WND Pushed Bogus Narratives About Cherry-Picked Capitol Riot Video
Topic: WorldNetDaily

A Feb. 23 WorldNetDaily article by Peter LaBarbera tried to rehash an old story about the Capitol riot:

Newly surfaced Jan. 6 video footage shows D.C. police firing stun grenades into a crowd of peaceful, pro-Trump protesters, raising the specter that police brutality and reckless, provocative actions by incompetent officers enraged the crowd and led people to rush past them into the Capitol.

Another video shows D.C. police accidentally showering themselves with tear gas, causing them to flee from protecting the Capitol. Conservative Charlie Kirk's Rumble page description sums it up this way: "Bodycam footage shows a cop shooting a tear gas grenade *into police lines* causing them to retreat."

The shocking videos, obtained by the group "Investigate J6," undermine the Democrats' and the media's dominant "insurrection" narrative by showing the crowd reacting to the police show of force, rather than engaging in any kind of planned or aggressive "assault" on the nation's legislative body. The group's GiveSendGo page states, "Investigate J6 is a coalition of forensic video investigators, attorneys, journalists and intelligence analysts. Your funds will help the investigations of many dedicated patriots and bring much needed truth to light."

The initial Investigate J6 tweet states: "What led to the storming of the US Capitol on January 6th? #FollowTheTimeline. POLICE BRUTALITY evidence thread."

[...]

"You know what happens when you launch multiple stun grenades into peaceful J6 crowds?" O'Handley says in his next tweet. "The same thing that happens when you rattle a dog's cage. This is why they don't want more J6 videos released. It exposes their setup VC: @InvestigateJ6"

But it's long been known that police used flash grenades and tear gas to disperse the agitated pro-Trump crowd outside the Capitol during the riot -- it was reported the day of the riot -- so there's no actual news here. Given that police correctly believed that the rioters were a possible threat, efforts to disperse them were justified, and no independent evicence was provided that the crowd was "peaceful."

This ended up being a prelude to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy giving access to unreleased video from the riot to then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Bob Unruh was quick to hype the footage Carlson aired in a March 7 article:

There long have been reports that some of the "rioters" during the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol, in which there were some election protesters who did vandalism, were allowed into the building by security officers.

Now video showing exactly that has been revealed.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy granted "Tucker Carlson Tonight" access to some 40,000 hours of security camera film from the Capitol – video that has been concealed by Democrats from the public for over two years – and it shows, Carlson explained, that "lawmakers and the media were 'lying' about the events that took place on Jan. 6," Fox News documented.

"Capitol police officers were seen escorting Jacob Chansley, a Navy veteran widely referred to in the liberal media as the 'QAnon Shaman,' around the building without incident. Carlson reported that officers were seen showing Chansley around, even trying to open locked doors for him. At one point, at least nine police officers were seen in close proximity to Chansley, and none of them slowed him down, as Carlson noted," the report said.

The Daily Mail confirmed, in fact, in footage screened on his show, Chansley was apparently seen being escorted into the Senate by Capitol police officers.

In fact, that video was taken out of context. Prosecutors responded that the "video did not show Chansley, who was sentenced to 41 months in prison for his actions on January 6, facing off with officers for half an hour outside the Senate chamber or when Chansley refused to be escorted out of the Capitol by an officer and only left after being forcibly removed," adding: "Chansley was not some passive, chaperoned observer of events for the roughly hour that he was unlawfully inside the Capitol. ... He was part of the initial breach of the building; he confronted law enforcement for roughly 30 minutes just outside the Senate Chamber; he gained access to the gallery of the Senate along with other members of the mob (obviously, precluding any Senate business from occurring); and he gained access to and later left the Senate floor only after law enforcement was able to arrive en masse to remove him.”

The Capitol Police also pointed out that the video Carlson showed "conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video. ... The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments."

Unruh added:

Carlson also reported Democrats used Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick’s death for their political agenda.

[...]

The media alleged Sicknick was "attacked" by the mob and falsely claimed was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.

"Sicknick was seen walking normally while guiding Trump supporters out of the building as he wore a helmet, which appears to contradict the media narrative that he died of a head injury," the report said.

In reality, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger attacked Carlson over his cherry-picked footage of Sicknick, as did Sicknick's family:

"Finally, the most disturbing accusation from last night was that our late friend and colleague Brian Sicknick’s death had nothing to do with his heroic actions on January 6. The Department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day."

Sicknick’s mother and two brothers responded to Carlson's characterization of the officer's death by saying Carlson's "'truth' is to pick and choose footage that supports his delusional views that the Jan 6th Insurrection was peaceful."

But pushing right-wing narratives is more importantto Unruh than telling the truth, so these rebuttals went ignored. Interestingly, Fox News itself largely ignored Carlson's videos, suggesting that even its highly compromised "news" operation knew this was a nothingburger and it was just red meat for far-right, pro-Trump partisans -- like WND.

Newsmax Spins To Insist That Its Dominion Lawsuit Is Different From Fox News' Lawsuit
Topic: Newsmax

Newsmax's coverage of Dominon Voting Systems' lawsuit against Fox News over claims that it knowingly broadcast lies about election fraud after the 2020 election was largely subdued -- perhaps not surprising given that Dominion is also suing Newsmax for the same thing. It ran the occasional story on revelations found in the lawsuit, and it even tried to defend Fox News by noting a claim that Dominion officials were invited on Fox News but refused.

