MRC Continues Its PR Work For Musk Topic: Media Research Center
Because the Media Research Center is a PR agent for Elon Musk, it's not going to tell you about the repeated outages on the site since he fired most of its employees, or that he publicly mocked a disabled employee who wasn't sure if he still had a job (he was eventually shamed into apologizing to the guy and inviting him to keep working for Twitter). And it's certainly not going to tell you that anti-Semitic content on Twitter has increased since he bought the platform. Butthere was another "Twitter files" selective release to tout, and Catheroine Salgado did the PR duties in a March 17 post:
Twitter actually censored true content to protect trust in supposed “authoritative sources” like ex-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, according to installment nineteen of The Twitter Files.
Journalist Matt Taibbi exposes in what he called “The Great Covid-19 Lie machine,” which consisted of a combination of tyrannical government agencies, Stanford University’s Virality Project (VP) “and a slew of (often state-funded) NGOs” monitoring social media companies to censor COVID-19 content. These groups worked, often in a concerted effort, to suppress content that promoted natural immunity, critiqued the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine passports and that pointed out breakthrough cases in those that had received COVID-19 vaccinations. Some of the content that was censored not only turned out to be true in retrospect, but was admittedly determined to be true by the very groups involved in suppressing the content. As Taibbi put it, “The [Virality P]roject's central/animating concept was, ‘You can't handle the truth.’”
“The level of hubris from those involved in the ‘Great Covid-19 Lie Machine’ is stunning,” stated MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “The idea that anyone, let alone a university and government officials, would knowingly suppress information regarding the health and safety of Americans is beyond the pale.”
Neither Taibbi nor Salgado mentioned that promoting "natural immunity" -- read: catching COVID and hope it didn't kill you -- was dangerous at a time when vaccines were not widespread and that COVID was still powerful and widespread enough that was killing thousands of people a day.
Also much more newsworthy at the MRC than system and personnel issues at Twitter is that Musk is now responding to press inquries wit a poop emoji. Luis Cornelio gushed in a March 20 post under the immature headline "Elon Musk Takes Dump on Media":
Twitter owner Elon Musk has found a new way to troll his opponents in the liberal media with a healthy dose of toilet humor.
It’s not a question that Musk has been subject to relentless liberal media hit jobs after voicing support for fair and free speech on Twitter. Musk unveiled a funny joke to get back at leftist reporters and Twitter users can bet that it will be a smelly situation for the press: automatic poop emoji responses to media inquiries.
Musk announced the auto-responses to press inquiries in a Mar. 19 tweet. “press@twitter.com now auto responds with 💩,” tweeted Musk.
Salgado hyped another suck-up to Musk in a March 23 post:
Popular podcaster Joe Rogan bashed legacy media and praised independent journalists in a recent show. The Twitter Files is one of the biggest exclusive series in America now, broken by independent journalists.
Independent Substack journalist The Vigilant Fox shared a clip of Joe Rogan on his verified Twitter account March 21. In the clip, Joe Rogan praised independent journalists and slammed “mainstream media” as beholden to advertising revenue and the companies that provide the revenue.
Salgado still hasn't figured out that if writers like Taibbi were hand-picked by Musk and are reporting only what Musk allows them to, they're not "independent journalists."
Renata Kiss used a March 30 post to take a gentle shot at Donald Trump for not immediately returning to Twitter after Musk reinstated his account:
As the 2024 elections heat up, former President Donald Trump didn’t shy away from endorsing the prowess of his own social media platform over Elon Musk’s contentious Twitter.
On the Tuesday edition of Hannity on Fox News, Trump gushed about the success of his social media platform Truth Social, while he seemed to drag his feet on using Twitter again.
“I love Truth (Social). I think Truth is incredible,” he said. “It’s up, I think, 389 percent, it’s the hottest thing there is.” When asked if he would ever go back on Twitter, the former president replied, “Well, we’ll talk about that at some point. Now I use Truth (Social), although they want me back on Twitter desperately,” he said.
Kiss didn't mention that Truth Social is not, in fact, successful as a business, having trouble paying its bills and is being kept afloat only through the good graces of pro-Trump billionaires. She also didn't mention that the main reason Trump has not returned to Twitter is because he's contractually obligated to post his musings at Truth Social first and can't repost them elsewhere until six hours later.
Instead of telling her readers the full truth, she complained that "During the tumultuous 2020 elections, Twitter permanently suspended President Trump’s Twitter account in 2021 dubiously claiming that he helped incite the Jan. 6, Capitol Hill riot." In fact, there's nothing at all "dubious" about the claim -- the evidence Trump incited the riot is pretty clear.
CNS Attacks Biden Over Policy Change To Allow ESG Investments Topic: CNSNews.com
Earlier in the year, CNSNews.com -- which has been dutifully taking part in the current right-wing obsession du jour over hating investments that take environmental, social and governmental issues into consideration -- freaked out when the Biden administration rolled back a Trump mandate restricting ESG investments. As Republicans pushed a resolution through Congress opposing the rollback, Craig Bannister dutifully hyped it in a Feb. 28 article:
On Monday, President Joe Biden vowed to veto a joint resolution working its way through Congress this week that would nullify the administration’s recent rule allowing retirement and pension fund managers to choose investments based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.
Under federal ERISA law, asset managers have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients to base investment decisions on their expected financial profitability alone, but a Labor Department rule that went into effect last month now gives fund managers the freedom to pick investments based on anticipated ESG benefits, as well.
Bannister hyped the "bipartisan" votes the next day:
On Wednesday, the Senate followed the House in passing a joint resolution to nullify a recent Biden Administration rule that allows asset managers to prioritize less-profitable ideological causes over profit maximization when investing their clients’ retirement funds.
Biden’s Labor Department rule had freed managers of retirement account and pension funds from their fiduciary responsibility to consider only profitability, so that they could put their clients’ money in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investments yielding lower returns with higher fees.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 30) passed the Senate by a four-vote margin, with the help of two Democrat senators, Townhall reports:
[...]
On Tuesday, H.J. Res. 30 passed the House, on a bipartisan of 216-204 – the same day that the White House released a statement promising that President Joe Biden intends to veto the measure.
Bannister failed in both articles to disclose that the Biden policy change simply reverts investment policies to pre-Trump standards.
CNS also cranked out stenography articles quoting Republican politicians over the ESG policy change that didn't allow anyone to rebut them:
When Biden did indeed veto that resolution, Bannister whined about it in a March 20 article:
On Monday, President Joe Biden issued his first presidential veto, in objection to a bipartisan Congressional joint resolution nullifying his administration’s rule freeing asset managers to invest their clients’ retirement savings in political causes, rather than in the most profitable investments.
“[T]his resolution [joint resolution H.J. Res. 30] would prevent retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns,” Biden wrote Monday in his “Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res 30.”
[...]
Biden posted a snarky tweet celebrating his veto on Monday, in which he derided the joint resolution as a product of House Republicans who want to “make America great again” (MAGA), such as firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), and claimed that politically-motivated ESG investments, somehow, “protect your hard-earned savings”:
“I just vetoed my first bill.
