter, 50 percent disapprove. I had it exactly wrong, so we corrected it and I put on Twitter I corrected it, OK? So that happens. I'm not proud of that. Nobody want to have to correct something when you get something that obviously factually wrong, but everybody should.
NewsBusters may correct some "obviously factually wrong" but certainly not all of them. Nicholas Fondacaro'sfalsehoods remain uncorrected, for example, and the MRC still has never told its readers that the 2016 Fox News story it heavily hyped about Hillary Clinton's purportedly imminent indicted was retracted. What Graham didn't do, however, is acknowledge that right-wing media got it wrong in trying to discredit the story, nor did he point to any corrections made by those who pushed that false narrative.
Graham went to his old whataboutism warhorse: "Conservative media doesn't have a worse record on this than liberal media, OK? CNN's been pretty bad at corrections for decades." He then whined about being called out for advancing the hoax narrative, grudigngly offered a non-apology for advancing the narrative -- and, even worse, has to defend the hated Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler because his initial non-confirmation of the story fed the narrative:
One perpetual malcontent tweeted at me, 'Where's your correction and apology for falsely dismissing as a hoax the story of a 10-year-old girl was raped and had to get an abortion?" So clarify as I did on Twitter. I never said the story was a hoax, I never said the story was fake. I did say it seemed too good to check when President Biden pounced on this story. That caused Washington Post Glenn Kessler to do a fact-check. What he found was the Indianapolis Star reporter clammed up. The abortionist didn't want to talk. It looked suspect. So now it's confirmed, in part because of the pressure from Kessler and others. And so I'm sorry for the victim that this story is true.
Now, we know a Fox News host did say the word "fake," that it was made up, some used the word "hoax" -- and that, of course, is a favorite Brian Stelter word, he called the entire Fox News Channel a hoax, that was the title of his book. Now, if one of us said this story might be fake, that's not the same. That's speculating, which is pretty much what cable news does 24/7. So Glenn Kessler should not be dissed for attempting to verify a story. That's what journalists do.
Graham then went on his old tirade about how fact-checkers purportedly only fact-check conservatives. But he didn't note where that unnamed Fox News host corrected the record. Indeed, Graham spent much more time whining that his fellow right-wing media members were called out for pushing a false narrative (and that a "malcontent" on Twitter was criticizing him for his role) than demonstrating how they acted in any sort of responsible manner by correcting the record. That's a massive "media research" failure.
WND Whines About State Crackdown On COVID Disinformation Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh spent a June 26 article complaining that a state wants to shut down disinformation about COVID vaccines:
California is threatening to punish any physician who dissents from the approved medical agenda regarding COVID, according to a warning from Aaron Kheriaty, a former professor at the UCI School of Medicine and now a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
He explained in an online commentary that he soon will be testifying at a state Senate committee hearing on the legislature's AB 2098.
It would "give the [state] medical board the authority to punish any physicians who challenge the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines."
Those, of course, have been blamed for countless serious side effects, such as heart problems in young men who take the experimental shots.
Unruh didn't mention why Kheriaty is a former professor at the University of California at Irvine: he refused to get vaccinated as the university system required, and no legitimate medical authority recommends deliberately catching COVID to confer the "natural immunity" Kheriaty claimedwas better than getting vaccinated.It has since been shown that vaccination on top of a previous infection may be better than infection alone. Also, Unruh is lying by continuing to claim the vaccines are "experimental"; both the Pfizer/BoNTech and Moderna vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA.
The Brownstone Institute, by the way, is run by the same folks who put forward the Great Barrington Declaration, the anti-vaxx-adjacent document that pushed dangerous "herd immunity" before COVID vaccines were developed.
Because Kheriaty is a fellow anti-vaxxer, Unruh devotes space to him to spread his conspiracy theories:
He said the plan is to "enshrine in law" those "scientific" conclusions including those about the shots that are "highly dubious."
For example, he cited the claims that COVID has claimed the lives of 6 million worldwide, and the Centers for Disease Control shows "that unvaccinated individuals are at a risk of dying from COVID-19 that is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated."
Third, there's the claim that the "safety and efficacy" of the shots has been "confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration…"
He warned that all three assumptions are "demonstrably false."
Unruh also gave Kheriaty space to falsely conflate changes in care as doctors learned how to treat a novel virus with his own less-than-credible anti-vaxxer fantasies:
He cited the fact that COVID public health recommendations have changed over and over, sometimes from month to month.
"It was frontline ICU physicians who discovered and spoke out about bad outcomes when patients were prematurely placed on ventilators. This shifted the consensus in the direction of avoiding ventilation as much as possible. Likewise, it was frontline physicians who discovered that placing covid patients face-down in the prone position while they were ventilated could improve outcomes, challenging another consensus. Both of these advances came by way of challenging the way things were currently being done. Other physicians challenged the early consensus, which did not recommend the use of steroids to treat Covid. Eventually, this dissenting opinion gained ground and now represents conventional thinking: corticosteroids for critically ill covid patients are now standard care," he said.
You wil not be surprised to learn that Unruh did not allow anyone to respond to Kheriaty's rantings.
Newsmax Cranks Out Even More Trump Stenography Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has long been a servilestenographer for Donald Trump, and it did so again, and it was quite busy on a period of a few days in July. Trump spoke in Arizona on July 22, and the stenography from Sandy Fitzgerald came hot ahd heavy:
Mack also did stenography for the Trumpier of the convention's speakers, gushing in one article that "Firebrand Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., blasted abortion activists in a rant sure to raise dander of his political opponents and has raised calls for canceling by liberal activists on Twitter" by "call[ing] abortion activists overweight, unattractive, and very unlikely to need an abortion." No mention, of course, that Gaetz is currently under investigation for alleged sex trafficking and having sex with an underage girl.
