Root Insists Election Was Stolen From Herschel Walker Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah wasn't the only WorldNetDaily columnist who had a meltdown over Herschel Walker's (double) loss to Raphael Warnock in the Georgia Senate race, in both the general election and the runoff. Wayne Allyn Root began his Dec. 10 column declaring that the selectively released "Twitter files" by Elon Musk "shows the 2020 election was rigged and stolen – exactly as so many of us warned and reported, while being called 'election deniers' and 'conspiracy theorists.' In other words, I told you so. I was right from day one." He then segued to the Georgia election:
The Georgia U.S. Senate election is just the latest example. I predicted for two weeks beforehand that Herschel Walker didn't stand a chance of winning – because I believe Georgia is rigged, just like it was rigged in 2020 against Trump.
Sen. Raphael Warnock is literally a radical Marxist. He hates America. He allegedly abused his ex-wife. He defended the anti-American, racist and anti-Semitic rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Yet we are to believe he defeated Herschel Walker in a Southern state, in an environment of the worst inflation, crime and open borders in our country's history – all produced directly by Democrats who aren't even as radical as Warnock. Really?
It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? And I have a bridge to sell you, in Vegas, over the Atlantic Ocean. You're being gaslighted. This is all B.S.
By the way, does anyone ever bother to ask why Marxist Democrats like Warnock in Georgia have so much more money than our pro-business, capitalist candidates? Why did Warnock have $24 million just from 300,000-plus donors who claim to be "unemployed"? Does no one think that might be China's money illegally influencing a U.S. election? Is anyone investigating? Of course not. Every prosecutor in the USA is too busy framing Trump.
Root is referring to an unproven conspiracy theory -- which, of course, WND has dutifully parroted -- claiming that "campaign finance mules" have been donating to Warnock and other Democratic candidates despite their status being "unemployed."
Root went on to deny that Walker was a bad candidate and peddled more bogus election fraud conspiracy theories -- while, of course, saying nothing about Walker's record of domestic abuse and buying abortions for girlfriends:
I've heard the GOP excuses. Walker was "a bad candidate." But bad candidates don't matter if a state is rigged with mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes; if Big Tech and social media filter the news feed so that all news is bad news for Republicans; and if those same companies ban, suspend and censor all conservative influencers in the leadup to the election upon orders from the government. Thanks to Elon Musk, we know they do. Bad candidates don't matter if the media ignore the corruption, crimes and communist views of Democrat candidates, or if you're able to raise $100 million from the Chinese Communist Party.
These are all the ways elections are rigged and stolen.
It's an exact repeat of 2020, and no one in GOP leadership says a thing. We are screwed in 2024. We cannot win, and the base knows it. You've allowed Democrats and China to steal our nation.
Root concluded by ranting: "We can smell a rat. We know a huge majority of Americans are voting Republican – but our votes no longer matter. The system is rigged. The fix is in. It's all pro wrestling now." And Root is doing his best to perpetuate that pro-wrestling feel.
Newsmax Fearmongers About Soros In Purchase of Spanish-Language Radio Stations Topic: Newsmax
Like the Media Research Center, Newsmax fearmongered about several Spanish-language radio stations being bought by a group of liberal-leaning investors with some backing from an financial firm tangentally tied to a fund management firm tied to George Soros. A June 3 article by Theodore Bunker announcing the deal was typical, putting "Soros-Backed Group" in the headline even though the article itself makes it clear he's not personally involved and that there are many investors -- "a group of investors led by Lakestar Finance, which is affiliated with Soros Fund Management, founded by George Soros, along with several individuals."
Tbhe fearmongering really kicked in after that. Nick Kotsoubinas wrotet in a June 8 article:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is warning Miami residents that a George Soros-backed purchase of Spanish language radio stations is an attempt to capture Latin votes and sway listeners, Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez told Newsmax.
The new Hispanic media company, Latino Media Network, announced Friday, it would obtain 18 Hispanic radio stations in 10 different markets, including one in Miami, which a George Soros-backed venture purchased from TelevisaUnivision in a $60 million deal, according to a press release from DeSantis' campaign.
Nuñez said in her "Eric Bolling: The Balance" appearance that people should ask themselves, "Is it a business proposition? Is it a business deal? No, it is specific radio stations that are known for having conservative viewpoints."
Their playbook, she said, is "to control the media, control the narrative, control the spin — and they think they can control the minds and hearts and the souls of voters."
After the sale closed in November, Newsmax fretted even more. James Hirsen went the conspiracy theory route in his Nov. 28 column:
One of Soros’ latest designs has been to quietly move toward gaining control of a major conservative-leaning communications outlet serving the Spanish-speaking community.
With Democrats experiencing an unanticipated decline in support from Hispanic voters, it could be that Soros felt the need to step in and further manage the flow of news and information to the Spanish speaking voter contingency.
In any event, a media company was formed in June of 2022. The goal was to acquire a group of radio stations from TelevisaUnivision, including a flagship of conservative talk radio in Miami, Radio Mambí.
One other pertinent note: The media company's acquisition was financed by an investment entity affiliated with Soros.
Historically, Radio Mambi has been linked to the Cuban exile community. The Spanish language station had long been a unique source of content that was anti-communist, anti-Castro and pro-traditional values. What it will now become is left to the imagination.
In great part due to Soros' reputation, when news of the proposed acquisition emerged, people in South Florida became seriously concerned that the reliable flow of information from their beloved talk station was in jeopardy.
Hirsen then complained that conservatives about right-wing disinformation being spewed from right-wing Spanish-language radio was a ploy to silence dissent:
Those who were in support of the purchase brought up a familiar refrain that is used to justify speech suppression. They claimed that there is a pressing need to address “disinformation.”
Predictably, the FCC brushed aside the opposing arguments and approved the proposed sale.
Hirsen immediately undercut his own argument by nonting that some Radio Mambi people left to join a station purporting to have "a Spanish language conservative talk radio alternative to the Miami market" -- proving there's no "suppression" of right-wing Hispanic voices after all.
Similarly, a Dec. 21 article by Brian Pfail made a big deal out of some Radio Mambi personalities quitting the station:
The recent takeover by George Soros of 18 Hispanic radio stations, including Miami's flagship conservative Radio Mambí, has prompted three hosts to quit.
"This is going to be a failure — I am 100 percent sure of that," Venezuelan-born former Radio Mambí host Lourdes Ubieta told The New York Post. She quit the station after she learned of the takeover during the summer. "They did this to silence conservative Hispanic voices, but it's not going to work."
In June, the Soros-backed Latino Media Network bought Mambí, a prominent voice of anti-Communist Cuban exiles for decades, along with 17 other Spanish-language radio stations from TelevisaUnivision in a $60 million deal.
Ubieta and two other Radio Mambí hosts, including Dania Alexandrino and Nelson Rubio, have quit over the new management and are now at Americano Radio in Miami, which maintains it's the nation's first conservative Spanish network.
"They want to silence and censor Hispanic conservative voices. They have a way of telling Democrats are the party of minorities and the party of the poor," Alexandrino said to The Post. "They treat Hispanics like victims."