“This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don't like.
“Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not.”
Note that Bannister falsely put words in Biden's mouth -- hedidn't call ESG investments "politically-motivated."
In none of these articles, by the way, is it explained why Americans should be prohibited from investing their money the way they choose, given that personal freedom is something right-wingers like the folks who run CNS are supposed to be in favor of.
MRC: New Peter Pan Film Is Insufficiently White And Male Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Philbin huffed in a March 2 Media Research Center post:
There's serious dry rot in the House of Mouse.
Once upon a time, everything Walt Disney touched turned to gold. These days, everything his namesake company touches turns to garbage. Disney announced 7,000 layoffs last month. They didn’t come in time to avert the live-action remake of “Peter Pan,” the company is inflicting on the culture in April.
The “Peter Pan and Wendy” trailer is getting torn apart on social media. Gone all multicultural and with The Lost Boys now including girls (which the trailer makes a point of shoving it in viewers faces), this was predictable.
Philbin didn't explain why any of this was a bad thing, or why all cast members must be white. You'd think he'd be happy that Peter Pan is played by a male actor, something that rarely happens in film. Instead, he quoted an anonymous right-wing tweeter whining that the boy playing Peter Pan is "Indian" (actually, he was born in Britain). And "shoving it in viewers faces" is a bizarre way for Philbin to describe showing something in a trailer that exists in the film, though he never explains why having girls among the Lost Boys is a inherently horrible. Philbin also quoted tweeters whining that Tinkerbell is black -- which, like Peter Pan's purported ethnicity, is irrelevant to the story.
Philbin conclude by ranting; "Mercifully, Disney lost 2.4 million streaming service subscribers last year, so there are that man fewer people to suffer through this dreck. First star on the left and straight 'til bankruptcy!": Philbin doesn't explain why a film with too many non-white people must be considered "dreck" and a reason an entire filmmaking company must be destroyed -- or why we shouldn't consider him a racist for promoting such attitudes.
WND Columnist Lashes Out Against Evolution Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Richard Blakley -- a fervent believer in the Big Lie about election fraud in 2020 -- has been on an anti-evolution tear of late. In his Feb. 17 column, he argued evolution can't be real because nobody has ever observed it, then argued that Charles Darwin was a racist because of the title of his book advancing the idea of natural selection:
Now, I understand that staunch evolutionist grab on to Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species," but did you know that that is not the entire title of the book? Why do they never mention the entire title?
Let's look at the title of Darwin's book and see what we can learn. Darwin's book in entitled, "On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."
Oh, so the book is really about the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Surely, no one would consider this book a racist book, would they? Well, Darwin did. He is quoted as saying, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man," chapter 3, and World Book Encyclopedia 1952, p. 336)
Let me see, what else was popular in 1859 when Darwin's racist book was published? Oh yeah, now I remember. It was slavery. Darwin's book was used as a justification for slavery and has been used ever since to justify "ethnic cleansing" and Hitler's thoughts behind creating an Aryan race.
As someone who has actually studied Darwin has noted, the term "favored races" was added to the title by Darwin's publisher, John Murray, and was a synonym for variety or breed, not an explicit reference to skin color in humans. (Note Blakey's sleight of hand in skipping to a Darwin book published 12 years later to attempt to tar "The Origin of Species" as racist.)
Blakley concluded by huffing: "So if evolution is not science, why is it being taught as such? If people are taught they are simply evolved animals, why would you expect them to act different from an animal? On the other hand, if people are taught they are made in the image of God, and God has had a plan for their life since before the foundation of the world, the mindset is totally different, with much different results."
In his Feb. 24 column, Blakley began by talking about his previous column as if he had not written it, obtusely stating that "In a recent column at WND it was shown that evolution does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, nor does it even fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis." He then tried to argue that believing in evolution is heresy against religion: "Perhaps through receiving the religion of evolution, and denying the Word of God, people are also being 'willing ignorant' – concerning the heresy of evolution."
Blakley pulled the same non-atribution stunt in his March 9 column:
In recent articles published by WND, it was shown that the idea of evolution is not a "scientific theory," nor is it a "scientific hypothesis," and it is "heresy" by definition of these terms and, therefore, should not be force fit into the teachings of "Holy Writ."
Blakley didn't explain why he wouldn't tell readers he wrote those pieces and that they are opinion columns and not just "articles." Instead, his goal here was to tar evolution because it may "lead to racist beliefs and end up with racist actions," going Godwin and then some:
Vladimir Lenin, a disciple of Marx, led Soviet Russia from 1917 until 1924. Following the evolution-influenced teachings of Marx and Darwin, Lenin killed between 100,000 and 500,000 people in mass executions as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Josef Stalin studied at a theological college, but became an atheist after reading Darwin's book. Implementing Darwin's evolutionary teaching, he decided there was no basis for conscience or morals, and led the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, killing over 20 million people in ethnic cleansing.
Adolf Hitler "formed racial and social policies based upon evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and superiority of certain 'favored races' (as stated in the subtitle of Darwin's book)." Hitler is responsible for the "murder of 6 million Jews, many blacks, gypsies, and other groups deemed unfit to live."
Chairman Mao Zedong of China regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favorite authors. During the 1949 Communist takeover of China, Christians were executed at the rate of 15,000 per month, murdering approximately 60 million people. Missionaries who survived stated when the Communists took over schools, they did not teach communism, but instead, they were teaching evolution ("Creation," vol.18, no. 1, p. 9).
Blakley's source for much of this is a religious tract -- and, of course, this is nothing but guilt by association and character assassination. It also ignores the fact that Darwinism was officially rejected by the Soviet Union over the final 15 years of Stalin's rule (and its supporters purged) in favor of an offshoot promoted by Stalin-favored scientist Trofim Lysenko, whose theory was so egregiously wrong that it caused crop failures in the USSR for decades.
Blakey concluded by portraying the Columbine massacre as perpetrated by students adhering to Darwinian concepts:
Was it access to guns that was the core problem? While white supremacy is wrong, was that the core problem? Or was the core problem the taxpayer-funded, heretical, racist teaching of evolution that warped the minds of these young men, making them murderous, brute beasts who killed people they viewed as lower on the evolutionary scale?
I have an idea. If you truly want to "cancel" something that would make a positive difference for society, then "cancel" the racist, false-science, heretical, racist teaching of evolution. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Blakey didn't point out in any of Darwin's writings where he advocated for genocide.
MRC Baselessly Portrays Ranting White House Reporter As No Different Than Jim Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves Simon Ateba -- who works for a tiny website he founded called Today News Africa -- because he's their kind of jerk. Curtis Houck cheered how Ateba caused "chaos" during Jen Psaki's final briefing as White House press secretary with fits of "shouting" and "heckling," and he's still at it. A March 20 post by Houck insisted Ateba's antics are no worse than the tough questioning asked by Trump-era reporters:
Monday’s White House press briefing was unlike any other so far as Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba seized the spotlight and, seconds after ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stepped to the podium, began berating Jean-Pierre for allegedly not having called on him in seven months.