When Fox News settled with Dominion for a whopping $787.5 million, coverage was muted on its website, largely limited to a single wire story on the settlement. But given that, it also had to do some damage control. Thus, an April 19 article by Marisa Herman declared that "Dominion Voting Systems still has a pending lawsuit against Newsmax, but the media outlet says there are different facts in its case that will enable it to prevail in court." Herman then cited how MSNBC's Joe Scarborough noted Newsmax made the occasional attempt to swat down election fraud claims during an appearance with New York Times media critic Jim Rutenberg:

Rutenberg told Scarborough: "I don't see how Newsmax can get through this case [the] way that [they] just did. Look at the resources Rupert Murdoch has . . . they don't have the money to settle like the way Rupert Murdoch did."

But Scarborough quickly noted major differences between Fox's and Newsmax's coverage.

Scarborough recounted: "We had that moment when you had an anchor, when Mike Lindell, Mr. Pillow, came on and started lying. The anchor literally got out of his chair, and basically in the words of Eric Cartman, basically said, 'Screw yourself, I'm going home.' And he got up and walked off the set."

Scarborough asked Rutenberg, "Didn't that show that Newsmax, at least, tried to move beyond and made their apologies and tried to mitigate any damages?"

Rutenberg agreed: "That was certainly a moment."

Scarborough's story referenced a Feb. 2, 2021, appearance by Mike Lindell and his exchange with Newsmax anchor Bob Sellers.

That, of course, was more than three months after the election, long after Newsmax had promoted attacks on Dominion and fellow voting-tech company Smartmatic, which we've documnented.

Herman then recited her employer's legal defense against Dominion, which it portrayed as different from the situation Fox News was in:

After Fox's settlement was announced Tuesday, Newsmax released another statement:

Newsmax believes that the facts at issue in Dominion's case against it are materially different from those that may have driven Fox to settle, and no conclusion about Newsmax should be drawn from that settlement. Newsmax stands by its coverage and analysis of the 2020 election and will continue to vigorously defend against the claim.

Dominion sued Newsmax in Delaware state court in August 2021, and the case is ongoing.

Newsmax, in its court filings, has stated that:

• It reported fairly and accurately on the public statements made by President Trump, his attorneys, and surrogates.
• Newsmax reported on both television and online claims by multiple officials and experts that the election was not "stolen" or "rigged."
• Newsmax published online at least a dozen articles sharing Dominion's response to Trump campaign claims. Those headlines appeared on Newsmax TV.
• On Dec. 19, 2020, Newsmax published to its website a statement, "Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know," which read, in part, "No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
• Newsmax shared its statement over the course of months during segments related and unrelated to the 2020 election.

It should be noted that Fox News has never made a statement, even after its settlement, as strong and specific as Newsmax's statement of Dec. 19, 2020.

It should also be noted that Newsmax made that Dec. 19 stdatement only after Smartmatic sent Newsmax a legal notice demanding a retraction.

Herman continued to push her employer's (or, more to the point, her employer's lawyers') defense again Dominion:

Dominion has cited more than 3,600 communications it purportedly sent to reporters and producers throughout the Fox News organization correcting allegations and asking it to clarify its reporting, which were largely ignored.

Meanwhile Dominion purports to have sent a handful of communications to a single Newsmax employee — which they have not produced to date.

Newsmax acted promptly in clarifying its reporting and attempted early on to have Dominion representatives on the network, Newsmax has stated.

"Newsmax believes that it acted well within the First Amendment to provide Americans with facts and opinions that helped them make an informed opinion about the 2020 election results," Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax CEO, said.

Ruddy noted that the first mention on Newsmax of an allegation about Dominion by Trump attorney Sidney Powell was on Nov. 16, 2020. In the ensuing weeks she and others within the Trump campaign promised to reveal evidence of software manipulation.

When that evidence failed to appear, Newsmax, in a reasonable time, noted that failure.

"Anyone who looks at this fairly, including jurors, will conclude we acted reasonably," Ruddy said.

Not only did Herman offer no supporting evidence to prove this defense, she also didn't give Dominion a chance to respond to the claims. She also didn't mention that Newsmax reached an out-of-court settlement with Dominion executive Eric Coomer, which included retracting defamatory claims it made about him.

Newsmax followed this with an attempt to capitalize on the settlement in an anonymously written April 19 article touting how "A recent study of major American media by the respected Economist magazine found that Newsmax rates among the top cable networks in public trust" -- though the numbers show Newsmax still running far behind CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Still, it quoted Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy insisting that ""The Economist/YouGov findings show a large and increasing number of Americans trust Newsmax's 'real news' — a significant accomplishment for a relatively new network."

CNS Promoted Biden-Bashing Sheriff -- But Censored His Extremism
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman did his part to forward Republican talking points on the border in a March 3 article:

In just one area of Arizona, not even on the border with Mexico, fentanyl pill seizures have gone up 610% in two years and human trafficking has risen 377%. Testifying about the crisis, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb told Congress to "stop saying the border is secure, because the border is not secure."

Sheriff Lamb spoke before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security on Feb. 28. He was joined by Rebecca Kiessling, a private citizen, whose two teenage sons were killed by ingesting fake Percocet pills that were made with fentanyl. They did not know what they were consuming.

[...]

"In 2018, we had zero seizures" of fentanyl, he said, "and in 2019 we had around 700 pills. In 2020 we had over 200,000 pills. In 2021 we had over 1.2 million pills, and this last year we had over 1.4 million pills come into my community."