The fact that all three quickly got jobs at another right-wing station in the Miami seems to disprove that "Hispanic conservative voices" are being "censored." And Rubio in particular was named as among the greatest peddlers of disinformation on Radio Mambi.
Pfail then went on to quote the MRC's Jorge Bonilla pushing the partisan talking point that "there would be backlash from Hispanics as Democrats continue to lose support among Hispanics." Pfail did, however, also highlight critics who ppointed out the amount of disinformation on right-wing Hispanic radio and even linked to a Politico article pointing it out.
CNS' Jeffrey Again Complains That DC Suburbs -- Where He Lives And Works -- Are Among Nation's Wealthiest Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey loves to bash the Washington, D.C., suburbs as being overly rich -- though he doesn't disclose that he lives and works in those self-same suburbs (the HQ for the Media Research Center is in Reston, Va., just west of D.C.) and, as an MRC executive, presumably gets paid well enough that he can afford to live quite comfortably there. Jeffrey took one of his regular swipes in an Oct. 5 column, which contained a bonus swipe at the suburbs of San Francisco, where longtime MRC target Nancy Pelosi is based:
If you want to live in one of the wealthiest communities in the United States of America, do not move to Manhattan or Palm Beach, Florida. Move instead to the suburbs or exurbs of San Francisco or Washington, D.C.
The Census Bureau this week released its data on the 2021 median household incomes for areas that have populations of 65,000 or more.
According to this data, taken from the bureau's American Community Survey, the five wealthiest counties in the United States were all situated near the nation's capital or the city by the bay.
Specifically, Loudoun County, Virginia, had the highest median household income ($153,506) of any county in the survey, and Santa Clara County, California, ($141,562) had the second highest.
Fairfax County, Virginia, ranked third with a median household income of $134,115; Howard County, Maryland, ranked fourth with a median household income of $133,267; and San Mateo County, California, ranked fifth with a median household income of $131,796.
But the trend did not stop there.
It turned out that 11 of the 20 richest counties, according to the Census Bureau's data, were located either near Washington, D.C., or near the Golden Gate.
Nationwide, the median household income in the United States in 2021 was $69,717, according to the Census Bureau.
That means the median household income in the Washington, D.C. exurb of Loudoun was more than twice the median household income nationwide.
In Fairfax County, part of which sits inside the Washington Beltway, the 2021 median household income of $134,115 was 1.9 times as great as the national median of $69,717.
Jeffrey didn't disclose that Reston, where the MRC's HQ is, is located in Fairfax County. Instead, he concluded by huffing, "The bottom line: We are living in a country where big government is even more lucrative than Big Tech."
Jeffrey repeated a similar attack in a Dec. 16 "news" article:
Four of the six richest counties in the United States in 2021—when measured by median household income--were located in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., according to newly released data from the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Loudoun County, Va., with a median household income of $153,716, ranked as the nation’s richest county in 2021.
Falls Church City, Va., which the Census Bureau counts as a county because it is an independent city, ranked second with a median household income of $142,430.
Fairfax County, Va., ranked fifth with a median household income of $133,845.
Again, Jeffrey didn't didn't disclose that he and his employer are contriubint to the thing he loves to complain about.
MRC Goes The Biden Whataboutism Route To Deflect From Santos' Lies Topic: Media Research Center
The first reference to Republican Rep. George Santos at the Media Research Center was an attack -- not over his being a serial liar, but over his failure to toe the ideological line and parrot right-wing anti-"big tech" narratives, as Catherine Salgado complained in a Nov. 15 post:
Newly elected GOP Rep.-elect George Devolder-Santos (NY) has already assured the nation that he is not much interested in investigating pro-censorship Big Tech, saying he doesn’t want to “waste time,” according to a recent news report.
Fox News co-anchor asked Santos, a “MAGA” Republican, about potential congressional investigations after Republicans presumably take control of the House in January.
Santos classified probes of issues including Big Tech – which has colluded with the government to censor Americans – as “hyperpartisan,” according to The Hill. Because apparently nothing is more partisan than free speech?
The future congressman’s assurance could please Big Tech as much as it seemed to please the leftist Daily Beast. But free speech will suffer if a Republican Congress agrees with Santos.
This milquetoast attitude is especially odd since Santos caused controversy by praising former President Donald Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, and reportedly making contributions to get Jan. 6 political prisoners out of jail.
Salgado concluded by huffily noting that "Santos made history by winning the first House race with two openly homosexual candidates." She clearly did not see that as a good thing.
When it was first revealed that key elements of Santos' claimed biography appear to have been made up, the MRC stayed silent, as if it wanted to huddle with its fellow right-wingers to plot out a strategy to respond. And on Dec. 27 -- eight days after the allegations against Santos first went public -- a post by Mark Finkelstein announced the strategy: Biden whataboutism!
MSNBC's Morning Joe delighted on Tuesday in the case of Republican Congressman-elect George Santos, who's now admitted telling a series of fraudulent tales about his biography to get elected in the Third District on Long Island.
That's shameless, and the voters have every right to be angry and want him to resign. But if multiple lies about one's background are cause for a politician to resign, when will Democrats and the liberal media be demanding that Joe Biden quit, and how soon should we expect Ol' Joe to announce his departure from the White House?
Let's take a walk down the long Memory Lane of some of Biden's lies, shall we?
As documented above, Joe Biden has told a multitude of lies about his background. But naturally, Morning Joe never made mention of Biden's history of lying—let alone suggest that he should resign. There were "lying liars" who are typical in myth-making, and then there's Santos.
To the contrary, the panel chatted about Biden's "playbook" of exposing Republicans, and Lemire said the Santos story "certainly feels like the further Trumpification of the Republican Party."
Tim Graham used the same strategy in the promotion for his Dec. 28 podcast:
This week, the media elites pounced on the finding that Congressman-elect George Santos (R-New York) lied about nearly everything on his political resume. Democrats and the media played up the need for Santos to resign in disgrace. Conservatives responded with Biden's many tall tales about his life. Just days ago, Biden claimed that as vice president, he presented a Purple Heart medal to his Uncle Frank....who died ten years before he took national office.
The major difference here is that Biden's been exaggerating about his life for 50 years, while Santos hasn't even taken office yet. What is "whataboutism" and why is it objectionable?
In the podcast itself, Graham first and foremost blamed "liberal" media outlets for not vetting Santos, though he did eventually concede that Republicans failed to vet him as well and that "everyone can shre in the blame for not vetting this man." Graham touted how it how "it was very easy for people to make a list of Biden whoppers," then whined about the same "liberal media" not being hard on Barack Obama (whining extensively that he created composite characters in his memoir), Elizabeth Warren and even John Kennedy for alleged whoppers. He then complained that his whataboutism on Santos was being called out, and defended it as a key MRC strategy:
I don't generally like this term -- it cuts too close. Comparing political behavior and how it's evaluated by the press is what we do here at NewsBusters. Part of the charge of whataboutism is saying, "Well, now you're misdirecting away from an infraction by talking about someone else who did something kinda similar." I can get were you'd say youre changing the subject -- how convenient. But many examples of this so-called whataboutism are a part of politics, of comparing and contrasting. Pro-Clinton Democrats engaged in a ton of whataboutism when he was president.