When he wouldn’t quiet down and let Jean-Pierre introduce the cast of Apple TV+’s Ted Lasso(who were there to promote mental health), other reporters got involved and it descended into a rather tense scene that would soon be repeated moments later.
One could argue the move harkened back to the days of liberal activists masquerading as journalists with Jim Acosta, Brian Karem, and April Ryan pitching daily hissy fits that left them financially enriched and subjects of puffball profiles. Of course, their juvenile outbursts were never met with apologies from the Associated Press or officers in the White House Correspondents Association.
Houck seems a little jealous of them for doing better than him. But as he documented Ateba's ranting, he offered no evidence whatsoever that it equated to anything Acosta (a longtimeenemy of the MRC because he refused to be the pro-Trump shill it demanded he be) and others did:
Once Ateba started shouting, Jean-Pierre clapped back: “No, no, no, no, no. No. Nope. That’s not — we’re not doing this. We’re not doing this. We’re not doing this. We’re not doing this.”
Ateba replied that she had been “dismissive against me” and “against some people in this Briefing Room," adding,“[T]his is the U.S. This not China. This not Russia. This not Russia.”
One reporter interjected to ask Ateba to “stop” while Karem had the irony to interject and asked him to “let her start.”
After Ateba shouted that Jean-Pierre was “making a mockery of the First Amendment,” more reporters started indiscernible shouting, but Karem could be heard demanding he “respect her” while NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell (vice president of the WHCA) repeatedly called for, “decorum, please.”
Ateba kept going, saying “[i]t’s been seven months you have not called on me. I’m saying that’s not right. That’s not right.”
Jean-Pierre turned to make a joke to the Ted Lasso cast that they had quite the “untimed welcome,” Ateba kept shouting: “I see you’re trying to censor me and some people, but that’s not right.”=
She asked if the room was “ready to behave,” but Ateba kept screaming, so NPR’s Tamara Keith (president of the WHCA) shouted, “Simon” while O’Donnell again asked for “decorum” and said she was “sorry to our guests.”
[...]
Ateba briefly relented to have Jean-Pierre offer a dressing down, reminding them that the “historic” Brady Briefing Room “should have decorum...where folks should respect their colleagues and respect...guests” even though there will “be give and take.”
“[W]hat I will not appreciate is disrespecting your colleagues and disrespecting guests who are here to talk...about an incredibly important issue, which is mental health. And what is just occurred...is unacceptable,” she added, leaving to more claims of “discrimination” from Ateba.
The next day, Nicholas Fondacaro rushed to Ateba's defense when the co-hosts of "The View" criticized his unprofessional behavior:
Following an explosive exchange between Today News Africa’s Simon Ateba and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday, the cast of ABC’s The View had their knives out Tuesday for the reporter as they took turns taking swipes in defense of a friend of the show. But in a series of tweets in near real-time, Ateba shot back and called them out for allegedly spreading big lies about stuff he didn’t write.
Suggesting Ateba was a “troll,” Whoopi Goldberg claimed “he does this all the time. This may be one of the reasons she doesn't call on him, because he can be combative.” And she scoffed at the idea that he might be right “about being ignored at the briefings.”
“You have to look at your behavior, sir. You have to look at your behavior because nobody wants to be jumped. Nobody wants to be jumped up there. The gig is tough enough,” she would later whine on Jean-Pierre’s behalf.
[...]
Hostin did suggest that Ateba was more legitimate than Peter Doocy since Fox News was “infotainment” in her eyes. And Behar decried him for going on Tucker Carlson’s show later that night. “He ran to Tucker Carlson right after this, so that tells you where he's at,” she chided.
The fact that Ateba ran to Tucker Carlson for his victory lap is another reason the MRC is defending him.
Tim Graham didn't quite defend Ateba in his March 22 column, but he did play the "he's just like Jim Acosta card":
The briefing room is usually a tank of hungry sharks for a Republican press secretary, and a classroom full of teacher’s pets for a Democrat press secretary. The news cycle has to be pretty negative for reporters to sound hostile to Biden’s press aides.
On March 20, black reporter Simon Ateba from an obscure website called “Today News Africa” began screaming at the very top of the briefing that current press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was not calling on him so he could ask his questions. Other reporters joined the fight, insisting Ateba press his complaints off camera.
There should be decorum at press briefings. The White House is not a place for egotistical shouting by reporters, no matter the outlet. But some people have thought they could secure fame and fortune by doing it. Ateba scored friendly interviews with Fox and Newsmax.
[...]
Before him, CNN’s Jim Acosta routinely yelled at President Trump, and was celebrated as heroic and was gushed over by Stephen Colbert. Acosta constantly suggested Trump would get journalists brutalized or killed, and wrote a self-congratulatory memoir titled The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.
In 2017, April Ryan squabbled with Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, and then she joined CNN as a political analyst. That year, she also was named “Journalist of the Year” by the National Association of Black Journalists.” This will never happen to Simon Ateba. She also wrote a self-promoting memoir titled Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House.
Brian Karem, who wrote about Trump for Playboy, also secured a political-analyst gig at CNN after yelling at Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So it was remarkable hypocrisy for Karem to scold Ateba about how this “isn’t just about you” and to “mind your manners.”
LIie Houck, Graham offered no evidence that Ateba's ranting are exactly the same as what Acosta, et al, did. Instead, he offered himself as a model of decorum in his brief attempt to pass himself off as a real repiorter:
I was a White House reporter in the first two years of President George W. Bush for World magazine, a Christian news weekly. I didn’t always get called on, but I never raised my voice, since that wouldn’t have reflected well on my employer. I resisted the temptation to ask press secretary Ari Fleischer naughty questions like “do you think Helen Thomas has become a crackpot?”
Of course, because he was "covering" a Republican administration -- that is, fluffing Bush and crew for a similarly biased audience -- Graham would never hae been so gauche as to ask an even remotely unfriendly question of Fleischer, which he proved by offering that the only critical question he would have asked involved attacking another reporter.
In other words, he was doing exactly what he accuses reporters with the "liberal media" of doing right now.That's a big reason to never take him and the MRC seriously in their "media research."
Newsmax Cranked Up Outrage Machine As Trump's Arraignment Arrived Topic: Newsmax
The freakout at Newsmax when Donald Trump was indiced on fraud charges (for real) continued as he the day of his arraignment approached. Trump flew to New York from Florida on March 3 for the arraignment, and Newsmax was cranking out attack and defense articles:
Surprisingly, there was also an wire article featuring newly announced Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson arguing that Trump should drop his 2024 candidacy over his instigating the Capitol riot.