In the state, in 2021, "we lost 44 children to [fentanyl] poisoning, under the age of 17," said Sheriff Lamb. "Seven were under the age of one year old. If that doesn't mobilize the forces of the country to stop this problem, I don't know what will. This is what we deal with on a daily basis."

Chapman dutifully censored the fact that Lamb is a right-wing extremist. There's a reason he's called the "QAnon Sheriff," according to Salon:

To date, Lamb has appeared on at least five QAnon-friendly shows, including the podcasts "X22 Report" and "Uncensored Abe" as well as shows hosted by John Michael Chambers and Sean Morgan, both prominent figures in the QAnon movement who have pushed a variety of conspiracy theories to their audiences.

During his appearance on "X22 Report" last January, Lamb said: "I follow the show, so this is a treat for me." That show literally features a section on its website titled "Latest From QAnon."

[...]

Law enforcement agencies have warned about the potential for violence by QAnon believers, and very few Republicans in elected office have engaged the movement directly, which makes Lamb a notable exception.

On top of that, Lamb's son hosts a podcast that has featured "election deniers, QAnon-adjacent activists, and right-wing vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse." Further, Lamb is a guy who actually cares more about advancing his own political career than engaging in responsible law enforcement;a month after the congressional testimony Chapman lionized, Lamb announced his campaign for an Arizona Senate seat.

But pushing Republican narratives was more important to Chapman than doing his job as a reporter, so Lamb's extremisim was ignored.

That's not the only thing Chapman underreported in his article. Describing Rebecca Kiessling only as "a private citizen" is a bit disingenuous; in fact, she's an anti-abortion activist who's so extreme she opposes abortion even for rape victims. And despite Chapman's implication that the overdose deaths of Kiessling's sons were somehow the fault of Biden's border policies, they occurred in 2020, before Biden took office.

That became a point of contention in a couple other CNS articles. When extremist Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tried to blame Biden for the deaths of Kiessling's sons, Patrick Goodenough complained in a March 2 article that even tried to defend Greene a little:

President Biden on Wednesday evening hit back at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for blaming his administration for two fentanyl deaths that occurred before he took office.

Addressing a meeting of House Democrats in Baltimore, Biden suggested that GOP lawmakers such as Greene were going to cause a lot more Republicans to seek bipartisan cooperation with Democrats.

[...]

After the House Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from a Michigan woman whose sons died after unknowingly taking the synthetic opioid in 2020, Taylor Greene tweeted a clip from the hearing.

“Listen to this mother, who lost two children to fentanyl poisoning, tell the truth about both of her son’s murders because of the Biden administrations refusal to secure our border and stop the Cartel’s [sic] from murdering Americans everyday by Chinese fentanyl,” she tweeted.

Biden said he probably “shouldn’t digress,” but then continued, “I’ve read – she was very specific recently, saying that a mom, a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl, that – that I killed her sons.”

“Well, the interesting thing is, that fentanyl they took came during the last administration,” he said, chuckling.

[...]

While Taylor Greene in her tweet did link the two young men’s “murders” to “the Biden administration’s refusal to secure our border” she did not – as Biden said in Baltimore – accuse him of having “killed her sons.”

After right-wingers maliciously portrayed Biden's chuckling as directed toward Kiessling and not Greene, CNS surprisingly came to a rare defense of Biden with a March 3 article by Melanie Arter featuring press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pointing out how Biden's words were being "mischaracterized."

If that rare stab at fairness was meant to stave off the day that the Media Research Center would shut down CNS, it appears not to have worked.

MRC Prepped For Trump Indictment With Lots Of Whataboutism
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's coverage (and equivocation and dismissal) of Donald Trump's latest round of legal troubles began with an odd flashback to the 1990s -- read: a lingering case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome -- courtesy of Tim Graham, who huffed in a March 14 post:

On Monday's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos grilled Trump lawyer Joseph Tacopina about the Manhattan District Attorney apparently pressing forward with an indictment for a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to squash a National Enquirer story about her alleged affair with Trump.

As usual with Trump's prosecutors, Stephanopoulos never told the audience that the current and former Manhattan DAs are elected Democrats. Typically, the people still investigating Trump are elected Democrats, and typically, the media imply they are simply prosecutors without a party. The news here was that Tacopina said Trump will not accept an invitation to participate in the grand jury proceeding. The invitation usually implies an indictment is coming.

You don't have to believe Trump is innocent here to find a role reversal. For about five years, this was what George Stephanopoulos did for Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton trusted him to squash "bimbo eruptions," to claim Bill Clinton was innocent and partisan persecutors were trying to destroy him with lies about sex. Why would ABC pick Stephanopoulos to be the interviewer on this? Are they saying the other hosts aren't qualified?

Four days later, Graham's CDS was still inflamed, so he went after Stephanopoulos again, complete with antoher "bimbo erpution" reference:

It happened again. First, ABC Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos interviewed current Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina about a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. Then on Friday, Stephanopoulos returned to the bimbo-eruption beat to interview former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

George was much milder this time. He sounded like he was prepping Cohen for the hard work ahead. He began: “So you have spent days with prosecutors. Based on all that, are you convinced an indictment of President Trump is coming? Are you prepared for cross-examination?”

Cohen said “absolutely,” and added “I talk about the credibility issue that everybody wants to attack me on. They want to attack me on the five counts of the tax evasion or the misrepresentation.”

In his toughest line to Cohen, he noted “Well, you are a convicted liar.” Cohen objected, naturally, saying he lied for Trump, so you should believe him now.