Graham then complained that the MRC was criticized for not immediately denouncing Santos:
Finally, I find it mildly annoying when leftists get on Twitter and suggest that we as media critics have yet to make political denunciations on a timeline like -- "I see you haven't condemned Santos yet," they might write, like it's a great hot take. Likes the most important thing for us to do on a story is not evaluate the story but we have to lead with "We hotly denounce George Santos' lies."Well, OK, we're not in favor of politicans lying. But our point here is to study how Santos is covered first and not to pronounce a verdict first. We're looking at patterns. We're saying, "this is the hot story, what other stories are they not doing?" Or, "notice how they're doing a story that pleases the Democrats more."
Graham might have a point if the MRC actually cared about legitimate "media research," but it doesn't -- it's a rapid-resonse political organization whose main goal is to drive right-wing political narratives in political conversation. Graham and the MRC want to drive those narratives in real time, so it's entirely appropriate to point out its days of silence on Santos while it devised an appropriate narrative.
P.J. Gladnick stuck with that narrative, serving up similar whataboutism in a Dec. 29 post:
The egg covering the face of poor Chris Hayes is the result of him sticking his foot into the controversy about the lies told by Congressman-elect George Santos versus what he called "normal" political lies told by Joe Biden. Here is Hayes' Tuesday tweet that caused a tidal wave of blowback mockery of the MSNBC host as to Biden's "normal" lies:
Unfortunately for Chris Hayes the mendacity record is not kind to Joe Biden especially as regards his failed 1988 presidential campaign which also included multiple allegations of plagiarism.
Finkelstein returned the same day to complain that it was pointed out how Republicans' failure to hold Donald Trump to account for his lies led to Santos:
Let's stipulate: George Santos running for Congress on a carpet of lies is beneath contempt. As Tulsi Gabbard, subbing for Tucker Carlson, said to him: "do you have no shame?"
But that doesn't mean that the Democrats, with a big helping hand from the liberal media, won't try to exploit the situation for their political gain.
And so it was that Morning Joe was only too glad to play its part today. The show invited on Democrat Congressman-elect Jared Moskowitz of Florida. Moskowitz has tweeted that, in contrast with Santos, he actually does have relatives who were victims of the Holocaust.
Moskowitz scalded Santos's lies about having Jewish relatives who escaped the Nazis as "the lowest form of humanity." Fair enough.
But Moskowitz then proceeded to try to turn the situation to his party's political advantage, predictably trying to blame Santos on Republicans in general, and Donald Trump in particular.
Moskowitz said that Santos's lies were:
"Not surprising, unfortunately, because this is what folks on his side of the aisle have learned. They have learned this from, you know, the leader of their party. That you can traffic in these lies and you can get away with it."
It remains to be seen whether either Trump or Santos will "get away" with things. But it's a certainty that the Democrats will try to milk the scandal for all its worth.
And Finkelstein played his part by unable to let his criticism of Santos stand without playing whataboutism for complaining that the criticism cuts a little too deep.
When a writer for the right-wing American Spectator bizarrely portrayed Santos' lies as some sort of "own the libs" moment -- which ignored the fact that he owned Republicans as well, who are now stuck with a congressman who has pretty much llied about everything -- Jeffrey Lord cheered the twisted logic inhis Dec. 31 column:
So whether intentional or not, Santos has effectively (and amusingly) set the liberal media up. He advertised himself -- without saying a word other than listing his bio “facts” - as one seriously woke guy. So the media gave him a pass.
He says he’s openly gay? To challenge him by noting he was previously married to a woman means you’re a bigot, so no challenge there. He worked at the woke investment company Goldman Sachs? Here’s a New York Post headline:
How Goldman Sachs exploits ‘woke values’ to pursue its own profit and power
If you’re appealing to a woke media, claiming a background at woke Goldman will be silently applauded. He’s woke just like one of us.
Whatever else comes of this episode with George Santos, one takeaway lesson is that the lib media is so woke at this point that they will even not do their due diligence on a Republican candidate if that candidate passes a woke test with flying colors.
Whether by design or sheer accident, it appears that most if not all of his phony resume advertised by George Santos fit the woke bill - and the media shrugged.
You can’t make it up. Unless you’re George Santos.
Unmentioned, of course, is that Santos owned Republicans as well, who embraced every lie Santos told because it wanted a Latino candidate who was still willing and eager to toe the Republican line. If Republicans can't be bothered to seriously vet their own candidates, why is it the media's responsibility to do so?
UPDATE: A Dec. 29 post by Bill D'Agostino dismissed the idea that Santos committed voter fraud by lying as "absurd" but also cheered that Santos' opponent was criticized for failing to do opposition research into Santos, as if GOP officials weren't also responsible for vetting their own candidates.
How Is WND's Moore Fearmongering About COVID Vaccines These Days? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is all about spreading fake news and conspiracy theories about COVID vaccines to make their readers afraid of medical treatment. How has it been doing that lately? Here are a few examples.
Top WND misinformer Art Moore wrote in a Nov. 30 article:
CDC data turned over by court order shows health-care workers and others who were first to get the mRNA COVID vaccines suffered an extraordinarily high rate of complications.
Among earliest populations to get vaccinated, the data withheld by the CDC showed 1 in 3 reported needing medical care, missing school or work, or the inability to "perform normal daily activities," Just the News reported.
The CDC collected the data through V-safe, described by the agency as a "smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins after you receive a COVID-19 vaccination."
The Informed Consent Action Network obtained the data through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the CDC.
Moore censored the fact that the ICAN is a leading anti-vaxxer group that spreads misinformation about vaccines of all kinds, so it clearly can't be trusted.
Moore ranted about the new COVID booster being approved for young children in a Dec. 8 article:
Americans clearly have become aware that COVID-19 poses little threat to most people while the mRNA vaccines don't prevent infection while evidence grows that they pose the risk of serious adverse events, including death, that have been downplayed or ignored by the government and medical establishment.
The evidence for that is the fact that, according to the CDC, less than 13% of Americans age 5 and older have received the new bivalent booster targeting the omicron subvariants.
Children are the most immune from COVID-19, with, statistically, virtually no chance of serious illness or death.
Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved the bivalent mRNA booster for children aged 6 months to 4 years.
However, there is no clinical data supporting the efficacy of the bivalent booster. Federal regulators acknowledged they authorized the shot based on data from eight mice and other updated vaccines. And the safety data came from the old vaccines.
That's because the new boosters are virtually identical to the old ones aside for the addition of the second variant medicaton, and the original vaccine and boosters have proven safe despite all of WND's fearmongering.
Of the 68% of American adults who took a COVID-19 vaccine, 41% say they have suffered at least a minor side effect, according to a Rasmussen poll.
A total of 7% said they experienced a major side effect, which would amount to 12 million adults.
The survey of 1,000 U.S. adults – conducted Nov. 30-Dec. 1. – also found that 57% of U.S. adults were at least somewhat concerned that the vaccines many have major side effects, including 31% who were very concerned.