On the day of the arraignment on April 4, Newsmax unsurprisingly went nuts with the attack-and-defend narrative:
Newsmax also published an article on how Trump "was awarded close to $122,000 in attorney fees from Stormy Daniels, the same porn star at the center of a hush money case that led to Trump's indictment in a Manhattan courtroom just a few hours earlier." But amid all the bias, Newsmax not only published a surprisingly balanced account of the arraignment itself (written even more surprisingly by Trump stenographer Eric Mack, with wire contributions) but it also actually slipped in a few largely straightforward stories on the indictment that day:
WND Spreads Lie That Pelosi Refused Trump's National Guard Aid Before Capitol Riot Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 2 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh begins with a lie:
Questions about why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused President Trump's offer of National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being raised – again – after a government report faulted a number of law enforcement agencies for allowing the riot to develop that day.
Pelosi, and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, refused Trump's offer of additional security that day – and hundreds of people rioted, some breaking into the Capitol to vandalize it and others walking past security guards who held doors open for them and taking selfies in the building.
As the conservative website the Dispatch reported:
The claim that Pelosi rejected Trump’s request for a National Guard presence on January 6 is false.
“The speaker of the House does not have the power to block an order from the commander in chief,” Drew Hammil, deputy chief of staff for Pelosi, told The Dispatch Fact Check via email. “This is fiction.”
Josh Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, similarly told The Dispatch Fact Check that “the speaker does not have control of any branch of the armed services.”
“The National Guard can only be activated by the president or a governor,” Huder added. “In the case of D.C., it can only be mobilized by the president of the United States.”
A statement from Ryan McCarthy, secretary of the Army under Donald Trump, on the “National Guard response to timing and coordination with other States,” does not mention Trump’s request for a National Guard presence, nor does it mention anything about Pelosi rejecting the alleged request.
[...]
Also, it’s with noting that during the first day of hearings by the January 6 committee, Rep. Liz Cheney said: “Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Mike Pence did each of those things.”
Unruh offered no evidence to support his claim that Pelosi "refused President Trump's offer of National Guard troops" -- presumably because neither the offer nor refusal ever happened. Instead, the rest of his article is about reports that law enforcement may have known about plans for a riot but didn't adequately prepare, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Pelosi.
Unruh treating lies as fact hardly inspires confidence in WND as a trustworthy source of news.
NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC Flips Over Elon Musk, Part 8: The Stenography Continues Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center remained highly devoted to serving as Musk's handmaiden in promoting every "Twitter files" release -- even as they dropped around holiday time when people were busy with other things. Read more >>
MRC's Double Standard On Children Testifying On Cultural Matters Topic: Media Research Center
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, the Media Research Center's chief transphobe, spent a March 17 post attacking a child:
I didn’t realize that people are having kids these days to simply to force them to be parrots of what adults are too scared to say themselves.
In a now widely viewed video on Twitter, a 10-year-old “transgender” and “non-binary” child who uses “they/them” pronouns read from a speech (totally not written by his mother) about his rights and desires as a transgender individual. The child struggled through the speech that his mother had to have written, and the charade sparked outrage online.
“Hello, my name is Zipp. I am 10 years old. I use they/them pronouns, and I am transgender non-binary,” the child began.
How is someone "transgender" and "nonbinary" at the same time? Transgenderism means identifying as the opposite gender, while "non-binary" means you don’t associate with either…right? Geez this alphabet mafia keeps me guessing every day.
[...]
It’s heartbreaking to hear this child, who is obviously struggling to even read the words of his (or his mother's) speech. These are the kids that need extra protection and love - not the “love” that helps them change their gender or identify to something they clearly are not, but the love that encourages them to embrace who they truly are and love their God-given bodies.
The child’s main point was that he wanted to use the bathroom and “change space” that he “safe and at peace.”
“I urge council to allow transgender people access to the bathrooms and change rooms they need because when trans adults thrive, trans kids survive,” he said.
I bet my bottom dollar that kid doesn’t know what “thrive” means. Good job, mom.
[...]
My heart goes out to kids like this whose parents are clearly and blatantly abusing their privilege to indoctrinate and groom their own children.
Strangely, when Mandelburg wrote a post a couple weeks earlier on a similarly aged child providing testimony, she didn't accuse him of "strugging to read" or being a mindless parrot of his parents' viewpoints -- of course, that's beause the kid was sticking to her preferred right-wing narratives. Note the difference in tone (starting with "SAVAGE" in all caps in the headline):
While I wish the kid wasn't exposed to such a graphic book, I think his point was heard.
Knox Zijac, an 11-year-old student at Windham Middle School in Maine, read a page from the book “Nick and Charlie” about a gay couple having sex. The book was a featured novel on display in his middle school library.
The child, “still at a tender-enough age that he mispronounced ‘library’ without the final ‘r,’” as The Blaze reported, read every single word exactly as it was written, swears and graphic content included, certainly not because he wanted to but instead because that was the only way to get the school board to care even a little about what the heck was being distributed to kids in schools.
[...]
The child then proceeded to explain that when he checked the book out from the library to show his dad, the librarian not only asked him if he wanted more but also asked if he wanted a graphic novel version.
The school board's reaction was discomfort and shock.
Zijac’s father then finished off the remaining three-minute allotment of time. “This is the smut that he is finding,” Mr. Zijac began. "I don’t care whether it’s gay, straight, bisexual, whatever the terms are for all this stuff, doesn’t need to be at our school, doesn’t need to be at my 11-year-old’s library.”
The dad also brought up the book “Gender Queer” that’s been circulating school libraries as well as discussion in school boards across the nation. “This is bullshit,” he said. “We do not need to be having literature that’s showing boys how to suck dick.”
Even though it's much more clear than in her other example that the parent leaned on the child to testify and may have even told him what to say -- not to mention forced him to say those things out loud that even Mandelburg found objectionable -- the kid stuck to the narrative, so Mandelburg won't smear him like she did the transgender child.
Indeed, a couple days before that, Mandelburg praised another student for repeating right-wing narratives (so much so she put "MIC DROP" in all caps in the headline):
Brad Taylor, a now former student at Rosemount High School (RHS) in Minnesota, recently spoke in front of a his district’s school, board proving what conservatives have been saying for years now: schools are prioritizing inclusivity, wokeism and indoctrination of their students over their academic success and wellbeing.
“District 196 schools are quickly becoming a place where promoting activism is actually more important than promoting education,” Taylor said, beginning what must have been a started their spiral of discomfort for the school board members.
Taylor recounted how, on the first day of school, he was grouped, categorized and segregated by his skin color (white) during a speech from the principal. He was racially set apart from his classmates, “you must admit how uncomfortable it would be to be characterized just by your skin color on the first day of school, and you thought that you were wrong, just because of your skin color.”
[...]
Taylor announced that obvious “leftist agenda” has driven him to transfer to a private Christian school to continue in his studies. It’s unfortunate, but it's the only realistic option for a student who actually cares about academics and cares about fairness and equality for all.
As a final hurrah, Taylor announced that the school board would regret their choices to push these woke policies as he has big plans to be a leader in this country, whether it be political or as a professional golfer and “it’s a shame that you’re not gonna be able to say that I was an alumni of RHS district 196.”
Nuff said, kid.
Take it from Taylor: homeschool your kids, or get them into private school.