Mark Finkelstein played whataboutism to distract from Trump's violent rhetoric in another March 18 post:

On her MSNBC show this morning, Katie Phang and two lawyer guests all suggested that Trump's Truth Social post calling on people, in response to his apparently imminent arrest, to "Protest, Take Our Nation Back," could be the basis for additional criminal charges against him.

Are the MSNBC folks aware that not long ago, another prominent politician repeatedly used a virtually identical phrase? Indeed, that politician actually gave a speech entitled, "Taking Our Country Back," employing that phrase no fewer than six times in the course of remarks.  The speech repeatedly called on people to "fight!" 

Even more shocking, the speaker bragged to the audience, "I come to you with bloody knuckles" after 120 days of fighting the Trump administration. 

Bloody knuckles? Such violent imagery . . . Kamala Harris! Yes, it was Harris who, as a US senator, gave that speech to the California Democrat [sic] Convention, just two years before launching her ill-fated, short-lived quest for the White House.

Finkelstein didn't mention that Harris, unlike Trump, has no record of inciting supporters to launch a violent insurrection because of a mental inability to accept an election loss.

The following day, Finkelstein spun away another commentator's argument that Trump's words had a violent intent by insisting the commentator had "a vivid imagination" -- again, ignoring that Trump has previously incited an attempted insurrection -- and even tried to justify Trump's tone by claiming that "Trump is trying to gin up outrage at an elected Manhattan Democrat [sic] district attorney arresting a former president of the United States for political reasons." He offered no evidence of those purported "political reasons."

Graham served up a different (though more current) brand of whataboutism  distraction in promoting his March 20 podcast:

Over the weekend, Donald Trump proclaimed on Truth Social he would be indicted by a Manhattan grand jury and "arrested on Tuesday," leading to many hours of speculation on TV news channels over the weekend about how the walls were closing in again. The network Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC aired almost 47 minutes on the topic, and zero seconds on the latest Biden family cash-grabs from China.

Most politicians throw red meat at their supporters, but Trump is throwing red meat at his enemies in the press. They expressed horror that Trump asked his supporters to protest, which they suggested was another incitement to rioting. Who exactly is the president now? These networks could have covered both Trump and Biden, but the protection racket for the Bidens looks intense in this contrast.

After Trump's proclaimed arrest date passed with no arrest, Nicholas Fondacaro grumbled in a March 22 post that this "annoyed the cast of ABC’s The View on Wednesday, as they whined about being duped and getting their hopes up to see him in cuffs and his mug shot." And, yes, Fondacaro libeled co-host Sunny Hostin yet again as a "racist" because he doesn't understand how metaphors work.

Finkelstein returned to whine on March 27 that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough urged Republican voters to ditch Trump and support Ron DeSantis:

"Endorsed by Joe Scarborough!" -- Not something you're likely to see in any Ron DeSantis GOP presidential primary ads anytime soon.

But Scarborough did come close to doing that on today's Morning Joe.

Condemning Trump for what he described as his disregard for the rule of law, Scarborough addressed himself to Trump supporters, saying, "go to DeSantis." His notion was that DeSantis represents policies similar to Trump's without posing what Scarborough sees as Trump's threat to democracy.

Scarborough, presumably mentioning DeSantis because he's closest to Trump in preliminary polling, suggesting "it could be anybody." Maybe he's hoping for Larry Hogan to enter the race?

Finkelstein further complained that "This is a departure from most ex-Republican Trump haters, who are currently hating DeSantis with the same ardor that they hate Trump." But he didn't explain why anyone should stick with Trump in the first place.

Flashback: WND Loves Promoting Dubious COVID Vaccine Studies
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily has cranked so much misinformation about COVID vaccines that some occasionally slip through without being debunked. One of these is an anonymously written Feb. 23 article:

A new study from the government in the United Kingdom appears to doom the idea that your life depends on COVID vaxes.

A new report from Exposé reveals that official numbers from the U.K. government show that the "fully/triple/quadruple vaccinated population has accounted for 9 in every 10 COVID-19 deaths in England over the past two years."

The report revealed that just days ago, the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics showed that for the month of October, there were 125 COVID deaths among unvaccinated residents.

But there were 24 deaths for those getting at least the first dose, 100 among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, more than 2,100 among those who have their third does or booster and nearly 2,300 of those ever vaccinated.

"This isn't an anomaly," the report said.

It is data used badly, however. As fact-checker Lead Stories reported:

Are vaccines proven ineffective by a U.K. report published in February 2023, which found that 92 percent of "deaths involving COVID-19" occurred in fully vaccinated individuals? No, that's not true: Implying causality from a limited set of data leaves out consequential variables such as the ages of the dead, other underlying diseases, and whether booster recommendations had been followed. While it is possible to derive 92.4% from one of five tables of data included in a U.K. government report, the U.K. Office of National Statistics (ONS) told Lead Stories that such a generalization is a "highly misleading" interpretation of the data. Furthermore, the report is not meant to be a measure of vaccine effectiveness, as many other factors can impact mortality rates, according to an ONS senior statistician.

More than 93 percent of the U.K. population 12 years and older had received at least one vaccine dose by the end of August 2022, which means there is a higher likelihood that a person who died during the timeframe evaluated had been partially vaccinated. The report specifically stated that those who had received "at least a third dose" were less likely to die of COVID since September 2021 compared with people who were unvaccinated.