Rasmussen head pollster Mark Mitchell said in a video presentation on the survey that "the COVID pandemic was so politicized that, literally, the tribal party group that you belong to is essentially what dictates your views on the effectiveness of a vaccine."
Moore complained about a new study in a Dec. 14 article:
If you decided to forgo an experimental vaccine that does not prevent contracting a disease with a survival rate of nearly 100% while posing the risk of severe harm or death, you fit the profile of a person who is much more likely to get into a car crash.
That's according to a study reported by Fortune that was published in December in The American Journal of Medicine.
Canadian researchers concluded that people who didn't receive the COVID-19 vaccine were 72% more likely to be involved in a severe traffic crash – meaning at least one person was transported to the hospital – than those who were vaccinated.
The authors – after examining government-held records of more than 11 million adults – theorize that people who don't comply with public health recommendations might also "neglect basic road safety guidelines."
The unvaccinated, the researchers suggest, might "ignore" the rules of the road because of their distrust of the government, a belief in freedom, "misconceptions" of daily risks, "faith in natural protection," "antipathy toward regulation," poverty, misinformation, a lack of resources and personal beliefs.
Moore failed to mention that more than one million Americans hae died from COVID , or that even if you survive getting it, you stil have a notable chance of having lingering symptoms for months (also known as long COVID).
Moore expressed glee in another article the same day, in which he got to parrot that dubious poll result:
Halfway through a $475 million Biden administration campaign promoting the new bivalent COVID booster, only about 1 of 9 Americans have chosen to get the jab.
The federal government has spend more taxpayer funds purchasing 171 million doses of the booster, which was granted emergency use authorization after a brief Pfizer trial involving eight mice and no humans.
About 68% of Americans age 5 and older received the initial round of the COVID vaccines, but only 13.5% have taken the booster, which targets omicron subvariants. A little more than 120 million does of the shot remain unused.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that of the American adults who took a COVID-19 vaccine, 41% said they had suffered at least a minor side effect. A total of 7% said they experienced a major side effect, which would amount to 12 million adults.
Moore also hyped his own favorite COVID misinformer: "Acclaimed cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough was among the health scientists calling for the COVID-19 vaccines to be immediately withdrawn." WND has served as a primary conduit for McCullough'smedicalmisinformation.
MRC Even Attacks Twitter Founder For Not Adhering To Pro-Musk Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's insistence on lashing out at anyone who won't blindly adhere to the predetermined narratives promoted by Elon Musk and its fellow right-wingers regarding Twitter even extends to bashing Twitter's founder, Jack Dorsey. Catherine Salgado complained in a Dec. 15 post:
Twitter founder Jack Dorsey released his opinion of the Twitter Files exposing his platform’s biased censorship, admitting his serious failures around free speech, while still claiming a lack of “hidden agendas.”
Dorsey tweeted his take on the Twitter Files Dec. 13, claiming it was based on the “principles I've come to believe” due to his experiences founding and leading Twitter. He began with a list:
“1. Social media must be resilient to corporate and government control.
2. Only the original author may remove content they produce.
3. Moderation is best implemented by algorithmic choice.”
This seemingly anti-censorship list is ironic in light of Twitter Files revelations that Dorsey was part of the top censorship team at Twitter and was at least aware of the reasons for banning former President Donald Trump despite Trump not violating any platform rules. Dorsey did at least admit in a blog post that he had messed up—badly.
Salgao is being highly disingenuous in claiming that Trump never violated any Twitter rules -- a claim that came from a previous "Twitter files" release (which, of course, Salgado hyped). As a more honest media outlet noted, the discussion focused only the final two tweets Trump made before his suspension (he had repeatedly violated Twitter standards before but was given a pass because he was a public figure), and some Twitter officials thought there was a coded call to incitement in those tweets. And that file release omited the fact that Twitter had warned Trump immediate after the Capitol riot that further violations of its rules could result in a permanent ban.
Salgado continued her complaint:
Dorsey then specifically referred to Trump’s ban, saying Twitter “did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society.” But the former CEO did not admit the full scale of Twitter’s bias under his watch. He denied any “ill intent or hidden agendas.” MRC’s CensorTrack has years of records of Twitter’s biased censorship.
People need tools to resist an enforced media or government narrative, Dorsey said. “Allowing a government or a few corporations to own the public conversation is a path towards centralized control.”
But Dorsey did not expound upon Twitter’s secret coordination with the government to censor Americans.
CensorTrack is not a reliable tool because of its existence as a tool to further right-wing "censorship" narratives ahead of being a serious documentation system -- it's a partisan tool, not a research tool. And as we've pointed out, claiming the government engaged in "secret coordination with the government to censor Americans" is a conspiracy theory.
Dorsey wrote that he knew people would distrust his recommendations based on his own record, and added that he wished he had made Twitter “uncomfortably transparent in all their actions.”
He then ended the piece by condemning attacks on former Twitter colleagues and promoting new technologies for social media.
Only time will tell if the anti-free speech trend on social media is reversible.
NEW ARTICLE: Hypocritically Hiding Herschel At CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com was an early promoter of Herschel Walker's political ambitions and friendship with Donald Trump -- but it almost completely censored reports of abusive behavior and paying for abortions. Read more >>
MRC Lashes Out At All Who Won't Promote Musk's 'Twitter Files' -- Including The FBI Topic: Media Research Center
While it was cheering Elon Musk's censorship of journalists on Twitter, the Media Research Center was continuing its defense and hero worship of Musk and his release of selectively chosen internal files to hand-picked journalists. Tim Graham cranked up the MRC's defense of Musk in a Dec. 15 post lashing out at NPR for pointing out the biased nature of the document release:
Taxpayer-subsidized NPR had been aggressively ignoring the "Twitter Files" revelations, but when they finally acknowledged them on Tuesday's Morning Edition, the new information was described as an "attention-grabbing stunt," "not a bombshell," and an "ugly" spectacle causing threats of violence to Dr. Anthony Fauci and former Twitter "trust and safety" czar Yoel Roth.
The online headline was Elon Musk is using the Twitter Files to discredit foes and push conspiracy theories.
Morning co-host A Martinez said Musk and Twitter "released internal documents to a handpicked group of journalists who have been digging through them and posting excerpts on Twitter. But is this corporate transparency or just the latest attention-grabbing stunt by the billionaire CEO?"
Tech reporter Shannon Bond bizarrely claimed that Republicans are wrong to claim they were suppressed by Twitter's leftist executive clique:
Graham is never going to critiize the biased narrative Musk is feeding because it furthers the MRC's own narratives. And he offers no evidence that only consertvatives were "censored" by Twitter -- and he will never admit that Twitter's algorithm has always favored conservatives. Instead, he invited readers to harass NPR for pointing out inconvenient facts that he can't be bothered to disprove: "This report really reveals the NPR hostility to conservatives and how Twitter's 'a much less friendly place' for NPR types. Feel free to contact NPR's Public Editor and ask when they'll address their 2020 Hunter Biden mistakes."