Again, Mandelburg refused to question whether the student's parents or his Christian school forced him to testify and told him what to say. He said conservatively correct things, and it doesn't matter who fed them to him.
How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily columnist has continued to spew hatred at LGBT people (while pretending he's not) since the last time we checked in. He began his Dec. 26 column by referencing allegations of a transgender woman exposing herself in a spa locker room (which remains disputed), then went into a rager over "semantic nonsense":
As for the rest of us – for you and me and our families and friends and the circles that we influence – may we shout from the rooftops that we will never accept this as normal.
Nor will we accept as normal 13-year-old girls getting full mastectomies simply because they are confused about their gender identity.
Or 10-year-old boys sterilizing themselves for life as they take hormone supplements to stop the onset of puberty while they figure out if they are male or female.
Or incoming college students starting their new classes by reciting their preferred gender pronouns.
Or users getting banned from social media platforms for saying that "Rachel" Levine is a biological male.
Or female athletes getting crushed and humiliated by boys who identify as girls and who are demolishing the hard-earned records of their female peers.
Or boys claiming to be girls so they can have access to the girls' bathrooms at school, where they proceed to rape and attack them.
No, no, no. I will never accept this as normal, and neither should you.
Once again, Brown played his faux-compassion card: "I truly care for those who struggle with gender identity issues, especially young people. I also know that the vast amount of confusion we're witnessing today is the result of sociological contagion." Actually, what Brown claims to "know" is wrong.
For his Jan. 4 column, Brown used a poll claiming that women are more empathetic than men as a springboard to rant again about gender:
Despite the use of radicalized leftist language, as if your sex was arbitrarily assigned to you at birth by the doctors and nurses, the survey must ask for biological reality. Otherwise, to repeat, the survey has no meaning at all.
Quite tellingly, in today's upside down culture, you can't simply ask, "What is your sex?" Instead, you need to ask what was written on your birth certificate when you were born. Your actual, biological sex matters!
[...]
As I wrote in 2017 (with reference to "menstruating men"), "There is an all-out war on sexual difference (often referred to as 'gender'), and if it wins the day, it will lead to societal chaos."
That chaos is already here, growing by the day. But for a moment this week, quite unintentionally, reality crept back in and sanity prevailed as news outlets reported the simple, verifiable (and, widely known) fact that women, on average, are more empathetic than men.
Men and women exist, and there are differences between the two.
Brown's Jan. 11 column was a rant about too many comic characters failing to be heterosexual:
In 2011, when I first wrote about "mutant" being a codeword for "gay" in the "X-Men" movie series, I was ridiculed on some LGBT websites for being late to the party. To paraphrase their words, "You're just realizing this now? The comic books have been pushing this message for years already."
That's why it was no surprise to see that, in a recent DC Comics storyline, the Joker, the arch-nemesis of Batman, got pregnant and had a baby. But of course!
We've been familiar with "pregnant men" for years now, and semantic activists want to substitute "birthing persons" for "mothers." Perhaps the only surprise is that it took this long for a male comic book character to get pregnant and have a baby. The larger agenda of pushing LGBTQ+ characters has been crystal clear for quite some time now, even to someone like me who is not a comic book reader or superhero aficionado.
[...]
Against this backdrop (remember, as just stated, that there are more than 65 LGBTQ+ superheroes and villains) is it any surprise that "right-wing culture warriors" spotted an agenda behind a pregnant male character?
We know that comic book writers do not live in an abstract world devoid of cultural and moral values. To the contrary, many of them are quite socially aware and use comics to convey a larger message. There's nothing surprising about that at all, nor is this something hidden.
So, at the very least, the fact that so many of us immediately pointed to LGBTQ+ activism in connection with the pregnant Joker is quite reasonable.
What seems less reasonable to me is the idea that no one at DC Comics made this connection at all or there was not even a tacit wink or a knowing smile. Really?
He complained that a commentator noted the right-wing freakout over the storyline, but dismissed it as ignorance of the cultural wars.
Brown used his Jan. 20 column to praise a hockey player for refusing to wear a warmup jersey celebrating LGBTQ pride, then whined that publicly hating LGBTQ people now has consequences:
In short, you can not graciously disagree. You can not respectfully opt out. Instead, you must deny your convictions, rewrite the Bible, run roughshod over your faith and publicly celebrate something you believe to be wrong. Otherwise, you are a crass human being and a small-minded bigot. Those are your only choices!
Already in 2011, in my book "A Queer Thing Happened to America," I could point to the Riddle Homophobia Scale, used in schools to evaluate whether the students were "homophobic." According to the scale, both tolerance and acceptance were considered homophobic, since homosexuality was not something to "tolerate" or "accept."
Instead, the only way not to be homophobic was to embrace a "positive" attitude, which called for "support, admiration, appreciation, and nurturance."
Yes, if you don't want to be a homophobe, you must admire your lesbian friend. You must nurture your transgender colleague's new identity. Otherwise, you will be marked.
Are you surprised?
Well, consider this: "The Riddle homophobia scale was developed by Dorothy Riddle in 1973–74 while she was overseeing research for the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gays and Lesbians."
That's how far back it goes, although it wasn't widely released until 1994. That's why I started my article with this question: "Do you remember when the main goal of LGBT activism was creating an atmosphere of 'tolerance and acceptance'?"
Most young people, including young adults, do not remember this time because they never experienced it. Instead, they have grown up with the choice to celebrate LGBTQ+ pride or be branded, to comply publicly or be ousted.
Brown went on to cite "the consistent Christian teachings of the last 2,000 years (or, more broadly, the consistent biblical teachings of the last 3,000-plus years)" as a reason to hate LGBTQ people. It seems he's starting to give up pretending to be compassionate toward them -- and that he's quite unashamed of pegging the Riddle homophobia scale.
MRC Can't Stop Hating Dwyane Wade For Having A Transgender Child Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's sports bloggers have long hated NBA legend Dwyane Wade for refusing to hate his transgender child. Jay Maxson pushed that hate again with an assist from his ex-wife in a Feb. 27 post:
You'd never know it from watching Saturday’s NAACP Image Awards, but not everybody approves of ex-NBA player Dwyane Wade exploiting his transgender son. and current wife Gabrielle Union-Wade received the NAACP's Presidents Award and took the opportunity to soak in the adoration of the alphabet mob. But Wade’s former wife accused him of grandstanding in hopes of gaining a financial windfall.
Zion Malachi Airamis Wade is a biological male, who on Friday legally changed his name to Zaya. Since 2020, he has presented himself as a girl – against the wishes of his birth mother, now divorced from the father.
The former Miami Heat star, the ever-woke Wade, melted into mush as he explained to the NAACP awards audience that it is his duty to kneel to the wishes of his confused 15-year-old male child.:
[...]
Siohvaughn Funches-Wade filed a lawsuit alleging that her ex-husband is hyping the child’s gender confusion to profit from his advocacy, at the expense of his son. There is a lot of money to be made from his endorsements of the alphabet lifestyle, the ex-wife charged. D-Wade “is positioned to profit from the minor child’s name and gender change with various companies through contacts and marketing opportunities including, but not limited to deals with Disney.