Lead Stories further found that according to those same numbers, "COVID mortality rates were the lowest for those with at least three vaccinations (the last of which was administered within 21 days) compared with both unvaccinated people and those with only a first or second dose." Further, the Expose has been repeatedly busted for spreading COVID misinformation.

MRC Still Cheering Djokovic's Selfish Refusal To Get COVID Vaccine
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has long served as an anti-vaxxer cheerleader for tennis star Novak Djokovic, whose petulant refusal to get a COVID vaccine kept him out of some tournaments. As a new round of tennis tournaments got started this year, it continued to cheer on his selfishness. Sports blogger John Simmons write in a Feb. 22 post:

As it currently stands, Novak Djokovic would not be able to play in either the Indian Wells Master Tournament in California or the Miami Open in the coming weeks. It’s not for a lack of talent -- he’s ranked No. 1 in the world in men’s tennis and just won his record 10th Australian Open. At the moment, he’ll be prevented from playing in both these tournaments because he's unvaccinated.

As such, Djokovic is appealing a current Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirement that says any foreign individual entering the country must have the jab or else they can’t get in. This requirement has been extended to April 10th.

"Everything is currently in the process," Djokovic said at his training ground in Belgrade, Serbia. "I have a big desire to be there. I am really thankful to the Indian Wells and Miami tournament [officials] and community for their support publicly, and they would like me to be able to play in their tournaments."

Simmons went on to rant that a vaccine requirement "shouldn’t be in place":

The rest of the world has gotten the memo that the COVID-19 virus isn’t as deadly as the progressive media and politicians wanted us to believe, and many countries have relaxed their rules on foreigners entering their countries. Heck, Australia, which was COVID craziness capital of the world, allowed an unvaccinated Djokovic to enter their country before the U.S. did!

It’s time for our government to drop the COVID fear-mongering and stop using it as an excuse to grab power in ridiculous ways. Let Djokovic into the U.S.

Nobody's stopping Djokovic from entering the U.S. -- he just has to get the same vaccine that millions around the world have received. Simple, really.

When Djokovic's appeal failed, Simmons went on another rant in a March 7 post, weirdly forwarding the whataboutism argument that if illegal immigrants don'thave to be vaccinated to get into the country, Djokovic doesn't either:

The BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells will begin tomorrow. But Novak Djokovic, who just set the record for most weeks ranked No. 1 in the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) rankings, will not be there.

That is because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) still requires foreigners to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter the country. They do not enforce this requirement on the nearly 3 million illegal immigrants< that crossed our Southern border last year, but they're trying to make a political statement, and consistency doesn’t matter to this joke of an administration.

Djokovic sent an exemption request to President Biden (which Florida senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio co-signed), but he was predictably denied by Homeland Security, an extension of an administration that refuses to give up the ghost on COVID protocols. As such, he withdrew on the eve of the draw for matchups in the tournament.

Djokovic has long been a vocal believer in allowing individuals to choose whether or not to get vaccinated, and as such he has remained unvaccinated. It is a shame that after so many countries have realized that COVID is not the supremely dangerous virus we were told it was, the United States remains unwilling to change its policies and that Djokovic has to pay the price for our stupidity.

That's right -- Simmons thinks vaccinations are stupid.

When the U.S. dropped the vaccine requirement for foreign visitors as the pandemic emergency wound down, Simmons cheered on Djokovic's behalf in a May 2 post, claiming without evidence that the requirement was "useless":

The Biden administration has finally ended its travel ban for foreigners who are unvaccinated against COVID-19. Granted, the ban lasted about two years longer than it should have, but at this rate, we have to celebrate any wins we get.

This means that ATP world No. 1 Novak Djokovic will finally be able to play in tournaments held on American soil. He has already missed out on two prominent tournaments this season after the Biden administration extended its original end date for the travel ban, and has had an exemption request from this useless restriction denied.

[...]

Djokovic is a player who thrives on overcoming conflict and getting revenge on those who have stood in the way of his goals. With that in mind, it's safe to assume that the Joker will be a force to be reckoned with once play at Arthur Ashe stadium begins this summer.

Or it could be that Simmons is in thrall to a man who's too selfish to do what's good for himself and society as a whole.

NEW ARTICLE: Riding The Anti-ESG Bandwagon
Topic: CNSNews.com
Attacking investments that take into account environmental, social and governmental issues is all the right-wing rage these days -- and CNSNews.com did its partisan duty to promote those talking points. Read more >>

Musk PR: MRC Childishly Mocks NPR For Quitting Twitter Over Twitter's Arbitrary Label Change
Topic: Media Research Center

We've shown how the Media Research Center took the bait when Elon Musk needed a distraction from bad right-wing press and happily embraced how he arbitrarily changed the label of NPR's Twitter account to "state-affiliated media" -- even though nobody can plausibly argue that NPR is anything like state-controlled media in authoritarian countries. When NPR decided it would no longer publish anything on Twitter due to Musk's capricious targeting of it, the MRC found this hilarious and decided that NPR -- not Musk -- was the bad guy, even though it had done nothing to provoke Musk. Curtis HOuck ranted in an April 12 post:

On Wednesday morning, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) upped the ante in its hissy fit against the Elon Musk-owned Twitter as, in light of the fact that Twitter added the “state-affiliated media” label to NPR’s account and then tweaked it to say “government-funded media.” The far-left crackpots are quitting the social media platform because Twitter was “falsely implying that we are not editorially independent.” 