Staying on message, a Dec. 17 post by Joseph Vazquez hyped the latest "Twitter files" release purporting to show "the leftist Big Tech platform’s extensive collaboration with Big Government on its bloated censorship operations," followed by a post from Alex Chrsty with the usual lament that "ABC, NBC, and CBS all ignored round six of the Twitter Files on their Saturday morning shows" because it instead reported on Musk's censorship of journalists, which he framed as "suspending several accounts for sharing information about his private jet and physical location," purportedly driven by an "alleged stalker video." As we've noted, Musk had previously vowed never to suspend the tracker account, and the alleged stalker never used the account (and was more interested in Musk's ex-gal pal and baby mama, Grimes, than Musk himself).
Vazquez served up more Musk stenography in a Dec. 20 post:
It turns out that not only did the Ministry of Truth brigade at the FBI push Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, but it also reportedly paid the Big Tech platform millions of dollars.
Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger, who reported on the latest batch of Twitter files Dec. 19, noted that “The FBI’s influence campaign may have been helped by the fact that it was paying Twitter millions of dollars for its staff time.”
An associate of former Twitter Deputy General Counsel James Baker told him and former Twitter General Counsel Sean Edgett in a February 2021 email: “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!” Baker was a prominent FBI figure that historically helped perpetuate the Russia-Trump collusion hoax.
Twitter owner Elon Musk about the implications of the funding: "Government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public."
Musk is lying, and so is Vazquez by extension. Actualfact-checkers pointed out that the FBI paid Twitter to fulfill document requests, not to "censor" anyone.
The stenography, and complains thatthose outside the right-wing media bubble weren't engaging in the same stenography, continued:
Gabriela Pariseau positively framed how "over 57 percent of respondents answered yes" to Musk's poll question about whether he should remain as Twitter CEO, declining to point out that it's a very public rejection of how Musk has run the company and instead uncritically repeating his statement that “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!"
When the FBI accurately pointed out that "conspiracy theorists" are spreading the false narrative that the agency paid Twitter to "censor" people, the MRC got mad about that too. Kevin Tober whined about the FBI being "defiant" while praising Fox News for pushing the narrative:
On Wednesday afternoon, the FBI released a defiant statement which denied any wrongdoing that was detailed in the latest Twitter Files which were made public this week by journalist Michael Shellenberger, who revealed that the FBI and Twitter colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. In the obnoxious statement, the FBI proved the contempt they have for average Americans concerned with tyrannical Big Tech censorship by calling them “conspiracy theorists.”
As they have with the Twitter Files, the three evening news broadcasts (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, & NBC Nightly News) ignored the FBI’s nasty statement. Instead, the three networks obsessed over local weather reports and former President Donald Trump’s taxes.
During Fox News Channel’s Special Report, correspondent Lucas Tomlinson reported how “FBI officials confirm the agency paid Twitter nearly $3.5 million. Money critics say was used to help suppress information, including The New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story.”
Tober called this "bias by omission," though he didn't explain how not reporting a false story could possibly be "bias."
Catherine Salgado similarly huffed in a Dec. 22 post:
Th FBI finally issued an official statement on revelations of its work with Big Tech to censor Americans in the Twitter Files. The explanation? The people reporting on the files are“conspiracy theorists.”
Recent installments of the Twitter Files revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) directly flagged content and accounts for Twitter to censor. But if you have a problem with documents exposing the federal government colluding with Big Tech to restrict free speech, then you are the problem, according to the FBI’s statement shared with Fox News. “It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency,” the FBI’s gaslighting statement railed.
Experts, including Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky, warned Fox that the FBI may have violated the First Amendment with its actions.
Von Spakovsky is not an "expert" -- he is a partisan activist who gets paid to peddle this bogus narrative -- meaning that he and Salgado, not the FBI, are the ones "gaslightling" people. And Salgado couldn't finish without pushing the bogus narrative again:
The FBI apparently sees no issue with its censorship efforts that were happening behind the scenes. “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public,” the FBI’s statement continued. It’s unclear how the FBI could try to gaslight the American people with a straight face given that the Twitter Files revealed that the Bureau paid the platform over $3.4 million through a “reimbursement” program for helping its censorship efforts. One of the Twitter accounts that the FBI flagged for the platform was the American-based, right-leaning Right Side Broadcasting Network.
Actually, Right Side Broadcasating is a highly biased, rabidly pro-Trump channel, and it's weird that Salgado made a big deal out of the fchannel being "American-based" -- as if the non-right-wing networks the MRC loves to bash are not. And Salgado censored the fact that there's no evidence that FBI ordered Twitter to "censor" anything.
And MRC boss Brent Bozell ran to Fox Business, where he knows his talking points will never be challenged, to add his two cents:
Locked and loaded Thursday morning on the Fox Business Network’s Varney & Co., Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell told fill-in host David Asman that the FBI “disinformation” in a statement smearing the Twitter Files with it having been “none of [their] damn” business to suppress the New York Post’s Hunter Biden reporting.
Asman explained in the lead-in that the FBI responded to the Twitter Files by insisting they give “critical information to the private sector...to allow them to protect themselves” and that it’s “unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
If Congress wanted to “do its job,”Bozell replied, they’d investigate Twitter and “look at that statement...because that was classic disinformation.”
Bozell then noted the importance of the FBI’s role in suppressing the spread of the original Post story in having allowed the media to steal the 2020 election:
That's yet another reference to the MRC's election fraud conspiracy theory fueled by polls it bought from Trump's 2020 election pollster and the polling firm founded by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. Of course, given the highly selective nature of the documents Musk has released, one can easily argue that he and Bozell are the ones spreading disinformation.
CNS Followed MRC Parent In Gushing Over Musk's Purchase of Twitter Topic: CNSNews.com
We'vedocumented how CNSNews.com echoed its Media Research Center parent's early enthusiasm for Elon Musk purchasing Twitter and memory-holing its previous criticism of him, which devolved into gushing over every public utterance by Musk as a state statement. As Musk wavered on buying Twitter over the summer, CNS' interest in him dwindled, doing only one story on him, a July 27 piece touting how Musk snarked "bon voyage" to Russia's plans to exit the International Space Station.
In the meantime, however, CNS' (and the MRC's) anti-Twitter narratives were still operative -- as were the corporate narrative that there is no such thing as an objective definition of misinformation -- which explains an Aug. 11 article by Craig Bannister attacking Twitter's plans to fight misinformation:
On Thursday, Twitter announced “Our Approach to the 2022 U.S. Midterms,” detailing its plan to suppress some speech regarding the elections, and to advance other narratives it deems acceptable.
Specifically, Twitter says it is will be using “prebuttals” to “get ahead” of political narratives it subjectively considers “misinformation” - and “proactively” promote other speech it endorses:
Twitter will also actively suppress and denounce comments of some of those who question the legitimacy or results of elections, the announcement says:
“The Civic Integrity Policy covers the most common types of harmful misleading information about elections and civic events, such as: claims about how to participate in a civic process like how to vote, misleading content intended to intimidate or dissuade people from participating in the election, and misleading claims intended to undermine public confidence in an election – including false information about the outcome of the election.”