“I have concerns that [Wade] may be pressuring our child to move forward with the name and gender change in order to capitalize on the financial opportunities that he has received from companies,” Funches-Wade said. Additionally, D-Wade admitted to his former wife that he expects to make a bundle of money over the son’s gender confusion.
“[Wade] told me that he intended to make our child very famous due to the name and gender issue and also informed me that there would be endorsements/contracts associated therewith,” Funches-Wade commented.
Maxson noted only that "Wade denied the allegations, even though he’s turned public appearances with alphabet mob members, like Ellen DeGeneres and awards programs, into a cottage industry." In fact, he has said much more about the situation, which Maxson apparently doesn't want you to know. By contrast, an actual news outlet reported in November, when the ex-wife started going public with her attacks:
Dwyane Wade is firing back after his ex-wife, Siohvaughn Funches-Wade, accused him of trying to exploit their transgender daughter, Zaya, by applying for a legal name and gender change for the teen.
The sports star took to his verified Instagram account after Funches-Wade filed an objection in a Los Angeles court in an attempt to block his petition filed in August to have the 15-year-old’s birth name changed to Zaya and her gender to female.
“Since this must be the new way of parenting, I guess I have to address these allegations here, which is a damn shame,” he wrote in a lengthy note posted on his Instagram.
[...]
In his post, Wade wrote that “No one in our house would ever force Zaya or any of our children to do anything against their will, much less force an identity on them.”
“This isn’t a game for my family and definitely not for Zaya,” he wrote. “This is her life!”
[...]
In his social media post, Wade alleges that Funches-Wade is an absentee parent to Zaya, who was 12 years old in 2020 when she went public with being transgender.
“Siohvaughn has decided to pretty much be an absent parent to Zaya ALL ON HER OWN,” he wrote. “I will not sit on my hands this time and allow her to make a mockery of my dedication to my family. The high road has run out of real estate.”
Wade also responded in a court filing later that month, accusing the ex-wife of possibly trying to relitigate their divorce or carry out a “campaign of personal attacks”:
But the documents filed Tuesday say Funches-Wade responded to an email alerting her to the petition by declining to discuss “‘elective matters’ until her relationship and bond with her child was ‘completely healed and restored.’”
And the documents described her profit-seeking claims as “nonsensical” and “libelous at their core.”
“Dwyane filed this Petition because Zaya asked him to,” the documents say. “It is unclear if Siohvaughn’s goal is to relitigate her divorce and custody dispute with Dwyane, or to resume her campaign of personal attacks against Dwyane, but it is clear that her objections have little, if anything, to do with Zaya’s best interest.”
Strange how Maxson doesn'tthink you need to know about any of this -- the ex-wife peddled right-wing narratives, and that's all that matters.
Maxson also ranted: "The alphabet movement has long attempted to compare their demands for special rights to those of black Americans seeking civil rights. It’s a mixture of apples and oranges. Black people were born that way; homosexuals and transgenders were not." Maxson offered no evidence to back up his biological claim. And it's an odd claim to make for someone with a sexually ambiguous first name who provides so little personal information that it's unclear whether what sex Maxson even is. What is Maxson hiding?
Ted Cruz was the benificiary of 65 positive articles about him at CNSNews.com last year -- not a surprise, since Cruz employs the daughter of CNS editor Terry Jeffrey. With a new year comes new opportunities to promote Cruz, and CNS did just that in the first three months of 2023:
That's 14 articles to kick off the year. And, no, none of them disclosed the conflict of interest of Cruz employing Jeffrey's daughter.In addition, there was a March 13 column by Brian Garst of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity touting Cruz's purported expertise on drug prices under the gushy headline "Trust Ted Cruz, Not Lina Kahn, on Drug Pricing Reform!":
The Senate recently held a hearing to discuss the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Transparency Act, S. 127. The goal of the law is laudable: to make prescription drugs more affordable. Unfortunately, the legislation is just political theater.
There’s little reason to believe greater government involvement in PBMs, which health plans use to negotiate with (and secure savings from) drug manufacturers, is in consumers’ interest. At the hearing, Sen. Cruz pointed out “the FTC has previously conducted robust economic analysis of PBMs and found that PBMs benefit consumers by lowering drug prices.”
[...]
Sen. Cruz said that “it seems the FTC has become a ‘catch-all’ agency that Congress and the White House can use to regulate complex markets like prescription drugs or gas prices even when those markets might be reflecting problems caused by other government policies.”
He’s right; and making matters worse is the fact that the FTC under [Lina] Khan is a disaster. Americans for Tax Reform has already called her out for “[taking] aim at numerous industries including agriculture, health, telecommunications, and technology companies.”
Cruz clearly has a (family) friend in the media at CNS. Too bad CNS is too dishonest to do its proper journalistic duty and disclose that to its readers.
New Year, Same Hunter Biden Derangement At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center began 2023 much the way it ended 2022 -- so invested in trying to personally destroy Hunter Biden that one might call it aderangementsyndrome. Indeed, the derangement started right on Jan. 1 with a post by Kevin Tober:
NBC’s was off to a bad start on their first program of the new year when moderator Chuck Todd went the entire hour on Sunday without mentioning Twitter’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 presidential election, and in so doing rigged the election in favor of Joe Biden, as the Media Research Center has proven. Despite this omission during their hour-long program dedicated to the role of social media in our government and society, guest Jeh Johnson whined about the Russians using social media to “invade our American conversation.”
[...]
“But this is an issue that we've really yet to get our arms around because it does implicate free speech,” he added.
Yet Johnson apparently has no problem with Twitter suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 presidential election. That had a much larger impact than anything Russian bots did in 2016.
In fact, the MRC has "proven" nothing beyond its financial ability to buy a couple biased polls, including one from Donald Trump's own election pollster, upon which to build this conspiracy theory.
Two days later, Curtis Houck whined that the Hunter conspiracy wasn't getting traction outside the right-wing media bubble:
Is Chris Licht interested in changing CNN or is he asleep at the wheel? Such was the case on Tuesday, during the coverage of the vote for speaker of the 118th Congress when it felt as though old puppetmaster Jeff Zucker were still in the control room, as so-called journalists smeared Republicans and wondered if voters actually want Congress to do anything about Hunter Biden’s life of corruption.
After State of the Union co-host Dana Bash lamented how Congress has been held hostage for “12, 15 years” by a “small band of extremes” in the GOP, her fellow co-host and The Lead host Jake Tapper tossed to outgoing Congressman Rodney Davis (R-IL) by similarly bemoaning the “ultra-right-wing, MAGA group...is, by the way, in some analyses, the reason why there wasn't a red wave.”
Davis made a more general point about how “candidate quality matters” and has been an issue for multiple cycles, but then pivoted to insisting that, by holding up a Kevin McCarthy speakership, they’d put at risk their promises to voters “to hold Hunter Biden and Joe Biden accountable.”
Tapper snidely dismissed this: “You think that voters sent the Republican majority to the House of Representatives to hold Hunter Biden accountable?”