Mack followed up with at July 25 article cheering how "Trump (78.7%) trounced DeSantis (19%) by nearly 60 points in the Tampa, Florida, weekend conference's straw poll conducted," taking a shot at the person perceived to be Trump's greatest competition in 2024: "As hard as it is to find a 2024 Republican presidential primary poll that favors Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, it is equally difficult to find a poll that favored former President Donald Trump more than Turning Point Action's straw poll."
As with Fitzgerald, there were no fact-checks of Trump to be found anywhere in Mack's work.
The apparently unironically named Charlie McCarthy wrote a July 25 article on how Trump "will return to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday for the first time since leaving office" to give "a keynote speech at the America First Agenda Summit," desperately trying to portray Trump as a serious policy guy despite all evidence to the contrary:
While Democrats in Congress remain focused on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday's speech will allow Trump to look forward and explain how a second term as president would benefit the nation.
Before the 2020 election, Trump's team composed a two-page policy agenda document titled "Vision 2025" — which was reviewed by Politico — that outlined what would be accomplished by the end of 2024, under the subhead: "renewed, restored, rebuilt." The election results, however, ended those plans.
Trump's former domestic policy adviser Brooke Rollins told Politico that Trump's speech would represent a "State of the Union 5.0."
McCarthy devoted a second article to touting how Newsmax was going to air the speech. For the speech itself, Mack again did the stenography duties:
And if that wasn't enough Trump fawming, a July 27 article by McCarthy uncritically parroted the latest Trump rantings on his social media site. Sadly, we expect nothing less (and nothing more) from Newsmax.
CNS Attacks Durbin's Change Of Heart On Abortion -- But Censors His Defense Topic: CNSNews.com
Anti-abortion obsessive Terry Jeffrey used his July 12 CNSNews.com column to attack Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin for having changed from opposing abortion to becoming pro-choice. He first referenced a letter Durbin had sent to a local anti-abortion group in 1989 outlining his opposition to the procedure, then complained:
Since his election to the Senate in 1996, Durbin has voted against the confirmation of each of the four Supreme Court nominees who eventually joined Justice Clarence Thomas (confirmed in 1991) in overturning Roe. These included Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
This week, Durbin held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, where he condemned the court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
At this hearing, he euphemistically referred to abortions as "reproductive health care choices" and declared them "a constitutionally protected right."
"This case represents the first time in America's history that the Supreme Court has revoked a constitutionally protected right," Durbin said.
"As a result," he said, "a woman's personal decision to make her own reproductive health care choices is no longer protected or guaranteed by the Constitution."
"We know the Republican plan: win control of Congress and impose a federal ban on abortion," Durbin said. "Democrats have a different plan: protect your rights by enshrining in (to) law a federal statutory right to an abortion.
"A woman's choice to get an abortion is her choice alone," he said.
Jeffrey went on to piously lecture Durbin:
The truth is that choosing an abortion does not involve just one human being. It involves one human being deliberately choosing to take the life of another.
Durbin apparently knew that 40 years ago, when he opposed abortion. He apparently knew it 30 years ago, when he still opposed abortion. Could he have really decided — as a grown man serving in the United States Senate in the closing years of the 20th century — that an unborn child is not really an unborn child?
If anything, technological developments in the decades since Durbin led those anti-abortion demonstrations at the Illinois Capitol have made it more obvious that an unborn human being is precisely that: a human being.
Perhaps Durbin — as a member of a pro-abortion rights political party — has chosen the pursuit of power over the pursuit of truth.
But Jeffrey deliberately censored Durbin's reasons for changing his view on abortion -- even though he brought them up in the very hearing he was quoting Durbin speaking at, as a response to an anti-abortion Republican senator who brought up that letter. As a more thorough journalistic operation reported:
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, detailed his change of heart on abortion laws on Tuesday after GOP members of the committee pointed out his past desire to overturn Roe v. Wade.
At the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Durbin told the committee and the panelists that the letter and his past views on abortion were not new but went on to explain how his mind had been changed on reproductive rights during a meeting with young people in Illinois.
“I sat down with two young women who were about to turn 18 — one a victim of incest, one a victim of rape — and they told me their stories. I didn’t ask them to, but they wanted to tell me. I left that meeting with a kind of understanding that I had never had before about the complexity of the decision behind the abortion procedure,” Durbin said.
“I thought to myself, ‘As an individual member of Congress, are you ready to pass a law that applies to every woman in America?’ No. It really has to be her decision. And we can regulate it as we should, but at that point I made my break,” he added.
So much for Jeffrey's bogus speculation that Durbin changed his views for "the pursuit of power."
CNS wasn't done with Durbin yet, though. Jeffrey sent an intern to pester him about his change of heart for a July 29 article:
Sen. Dick Durbin, who famously switched from a pro-life position to a pro-choice position, was asked if he thought abortion involved moral questions, and he responded that it is “Certainly a moral question when we have a 10-year-old who's being raped and then told to carry the baby to term.”
At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, CNS News asked Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), “Senator, you said that you switched from your pro-life position to a pro-choice position in part because of cases of rape and incest. Would you support a ban on abortion that made exceptions for rape and incest?”
Sen. Durbin responded, “I learned a long time ago that this is a decision should be made by the wife, the woman, the doctor and the family.”
CNS News followed up, “Do you not think that there's any moral question involved?”
Durbin responded, “There's certainly a moral question when we have a 10-year-old who's being raped and then told to carry the baby to term. Yes, that's a moral question too.”
The intern linked back to Jeffrey's column, blandly referring to it only as "a recent CNS News commentary" -- but, unlike her boss, reported Durbin's own words on his change of heart. That's one of the few examples we've seen this summer of CNS interns who actually acted more like journlaists than partisanright-wingnarrative-pushers.