When Twitter sees a tweet it considers “misleading” or “false,” it will suppress and label the tweet and prevent it from being liked or shared in order to “prevent the spread” of speech it doesn’t like:
Bannister offered no evidence that pre-Musk Twitter's definition of "acceptable" speech it "endorses" involved anything beyond allowing facts and discouraging lies and misinformation. He also did not explain why any attack on "the legitimacy or results of elections" should be allowed to stand if it's based on falsehoods and misinformation.
After Musk finally agreed to buy Twitter at the terms he originally agreed to, Bannister fed a conspiracy theory in an Oct. 5 article:
Following Tuesday’s news that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s original offer to buy Twitter had been accepted by both parties to the deal, prominent conservatives began tweeting complaints that they had suddenly lost thousands of followers on the giant social media platform.
Conservatives have long attributed sudden, massive, loses of followers to a Twitter “purge” of right-of-center voices. But, on Tuesday, many added the theory that Twitter has begun deleting “bots,” automated accounts passed off as accounts managed by humans. The contention that bots have inflated the number of users accounts on Twitter, and thus, Twitter’s value, had been a major sticking point in Musk’s purchase deal.
When Musk ultimateluy closed on his Twitter purchase, intern Laruen Shank spent an Oct. 27 article gushing over it, uncritically quoting Musk self-aggrandizing claim that he didn't buy Twitter “because it would be easy. I didn’t do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love. And I do so with humility, recognizing that failure in pursuing this goal, despite our best efforts, is a very real possibility."
There was also an agenda item in the form of a Nov. 7 article from Patrick Goodenough complaining that certain people have yet to be "censored" by Twitter: "Amid concern in mostly liberal quarters that Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will amplify harmful content, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday again used the platform – as he has done for years – to spread anti-America sentiment to his well over one million followers."
A Nov. 15 article by Bannister helped CNS complete its Musk flip-flop by attacking President Biden for pointing that Musk's foreign entanglements are worth monitoring (while falsely claiming that Biden was demanding an investigation):
“It has nothing to do with national security,” former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe says of President Joe Biden’s call for Elon Musk to be investigatedas a national security threat because the billionaire owner of SpaceX acquired Twitter.
“Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate, I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that it’s worth being looked at,” President last week, when asked by a reporter if Musk should be investigated as a national security threat now that he has purchased Twitter.
“What the hell’s going on here?” Host Dan Bongino asked Ratcliffe in an interview Saturday on “Unfiltered,” noting that, in America, “We don’t investigate people in search of crimes; we investigate crimes in search of people.”
“That’s absolutely right, Dan. And, you’re right: I do have an informed view on this,” the former Director of National Intelligence for the Trump Administration agreed. “This is clearly personal. This is clearly political. It has absolutely nothing to do with national security.”
“And, it does have everything to do with weaponizing the national security apparatus for political reasons,” Ratcliffe said, explaining that the Biden Administration has shared some of the nation’s most sensitive technologies with Musk and given him billions of dollars of contracts over the past year:
Bannister cheered Musk's restoration of the Twitter account of the right-wing "satire" site Babylon Bee in a Nov. 18 article, while intern Peyton Holliday gushed that "entrepreneur and business magnate" Musk advanced the current right-wing obsession with hating investments that focus on environmental, social and governmental issues by declaring that "ESG is the devil." Bannister returned for a Nov. 29 article again pushing the idea that any claim of misinformation is inherently subjective:
Billionaire Elon Musk’s recently-purchased Twitter has ended enforcement of its controversial, subjectively-enforced policy of censoring and suspending accounts posting COVID-19 comments and claims.
“Effective November 23, 2022, Twitter is no longer enforcing the COVID-19 misleading information policy,” Twitter declares on its “Transparency” page.
Prior to Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, and his subsequent promise to open it up to free speech, the behemoth social media platform had come under fire for punishing accounts for posting content that challenged liberal claims, mandates, shutdowns and policies regarding the coronavirus pandemic.
In April, when Musk joined Twitter’s board of directors after purchasing a 9.2% stake in the company, physician and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has led the charge to refute false COVID narratives promoted by the Biden Administration, expressed optimism that Musk’s commitment to free speech would improve the platform.
Bannister offered no evidence of how pre-Musk misinformation policies were "subjectively-enforced," and he hid the fact that Musk had been suspending accounts that made fun of him, putting significant doubt about his purported "commitment to free speech."
MRC's Vazquez Still Laughably Thinks George Soros Dictates Wikipedia Articles Topic: Media Research Center
We documented how the Media Research Center's Joseph Vazquez is under the bizarre delusion that Wikipedia accepting money from George Soros means it also takes dictation and editorial direction from him -- which completely ignores the fact that users write and edit Wikipedia articles, not Soros or even what paid editors Wikipedia has. He clearly remains under that delusion, as demonstrated in a Dec. 18 post that advance the MRC's hypocritical glee that Elon Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of several journalists:
Leftists at the George Soros-funded Wikipedia attempted to paint the elitist journalists who shared the real-time flight location information of Twitter owner Elon Musk as victims of a “massacre.”
Yes, you read that right.
A Wikipedia article was published with a babbling headline that needed no explanation: “Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter).” The article’s logic was just pure nonsense: “The ‘Thursday Night Massacre’ is a term that refers to the December 15, 2022, account suspension of several high-profile journalists from the Twitter platform.” The article mourned: “At least nine journalists who covered the social media company and its owner, Elon Musk, were all suspended without warning. This included ‘reporters’ Keith Olbermann, Steven L. Herman, and Donie O'Sullivan, and journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and The Intercept.” Soros committed at least $2 million to Wikipedia in 2018.
Vazquez is apparently too young to understand what metaphors are, or to know that the term is actually an allusion to the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre," in which President Nixon order the attorney general to fire the special prosecutorlooking into the Watergate scandal (he and his chief deputy resigned rather than do so, leaving the third in command, future failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, to do the dirty work).
Vazquez also uncritically quoted Musk saying that "They posted my exact real-time location, basically assassination coordinates, in (obvious) direct violation of Twitter terms of service." As we've noted, Musk had previously promised never to censor the Twitter account that tracked Musk's plane, to which the journalists were referencing (which hardly makes them "elitist," as Vazquez claims). Ironically, a couple days later, Musk tweeted out his own assassination coordinates by posting a real-time photo of himself at the World Cup final in Qatar; Vazquez and the other boys at the MRC were completely silent about that.
Vazquez concluded by ranting:
The irony is that Soros said at the time of his endowment to Wikipedia that his gift “represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge—and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world.” Apparently the “ideals” Soros’ Wikipedia funding supports are only those that cater to leftist propaganda.
Remember, Vazquez is the MRC's current point man in its dirty waragainst Soros. Vazquez is obviously so consumed with irrational hatred of Soros that he doesn't understand that its Wikipedia articles are written by website users, not Soros himself.