Earth to Jake, would that be the case to spend years talking about the Oath Keepers or Trump’s tax returns or Stormy Daniels?
Houck made no atempt to actually prove that the Hunter Biden story is important outside his partisan bubble.
Tim Graham spent a Jan. 16 post having a fit that the New York Times reported that "Republicans have yet to demonstrate that the senior Mr. Biden was involved in his son’s business deals or took any action to benefit him or his foreign partners," huffing in response: "This is false, and Hunter Biden's laptop had that information....if the leftist media hadn't so aggressively squelched it before the 2020 election and argued it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation." Despite this being purportedly indisputable, Graham offered no links to support his claim. He also complained that the Times pointed out that they were focusing on Hunter in order "to inflict damage on his father as he prepares for a likely 2024 re-election bid," whining in response: "The Times is transparently in the business of Biden damage control. " He didn't dispute the accuracy of the statement.
Curtis Houck was mad that Hunter Biden's team is fighting back in a Feb. 2 post:
On Thursday morning, NBC’s Today rediscovered Hunter Biden’s “much talked about laptop” (which in and of itself is comical for a liberal outlet to assert) in order to trumpet Hunter’s “aggressive new legal strategy” to force his father’s Justice Department and allies in Delaware law enforcement to open criminal investigations of those that shared and promoted its contents, which resulted in “a series of salacious and frankly damaging media stories”.
He went on to cite a right-wing website to claim that computer guy John Paul Mac Isaac had every right to rummage around Hunter's laptop because it was abandoned property, "no different than someone dropping off their suits and never picking them up from the dry cleaners."
Tober returned on Feb. 5 to whine that the Hunter story remained stuck in the right-wing bubble:
On Sunday's edition of Fox News Channel's MediaBuzz, frequent guest and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson said the quiet part out loud when she admitted that the lack of media coverage of Joe Biden's crackhead son Hunter is not expected to change and as a result, the political calculus on whether the growing list of crimes Hunter is accused of is enough to hurt President Joe Biden isn't expected to change either.
This discussion arose because of the news this week about Hunter's new lawyer who has sought to help the President's delinquent son go on the offensive against the few media outlets who dare to cover his crimes.
[...]
It's unclear whether this is a prediction on Liasson's or a promise on her behalf. You can bet that if she has anything to say about it, she will continue to ignore the Hunter Biden laptop scandal at taxpayer-funded liberal National Public Radio (NPR).
Tober claimed that Liasson was acting "petiulant" when she said this, but he offered no proof of this claim.
The whining and lecturing continued throughout January and February, part of which involved complaints that coverage of the House Republicans' hearing on the "Twitter files" didn't focus solely on Hunter (and instead pointed out how Donald Trump tried to get Twitter to censor Chrissy Teigen calling him a "pussy ass bitch"):
And it wouldn't be the MRC if it wasn't trying to run up the numbers on purported Hunter scandals, so we have a Feb. 7 post by Geoffrey Dickens titled "10 Brand NEW Hunter Biden Breaking Stories the Nets Are Burying," By our count -- based on the articles claiming "new" scandals -- the MRC wants you to believe there are at least 45 separate and distinct Hunter Biden "scandals," which seems to defy logic.
Is Newsmax Paying Trump To Speak The Title Of Horowitz's (Newsmax-Published) Book? Topic: Newsmax
We've noted how Newsmax has been hyping the new book by right-wing activist David Horowitz without disclosing that it was published by Newsmax's publishing division, Humanix. Now it has not only gotten Donald Trump to endorse the book, it appears to be getting him to drop the book's title as he faces escalating legal peril. The endorsement came in a March 9 article by Sandy Fitzgerald:
Former President Donald Trump is praising author David Horowitz's latest book, calling it "great" and encouraging his followers to read it.
"My great friend and author of "Dark Agenda," David Horowitz, is out with a new book, "Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last," Trump posted through his social media page on Truth Social.
"It is great!" Trump wrote.
In his book, Horowitz exposes the left's plans to destroy democracy and says that the 2024 presidential election could be the nation's last, as Democrats are posing a "deadly threat" to freedom with their goal of creating a one-party state and turning America into a socialist nation.
"Final Battle" is already a No. 1 Amazon bestseller and is available at bookstores.
Four days later, Trump latched onto the words "final battle" to describe his purported political mission, as described in an article by Eric Mack:
Former President Donald Trump laid out his pitch to 2024 Iowa Caucus voters Monday night, calling it the "final battle" to defeat the "corrupt establishment" and finishing his speech with a unique Q&A with supporters.
"2024 is the final battle. That's it," Trump told his Davenport, Iowa, crowd in a speech that will be replayed in its entirety Tuesday afternoon on Newsmax. "If you put me back in the White House, the corrupt establishment will be gone and we will be back to normal.
"America will be a free nation once again. We are going to complete our mission."
Mack and Newsmax apparently didn't note the publicity potential at the time, but they up for thatin a March 25 article after Trump did it again:
Former President Donald Trump returned to the campaign rally trail Saturday night in Waco, Texas, saying "2024 is the final battle."
"That's going to be the big one," Trump told his crowd at the rally, which aired live on Newsmax. "You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over, and America will be a free nation once again.
That was followd by a promotional paragraph designed to make sure nobody missed the connection (bolding and coloring in original):
Important:Trump’s ‘Final Battle’ refers to David Horowitz’s new book exposing the dangers he faces in 2024, and why he must win! Trump says “get it” – see FREE Offer for ‘Final Battle’ andsave $28 – More Info Here
As Trump flew to New York from Florida to be arraigned on fraud charges on April 3, he dropped the words again,and Mack was there to do the promotional duty:
As former President Donald Trump took flight aboard Trump Force One on Monday afternoon, he issued a press release making reference to his call for a "final battle."
Trump's release simply stated: "ICYMI: 'Trump: '2024 Is Final Battle'; 'We're Only Ones Who Can Stop Them.'"
The release urged supporters to read a Newsmax article detailing Trump's use of the term "final battle" at his rally last month in Waco, Texas.
Trump returned to the campaign rally trail in Texas, saying "2024 is the final battle."
"That's going to be the big one," Trump told his crowd at the rally last month. "You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over, and America will be a free nation once again."
Newsmax's article noted that Trump was clearly referring to the new bestseller by David Horowitz, "Final Battle: The Next Election May Be the Last."
Previously Trump has praised Horowitz's "Final Battle."
Trump wrote in February: "My great friend and author of 'Dark Agenda,' David Horowitz, is out with a new book, 'Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last.' It is great! Get your copy!"
In "Final Battle," Horowitz had predicted that the leftists, so fearful of Trump's return to the White House, would stop at nothing, including indictments against the former president.
The effort is apparently backfiring, as Trump's campaign says its raised $7 million since the indictment and polls show support for his candidacy growing.
The promotional paragraph plugging the book was there too.