To reiterate, NPR quit Twitter in a childish fit of rage because the free speech platform accurately labeled them as government funded in the same way as wholly state-run media outlets in China and Russia are labeled. Therefore, staying would be a supposed affront to their “journalism”.

NPR and its litany of liberal defenders also purposefully left out the fact that Twitter has slapped the same label on BBC, who’s also incensed despite existing thanks to a royal charter and fee set by the government and charged to nearly every British business and household.

To reiterate -- correctly, unlike what Houck did -- NPR quit Twitter because Musk had a childish fit of rage and decided that he alone could decide how media organizations are labeled, ignoring that nobody, not even NPR, is obligated or mandated to use Twitter. (He also didn't support his assertion that NPR is "far-left.") Houck then maliciously described NPR justifying their decision as "whining" (though identifying no actual whining) and playing games with how NPR describes its funding:

On NPR’s website, media correspondent David Folkenflik took a pause from his life’s mission to kill Fox News to report his outlet “quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as ‘state-affiliated media’”.

Talk about some serious coping and seething. Folkenflik would probably hate if we shared links harkening back to the days when defunding NPR and PBS were seen as killing Big Bird.

Folkenflik explained the move extended “to its 52 official Twitter feeds” and parroted his bosses in whining it was offensive to NPR to being depicted with “the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries.”

He insisted in a comical take that NPR isn’t “government-funded” and rather “a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence” that “receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

So, NPR receives money from a federal board? That sure seems like government funding. Also, what a relief to know tax dollars are so infinitesimal to NPR’s survival that it wouldn’t be a threat to their existence if Congress defunded and shuttered the CPB, which received $465 million in 2022.

Simply put, Folkenflik and his likeminded lemmings play accounting games.

Houck and the MRC might be taken more seriously as "media researchers" than they are if they didn't engage in such gratuitious, childish insults. And his attempt to claim that Folkenflik as a " life’s mission to kill Fox News" is rather hilarious considering his own liffe's mission to kill NPR, CNN and every other media outlet that's not as right-wing as Fox News.

Houck then bizarrely accused Folkenflik of engaging in "mind-numbing egotism and use of stochastic terrorism" by pointing out that journalists could be endangered by Musk's arbitrary relabeling." Of course, Houck couldn't be bothered to actually prove Folkenflik wrong, instead choosing to hurl even more immature insults instead. He concluded with one more petulant rant:

According to longtime NPR lefty Steve Inskeep, [NPR CEO John] Lansing stopped by Morning Edition’s production meeting to insist Musk’s site “no longer has the public service relevance that it once had” (meaning it’s no longer controlled by pro-censorship leftists).

Those cries you hear? That’s the sound of a liberal political strategy firm realizing they’ve lost control of a key medium to shovel their propaganda.

Houck seems weirdly outraged by all this, considering that absolutely none of it affects him personally. It's almost as if he's getting paid by the insult -- but by who, the MRC or Musk?S

Speaking of petulant: Later that day, Tim Graham devoted a post to Musk reacting badly to NPR quitting Twitter (though, of course, that's not how he framed it) by repeating the right-wing mantra "Defund NPR":

For many years, NewsBusters has urged the Congress to "defund NPR." It doesn't mean taking away all their funding -- just the government funding. They often claim only two percent of their funding comes from government. In that case, why not give it up? Today, Elon Musk tweeted out "Defund NPR" in the wake of NPR's arrogant proclamations about how great they are. So now we have celebrity endorsers! 

Musk tweeted an email from NPR’s tech reporter Bobby Allyn asking for comment on NPR’s decision to abandon Twitter.  “Because of the label, NPR is quitting Twitter across all of our 50+ accounts. Our executives say the government-funded media label calls into question our editorial independence and undermines our credibility," huffed Allyn. "Some wonder if this will cause a chain reaction among news orgs. What’s your reaction?” He probably wasn't prepared for the answer.

[...]

But note Allyn begging for a "chain reaction" of liberal media following NPR off Twitter. CNN's partisan liberal media reporter Oliver Darcy tweeted "NPR becomes first major news org to stop using Twitter," as if they'll be the first of many. Will CNN be next? This shows that the leftist media are unhappy that Twitter has become a free-speech platform that doesn't bend to NPR whims -- like insisting the Hunter Biden laptop was a "pure distraction."

Like a feisty NPR liberal, Allyn cried hypocrisy at Musk: Tesla, "which has received billions of dollars in government subsidies over the years, does not appear to have the label."

NPR’s main Twitter account has (had?) 8.8 million followers. This means that Twitter has one less major national misinformer.

Needless to say, Graham didn't describe Musk as acting on a whim by arbitrarily relabeling NPR's Tweitter feed for no reason other than an attempt to own the libs and generate right-wing clicks and attention.

Kevin Tober dutifully regurgitated Houck's malicious "hissy fit" framing when noting that other media outlets reported on Musk's hissy fit:

Hours after National Public Radio threw what NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck described as a "hissy fit" against the Elon Musk-owned Twitter and left the platform over being accurately described as "state-affiliated media" and later "government-funded media," CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell clearly seemed saddened by the left-wing outlet leaving. CBS later attempted to slime Musk's stewardship of Twitter by falsely claiming that "misinformation" on the platform was up 42 percent. They then omitted a BBC reporter getting called out by Musk when he couldn't point to an example of "hateful content" on Twitter. 

[...]