WND's Lively Rejects White Supremacism -- But Only As A Purported 'Elite' Plot Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Scott Lively may be an unapologetic Putin-lover and in serious denial about the anti-Semitism of Gab founder Andrew Torba, but it turns out there are some right-wing extremists he won't embrace -- albeit in his own weird, conspiratorial way. His Dec. 9 column didn't start out that way at first, serving up his version of right-wing arguments against civil rights reforms:
The problem of racism continues, not for the lack of Christian ethics among whites in racial matters, but because the "elites" have always embraced the slave-master mentality and have cynically used the very "civil rights" machinery ostensibly designed to solve the problems to instead deliberately perpetuate them. After almost a century of floundering and piecemeal stopgap measures, they recreated the old plantation-system in LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, using government largess to lure blacks into liberty-negating government dependency where they became the crop rather than the field hands: each one a cash cow to facilitate the transfer of federally collected tax revenues from vast centralized "entitlement" reservoirs to elite-managed overseers in the big cities. All for the purpose of creating and funding massive armies of entitlement-dispensing election-controlling foot-soldiers called public-employee unions.
And, to ensure that blacks never collectively broke free from the dependency system, the elites kept them centralized in the inner-cities, destabilized their families in numerous ways, sabotaged any meaningful entrepreneurial success among them, indoctrinated their children with every leftist narrative and ensured that the fire of resentment against white people was always kept smoldering in their hearts. Racism in America today is coming mostly from blacks against whites – intentionally stoked by Critical Race Theory and other polarizing tactics.
He then weirdly and without evidence portrayed right-wing extremists as secret government agents designed to justify alleged left-wing extremism:
But the most important secret weapon in this strategy is the exploitation/manufacture of white resentment against elite-sponsored/directed black thuggery and destructiveness. The key to elite control is hyper-polarization among the "common" people. Marxist radicalism always grows its own opposition to have an enemy to point to, to justify its rage: a "Proud Boys" for every "Antifa," if you will. When the commoners fail to produce a counterpoint of their own, one is created for them by the FBI or whatever other social-engineering asset is best suited to the task. In the "gay marriage" wars I always suspected Fred Phelps was a government "agent provocateur" sent out to incite public outrage against the pro-family movement by protesting the funerals of war heroes with "God Hates Fags" signs. In Charlottesville (the blueprint for J6) it was tiki-torch-bearing, Trump-costumed "Antifa" assets fabricating evidence of "white supremacy."
It's through that lens that Lively denounced white supremacist Nick Fuentes -- not because white supremicism is bad, mind you, but because he justifies liberal criticism of right-wing extremism (and, since Lively is a homophobe, that Fuentes leans a bit to much into neo-Nazi homoeroticism as hyped in Lively's discredited book "The Pink Swastika"):
In the Current Act of the continuing stage play, I suspect Nick Fuentes and Jared Taylor (whom I just learned about this week) are also assets of the elites (wittingly or not). I actually caught Fuentes' performance at the "Gathering of the MAGA Tribes" in D.C. on Dec. 12, 2020. Being very familiar (by virtue of co-writing "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party") with how Nazi propaganda was facilitated by vaguely homoerotic visual imagery in the 1920 and '30s, I was literally shocked to encounter what looked to me like a deliberate re-staging of a particular infamous Nazi poster with Hitler (reenacted by Fuentes) addressing an adoring all-male flock of acolytes packed tightly around him like sardines. And what I heard Fuentes shouting, with all the passion and charisma of Der Fuehrer, was a string of borderline white-supremacist platitudes.
What most bothered me was that Fuentes was literally and blatantly vindicating the accusations of the left against the MAGA movement, and that struck me as intentional, and thus Obiden-orchestrated. That hypothesis and the whiff of a potential homoerotic undercurrent in Fuentes' network was partially vindicated in the recent (joint venture?) sabotage of President Trump by self-declared "ex-gay" (but still "gay" acting) Milo Yiannopoulos, using Fuentes and Kanye West as either allies or props.
Thankfully, Fuentes was only a small sideshow in the wild carnival atmosphere on 12/12, where tens of thousands of MAGA faithful from every conceivable constituency flowed and swirled like white-water rapids around both the several officially planned and the many spontaneous mini-rallies all over the Washington Mall and its environs – none of which echoed Fuentes' themes (except a suspicious-seeming speech-maker at the Proud Boys stage the members there didn't seem to know).
My point here is that the MAGA faithful need to carefully guard ourselves against the temptation to join the "right-wing" polar extreme that is characterized by blaming "the Jews" or "the blacks" collectively as the problem because that is just another "Whitmer trap" of the elites – used to justify the violence and cancel culture of the left, and to prevent the empowering unification of the conservative/populist Jews, blacks and whites against the elites themselves.
Lively's claim that he only just now "learned about" Jared Taylor strains credulity because the white supremacist has been a fixture on the fringe right (where Lively operates) for decades -- we first wrote about him in 2003. And that "Whitmer trap" is apparent reference to the right-wing extremist kidnapping plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which right-wingers blame not on the extremists but on FBI agents who infiltrated the plot. But as one judge pointed out, it's hard to entrap people already eager to commit a crime.
MRC Parrots Bogus Election-Denier Attack On Ariz. Election Official Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center dabbled in election denierism by hyping right-wing claims that the midterm election vote in Arizona may be fraudulent because it took so long to count the votes (which was actually due in large part to mail-in ballots being delivered to polling place on the day of the election because of right-wing scaremonging about mail-in ballots). It did further dabbling when Catherine Salgado took dictation directly from a discredited Trump lawyer in a Dec. 14 post:
Maricopa County, Arizona’s County Recorder Stephen Richer asked the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for help censoring alleged election “misinformation,” according to a tweet by 2024 Trump campaign attorney Christina Bobb.
Pro-censorship ex-Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde also attended the meeting, endorsing government-tech collusion to “pre-bunk” so-called “misinformation,” according to the tweet’s screenshot.
Christina Bobb tweeted on Dec. 7, “Well look at what we found!! Turns out @CISAgov has been collaborating with Maricopa County @stephen_richer to censor election information and keeping it from the public.” The document she shared had a CISA heading and was marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.”
The document recorded what Richer and the CISA Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation and Disinformation Subcommittee discussed during a March 29 meeting.
The tweeted CISA document shows that Richer described supposed mis-, dis-, and malinformation online and asked CISA to help in five areas. According to the document, the five areas included were:
“- Educate the public and determine how people are manipulating the public’s understanding of the truth;
“– Funding and resources;
“– Intelligence and metrics;
“– Partnership with social media; and
“– Share best practices on pre-bunking.”
That means, per the document, Maricopa’s recorder asked the federal government to partner with social media to recommend censoring election-related content he deemed “misinformation,” “disinformation” or “malinformation.”
So Salgado is back to insisting that misinformation cannot possibly be objective. And she and Bobb are objectively misinforming people about the nature of that meeting; as one writer pointed out, Richer and other officials "were trying to prevent outright lies from being used to try to undermine democracy. Again, that is. As usual, Salgado doesn't explain why lies and misinformaton should never be countered with facts, even though she works for an organizaiton that spends millions of dollars a year claiming to do exactly that by calling it "bias."
Salgado huffed that Richer "previously 'started a Super PAC' to prevent so-called 'election deniers' from taking office, according to Bobb." Which is true -- but Salgado doesn't explain why this is a bad thing. Shouldn't people who spread election lies and misinformation be kept out of political office?
Salgado further complained:
Twitter’s ex-general counsel Vijaya Gadde, who pushed Twitter to ban former President Donald Trump despite no violation of platform rules, recommended that social media work with election boards to remove “false information.”