This went full circle in a April 5 article by Fitzgerald, in which Horowitz touted Trump touting his book title:
Former President Donald Trump has dubbed his 2024 campaign as the "final battle" for the country's democracy, and bestselling author David Horowitz, whose book "Final Battle: The Next Election May Be the Last," tells Newsmax that the charges against Trump show how the Democrats are endangering the nation's democracy.
Horowitz, appearing Tuesday on "The Chris Salcedo Show" on Newsmax, noted that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, as part of his claims against Trump, accused the former president of election interference, but he has not shown that.
[...]
Horowitz said his book came out in January and Trump recently dubbed his campaign "final battle," but "he's the one who taught me…we're practically at the end of our tether in this country…we cannot survive as a constitutional democracy if the Democrats have their way."
[...]
Trump has praised Horowitz's "Final Battle," writing in February that "my great friend and author of 'Dark Agenda,' David Horowitz, is out with a new book, 'Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last.' It is great! Get your copy!"
Again, the promotional paragraph plugging thte book was included. None of these articles, however, disclosed the conflict of interest that Newsmax is promoting a book it also published.
One has to wonder if Newsmax is sending a little kickback Trump's way for every time he says the words "final battle."
After A Brief Stop In Reality, WND's Hirschhorn Back To COVID Vaccine Fearmongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we checked in on Joel Hirschhorn, the WorldNetDaily columnist seemed to actually be trying to back off a bit from his usual COVID vaccinefearmongering. Unfortunately, that didn't last long, and he was back to his own factually questionable tricks in his Feb. 23 column:
All the new research on vaccine impacts comes from just two years of vaccine use. Thus we still do not have good information on the long-term health impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the negative health impacts will become even worse as time for impacts on bodies and for research goes on.
Another point is that even though the percentage of people impacted may seem quite low, it is important to remember that there are huge numbers of people vaccinated, hundreds of millions of people, in fact. This means that very large numbers of people may be impacted by a host of diseases that at first seem minor.
Lastly, it is possible that some people may become victims of several vaccine-caused health problems. Just another factor to consider when high excess death rates continue to be observed nearly everywhere.
There has been limited analysis and data on cancers being caused by the COVID mRNA vaccines. Now comes a creative new analysis by Ronald Kostoff. The article title is: "Are COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Cancer Rare Events?"
The key word here is "creative," meaning that he's making stuff up. In fact, COVID vaccines do not and cannot cause cancer. Still, Hirschhorn served up another "innovative" fearmongering analysis:
A very innovative analysis is presented in the new article: "Age-stratified COVID-19 vaccine-dose fatality rate for Israel and Australia." What is noteworthy is that the detailed analysis for Israel and Australia leads to a generalization applicable to the United States. The paper points out that "it is not unreasonable to assume an all-population global value of vDFR = 0.1 % [vaccine dose fatality rate]." This is for vaccine doses. For the U.S., 670 million doses have been given, so the estimate is 670,000 people have been killed by the COVID vaccines in the U.S.
There is little about this study online besides the usual anti-vaxx suspects promoting it, but it's worth noting that a anti-vaxx-promoted study on purported vaccine deaths in Australia that came out a few weeks later has been discredited.
Hirschhorn followed with a case study of psychosis possibly linked to the vaccine and another study trying to link cases of shingles to it (though that doesn't appear to be a real issue) as well as another one trying to link cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to the vaccine. He concluded by ranting: "When it comes to the legitimacy of the COVID vaccines, the worst is yet to come. The intensity and range of bad health impacts will become a horror story in coming years."
Hirschhorn spent his March 16 column ranting against the vaccines:
A new Harvard study shows enormous federal spending to develop and distribute a deadly COVID vaccine that makes billions for drug companies.
This is truly a medical establishment publication. The title is "U.S. public investment in development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines: retrospective cohort study."
Here is the most outrageous statement:
"These public investments translated into millions of lives saved and were crucial in developing the mRNA vaccine technology that also has the potential to tackle future pandemics and to treat diseases beyond covid-19."
The great Dr. Peter McCullough has correctly noted:
"While [the study] falsely claims mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, the reality is just the opposite with estimates of U.S. vaccine casualties topping half a million deaths usually within the first few days of taking the shot." Half a million deaths! And just in the short term.
The fact that Hirschhorn thinks a repeatedly discredited COVID misinformer like McCullough is "great" tells you all you need to know about Hirschhorn. Still, he seized upon the article to manufature a conspiracy theory:
Bottom line: There has been a massive, expensive and criminal fraud perpretrated by the United States government. Looks like until now the government has spent more than $50,000 per person killed to make two big drug companies a fortune. All this shows the wisdom of the adage "follow the money."
Hirschhorn used his April 5 column to hype a biased poll:
Looks like there has been massive under-counting of COVID and vaccine deaths.
A new poll by Rasmussen has some data that validates what many of us already believe, namely that the vaccines are dangerous, not "safe and effective" and need to be pulled from the market immediately.
The survey of 1,078 American adults was conducted March 27-29, 2023, by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
A key finding is that nearly as many Americans believe someone close to them died from side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as died from the disease/infection itself.
Hirschhorn didn't mention that Rasmussen polls are highly biased, raising questions about their accuracy and motives. And Hirschhorn made sure to peddle his own anti-vaccine propaganda:
Please keep in mind that it is now widely accepted by those who follow the data that the COVID vaccines available in the United States do not prevent infection, replication, or spread of SARS-CoV-2, and do not prevent either hospitalized disease or death from COVID-19. Given these facts, references to these biologic medical products as "vaccines" is merely propaganda. They clearly do not "vaccinate" in the classic sense. But they make billions of dollars for vaccine makers.
[...]
More than three years after "15 days to slow the spread" of COVID-19, most voters have less trust in government health experts – and in the news media, too.
And Hirschhorn has been doing his part to manufacture that mistrust. All he's doing here is being happy his narrative has traction -- which has nothing to do with whether it has any basis in fact.
Because the Media Research Center is a PR agent for Elon Musk, it's not going to tell you about the repeated outages on the site since he fired most of its employees, or that he publicly mocked a disabled employee who wasn't sure if he still had a job (he was eventually shamed into apologizing to the guy and inviting him to keep working for Twitter). And it's certainly not going to tell you that anti-Semitic content on Twitter has increased since he bought the platform. Butthere was another "Twitter files" selective release to tout, and Catheroine Salgado did the PR duties in a March 17 post:
Earlier in the year, CNSNews.com -- which has been 
Matt Philbin huffed in a March 2 Media Research Center 
WorldNetDaily columnist Richard Blakley -- a 
The Media Research Center loves Simon Ateba -- who works for a tiny website he founded called Today News Africa -- because he's their kind of jerk. Curtis Houck 
The 
A March 2 WorldNetDaily 
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg, the Media Research Center's chief transphobe, spent a March 17 
Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily columnist has continued to spew hatred at LGBT people (while pretending he's not) since 
The Media Research Center's sports bloggers 
Ted Cruz was the benificiary of 
The Media Research Center began 2023 much the way it ended 2022 -- so invested in trying to personally destroy Hunter Biden that one might 
The 