Later on in the report, correspondent Jonathan Vigliotti whined about "rampant misinformation" on Twitter and cut to a BBC interview Musk gave where he addressed those false claims: 

MUSK: I actually think there's less these days because we have eliminated so many of the bots, which were pushing scams and spam. And previously, previous management turned a blind eye.

Despite just explaining why claims of "misinformation" were untrue, Vigliotti pushed a bogus study claiming "accounts that often linked to false information have seen engagement increase 42 percent since Musk purchased the company last October."

Tober offered no evidence to support his claim that the study was "bogus."

Graham concluded the MRC's April 12 activity on the subject by having Houck on his podcast to rant some more. Graham tried to addhis own purported zingers: "They like to think they are a herd of independent minds, but they sound like National Public Relations for Democrats. Or National Press Release." Never mind that both he and Houck are actively doing PR for Musk by allowing themselves to be distracted by his clickbait.

CNS' Last Biden-Bashing Crusade: Nitpicking His Trip to Ireland
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com's final anti-Biden crusade before being shut down last month involbved doing a lot of whining about President Biden's trip to Ireland. Susan Jones sneered in an April 5 article headlined "WH: Biden 'Is Going to Focus on the American People' -- But He's Going to UK and Ireland Next Week":

The Biden White House had no comment Tuesday on former President Donald Trump's arraignment.

President Joe Biden, however, flashed a big, wide smile when reporters shouted questions about Trump’s indictment as they were ushered out of the room where Biden was meeting with his science and technology advisers.

At the White House press briefing on Tuesday, spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said, "It's an ongoing case, so we’re just not going to comment on the case specifically itself.

"Look, the President is going to focus on the American people, like he does every day," Jean-Pierre said.

"He is not — this is not something that is a focus for him.  He is going to focus on things like making sure that the — that we lower — continue to lower prices for the American people."

At least seven times, in response to other questions, Jean-Pierre repeated that Biden's focus "is on the American people."

So it came as a bit of a surprise on Wednesday morning, when Jean-Pierre announced that "President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will travel to the UK (Northern Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland from April 11-14."

It's unclear how this underscores Biden's focus on the American people.

Jones ramped up the nastiness (with added nitpicking) in an April 7 article headlined "With All That's Going On in the World, Why Is Biden Going to Ireland?":

"How does a Biden trip to Ireland help counter China or end the war in Ukraine?" a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Thursday:

"So, let me just say a couple of things," Jean-Pierre responded:

"The President is certainly looking forward to taking this trip to Northern Ireland and also the UK" (she meant Northern Ireland, which is in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland).

Jones pushed her anti-Biden partisanship again over the trip in an April 11 article:

With all that's going on in this chaotic world, President Joe Biden is taking time to visit Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, and then the Republic of Ireland. The trip, which mixes business with pleasure, begins today.

As of Monday, the White House could not or would not say which members of his family will accompany the elderly president on a sentimental visit to his ancestral home.

Jones added in an update: "Biden, asked if his family will accompany him on trip, said, "Just two of my family members who hadn’t been there before." No names given." All of these articles, mind you, were presented as "news" despite Jones' blatantly partisan attacks.

Once actully on the trip, Jones' partisan sniping continued in an April 13 article:

The American president waxed sentimental about his Irish roots on Wednesday at a community gathering in Dundalk, Ireland, saying, "coming here feels like coming home."

"Well, it feels like home," Biden said at the beginning of his speech.

"I said last time I was here, in a sense I know why my ancestors and many of your relatives left during the famine. And -- but you know, when you're here, you wonder why anyone would ever want to leave. No, I mean it, so it's good to be back."

Biden noted that he brought along his sister Valerie and his son Hunter on a trip that is more personal than policy-dominated: "Stand up, guys," he said. "I'm proud of you."

There was nitpicking, of course; Patrick Goodenough spent an April 14 article bashing Biden for getting the name of a rugby team wrong:

The “All Blacks” is the nickname for New Zealand’s national rugby union team, one of the world’s best.

The “Black and Tans” was the nickname for British police recruits, often notoriously brutal, who were sent to Ireland to bolster the local force during the guerilla war against British rule just over a century ago.

President Biden evidently got the two mixed up during his nostalgia tour of the Republic of Ireland this week.

[...]

In Dublin on Thursday, National Security Council senior director for Europe Amanda Sloat was asked by a reporter whether Biden was aware that he had misspoken when he referred to the “Black and Tans.”

“I think for everyone in Ireland who is a rugby fan, it was incredibly clear that the President was talking about the All Blacks, and Ireland's defeat of the New Zealand team in 2016,” she said.

“Did he realize that right after he said it, do you know?” Sloat was asked.

“You know, I think it was – it was clear what the president was referring to,” she said. “It was certainly clear to his cousin sitting next to him who had played in that match.”

Addressing Irish lawmakers in Dublin on Thursday, Biden again mentioned Irish rugby victories against New Zealand, but this time referred to the “All Blacks.”

In that same address, Biden said he would rather have his children play rugby than American football.

That last comment, by the way, drew its own article, headlined "Biden Disparages American Football in Address to Irish Parliament." Its author was anonymous but was mostly likely writtten by editor Terry Jeffrey, lover of all things football.

Such blatant editorializing and partisan targeting presented as "news" is a big reason why CNS' readership was in decline, which likely played a role in the MRC shutting it down six days later.