Gadde added praise for the “effectiveness of pre-bunking on Twitter,” noting that pre-bunk efforts caused a decrease in supposed “false information” online, the document showed. Gadde and Richer then agreed that censorship needs to occur within 24 hours of posting. The subcommittee recommended pre-bunking to encourage state and local officials to “release accurate information” on the handling of elections “prior to misinformation and disinformation campaigns.”
Richer cited the 2020 election as a learning experience for media in the meeting, noting as one challenge that some media outlets are “not open to government feedback.” The Media Research Center previously found that Big Tech and media censorship of the now-verified Hunter Biden scandals helped steal the 2020 election for Joe Biden.
To be fair, nobody thought a sitting president would try to incite an insurrection because he couldn't mentally handle the fact that he lost. And that MRC finding that the election was stolen from Trump is based on polls the MRC bought from Trump's 2020 election pollster and a polling firm founded by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, so it should be treated as the partisan, biased narrative that it is.
Salgado also huffed:
Bobb also tweeted on Dec. 4 that Democrat Arizona Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs’s office had asked Twitter to have “posts removed.” Bobb said in the tweet that Hobbs “ran the AZ election, censored her political opponents, disrupted Election Day votes, and then threatened counties with prosecution if they didn’t declare her the winner.”
As we documented when WorldNetDaily regurgitated this talking point, the posts Hobbs requested to be taken dow ntook place months before she even entered the race for governor and involved the objective falsehood that Arizona's voter registration system is controlled by foreigners; again, Salgado doesn't explain why such a falsehood shouldn't be countered. Further, the secretary of state's role in certifying elections is largely ceremonial, and those counties brought threats of prosecution by refusing to certify the election -- not just Hobbs' victory but the entire election -- by a longstanding state-mandated deadline.
Salgado concluded by whining that media outlets pointing out that social media was serving again as a conduit for election misinformation was "propaganda" -- even though she herself had just peddled propaganda by uncritically promoting a Twitter post filled with misinformation without bothering to fact-check it first.
The monthly job numbers have been so consistently good that they haven't been doing the hoped-for trick of making President Biden look bad, forcing CNSNews.com to fall on its usual trick when a Democrat is president to cherry-pick the numbers. That meant CNS had to find something else to keep up its narrative, and Craig Bannister found that for a Dec. 19 article:
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has revised the number of new jobs created in the second quarter of 2022 down by more than a million, prompting a Bloomberg market expert to issue a warning.
In its Q2 Vintage Early Benchmark Revisions of State Payroll Employment released last Tuesday, the Philadelphia Fed reports that actual job growth was “significantly” different than the number reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):
On Monday, Bloomberg Senior Editor for Markets and Opinion Columnist John Authers characterized the revision as a “startling finding ” that could prompt the Federal Reserve to continue to raise interest rates:
Because that number was too good to look into further, Bannister didn't report what other observers noted, that the Philly Fed's metric is new and untested, seasonality is not fully accounted for, and that private secotor numbers did not show a dramatic employment slowdown for that period.
Even then, the jobs numbers continued to prove too strong for CNS to effectively spin. Even Susan Jones' favorite cherry-picked number, the labor force participation rate, looked good enough that she led with it in her main article on December's employment numbers:
Reversing recent declines, the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work increased slightly to 62.3 percent in December, up one-tenth of a point from November, and four basis points higher than the 61.9 percent in December 2021.
In its final report for 2022, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics counted a record 159,244,000 employed Americans in December, an increase of 717,000 from last month's 158,527,000 (revised number); and the number of Americans counted as not in the labor force dropped below the hundred million level to 99,879,000.
Despite higher interest rates, the economy added a strong 230,000 jobs in December, above expectations of 200,000. Notable job gains occurred in leisure and hospitality, health care, construction, and social assistance.
Along with the record number of employed Americans, the number of unemployed -- no job but actively looking -- dropped by 278,000 to 5,722,000 last month, producing an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent, one-tenth of a point lower than it was in November.
The only sidebar this month was editor Terry Jeffrey's counting of manufacturing jobs, and even he couldn't spin things: "There were 12,934,000 people employed in the U.S. manufacturing sector in December 2022, which is more than in any month since November 2008, when there were 13,034,000 people in this country employed in manufacturing."
WND Still Annoyed That Capitol Riot Is Called An Insurrection Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long tried to downplay theseverity of the Capitol riot. The latest attempt came in a Dec. 16 article by Bob Unruh complaining that the riot is being called an "insurrection" and that Donald Trump might be held accountable for his actions in fomenting it:
Outside of fairly extreme rhetoric from Democrats, President Trump has never been accused of "insurrection," much less convicted.
Nevertheless, Democrats are intent on characterizing his reaction to the anomalous 2020 election results and his concerns that the election was stolen – as well as his response to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, as the actions of an "insurrectionist."
Which, they say, means he never can hold any public office again. Ever.
Breitbart reports 41 House Democrats filed a bill that would bar Trump, and they claim for their effort support from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Mainstream media and Democrats repeatedly have insisted that it was an insurrection, and that President Trump was its leader. But they have to argue that to support their claim he should be disqualified from holding office.
Unruh referred to an August article by Art Moore touting a Harvard studyclaiming to examine the reasons for the riot:
WND also reported on a Harvard study that said those protesters "motivated by loyalty to President Trump" actually "were not attempting to carry out an insurrection."
Mainstream media and Democrats repeatedly have insisted that it was an insurrection, and that President Trump was its leader. But they have to argue that to support their claim he should be disqualified from holding office.
The Harvard study was based on court documents from 417 of the more than 800 defendants prosecuted for the riot, the Harvard Crimson said in a report spotlighted by Just the News.
"The folks with QAnon T-shirts, and signs, and flags were so prominently displayed in much of the visual imagery that came out of the Capitol attack," said Kaylee Fagan, one of the authors of the study.
"So we expected to see more QAnon-related concepts come through in the documents."
The study showed fewer than 8% said they wanted to start a civil war or armed insurrection.
That doesn't excuse the riot, no matter how much Unruh thinks it does.
Unruh whined further that the House committee on the riot was holding Trump accountable for his actions in a Dec. 19 article, which additionally framed the committee as "partisan" and "activisdt":
A partisan committee set up by soon-to-be-replaced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to review the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, and essentially find ways to blame President Trump, has released its report.
And to no one's surprise it insists that the Department of Justice should review charges against President Donald Trump, including make a false statement, defrauding the U.S., conspiracy and inciting insurrection.
The Washington Examiner reported that at this point the recommendations are considered largely "meaningless" by legal experts, as the committee is expected to be dissolved as soon as the GOP becomes the majority in the House in just weeks.
Unruh didn't dispute any of the committee's findings despite his attack on it, preferring to quibble over words instead:
Democrats have been harping on the riot, describing it as an "insurrection" although it was more or less a riot, ever since it happened. That's because a conviction for insurrection would prevent Trump from ever being in office again – one of the major goals of the entire Democrat party [sic].
At no point in either article does Unruh deny that Trump played a key role in fomenting the riot.