MRC Tries To Defend Right-Winger's Brain Freeze On Defining 'Woke'
Topic: Media Research Center

Right-wing activist Bethany Mandel got a little attention some weeks back when she was unable to define "woke" during an interview in which she was promoting a book she co-wrote that raged against "the current woke indoctrination happening in politics, education, medicine, mental health, entertainment, and culture." (Of course, right-wingers have used the word to describe anything and everything they don't like, to the point that it no longer has a fixed definition, if indeed it ever had one.) The Media Rsearch Center's Kevin Tober rushed to Mandel's defense in a March 19 post, partly by insulting others:

During the inaugural episode of MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki, the former Biden White House press secretary dedicated an entire segment on her otherwise bland show to mocking conservatives for their fight against the left’s woke ideology. She particularly focused in on a moment from an interview given by conservative author and commentator Bethany Mandel in which she had a brief brain freeze when asked to define wokeness. 

Of course, it's all the more hypocritical when you recall that Psaki’s immediate successor, the inept diversity hire Karine Jean-Pierre, is incapable of putting a coherent sentence together even on her best day. 

“In a recent interview, it was even too difficult for at least one conservative commentator to define what woke actually even means. Conservative author Bethany Mandel has written a book that covers this exact subject.” Psaki started off noting.

She then cut to video of Mandel’s interview on The Hill’s Rising in which the leftist co-host Briahna Joy Gray asked the gotcha question: 

Yes, Tober really did call Mandel being asked what "woke" means a "gotcha question" even though, again, she had just co-written a book railing against "woke indoctrination." And all the insult-hurling suggests that he really doesn't have a coherent argument to defend her.

Tober continued to whine that Psaki mocked Mandel's brain freeze on the subject on which she has presented herself as a expert, going on to insist that Mandel is "extremely smart and articulate" based on alleged personal experience:

We all have our bad moments, Psaki knows that better than anyone. This writer has met Mandel and she’s extremely smart and articulate. Despite that, Psaki decided to use this as an opportunity to claim that the GOP’s attacks on the left’s woke mind virus aren’t a winning issue.

Psaki lectured Mandel and the GOP: “Just two cents from someone who has worked a few years in communications. If you can't explain it, and people don't understand it in 15 seconds, it may not be the winning message you think it is.”

“So everyone out there, it sounds like you can let your woke flag fly,” Psaki proclaimed.

Yes leftists, keep imposing your woke ideology on Americans. See how that works out for you in 2024.

Strangely, Tober failed as well to offer a definition of "woke," despite using it in right-wing-insider terms like "woke mind virus," a term that seems to have an even more ambiguous defintion than "woke."

If neither Mandel nor Tober can define "woke" despite using the word as a main part of their activist vocabularies, why should they be listened to about anything?

WND's Farah Echoes Lively, Wants Rainbow Taken Away From LGBT People
Topic: WorldNetDaily

LGBT-hater and WorldNetDaily columnist Scott Lively has long raged against the rainbow being a symbol for LGBT people and demanded that Christians should reclaim it because it is supposedly only for Christians. Now his WND boss, Joseph Farah, decided to jion in that strange quest in his March 27 column, invoking Lively-esque homophobic rhetoric:

I had been living in California about 25 years ago, but it was getting desperate; I was clear I had to get out. Yes, 25 years ago, it was already a nightmare to live there – to raise a family in peace with God. Elizabeth and I decided to try rural southern Oregon. We visited frequently. It seemed like a world apart.

So we moved our family there, and it brought us a modicum of peace … for a while.

One day, we decided to visit Portland. We didn't realize it was "pride day." What a mistake.

We had a choice – head home, another four-hour drive, or take shelter in our hotel room for the day. I ventured outside with my five daughters and immediately encountered the parade. It was a scene from hell. People in various states of undress, noisemakers, horns blaring, weirdness. I took the kids, and a baby carriage, as far away as I could. It wasn't far enough.

Several women with blue hair began accosting us.

"Look," one said. "Breeders!" Five or six surrounded us. I kept my kids in tow cautiously. I noticed all of them wore rainbow shirts.

I got out of there as quickly as I could. It wasn't threatening but was something the kids and I remembered. It was a sign for me. I had not moved far enough away. Yeah, that was the beginning. Twenty-five years later, we cannot escape this "pride" movement. It's all around us. It's growing more diabolical. It's becoming more sinister every day.

And why did they take the rainbow for their emblem?

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; … And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." (Genesis 9:12-17)

That was God's covenant with us. For thousands of years, it was a sign of hope. But it has been hijacked, stolen, misappropriated.

It's time for us to reclaim it – or God will. We're told that his throne is surrounded by rainbows, in the last chapters of Revelation: "And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald."

Lively, meanwhile, hasn't given up on his quest to reclaim the rainbow. In a Jan. 5 column, headlined "Satan's Rainbow Synagogue" (is he suggesting that Jews are satanic?), he ranted that Christians who don't hate LGBT people as much as he does "are false 'Christians' (tares among the wheat) who pledge their allegiance to that ideology and its flag – the hijacked rainbow intended by God to symbolize His presence and authority – by which the Antichrist is also identified in Revelation 6:2." He concluded by huffing; "Make no mistake, you remnant Jews and Christians, the flag of that Luciferian kingdom is the flag of Satan's Synagogue: the rainbow – and wherever it flies today its purpose is to signal loyalty to him in the ancient tradition of welcoming an arriving conqueror (Revelation 6:2). Prepare yourselves accordingly."

MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, NPR Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center kicked off April's round of attacking White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with a writeup by chief Karine-hater Curtis Houck of the April 4 briefing, in which he whined that she wouldn't take a reporter's bait and continued the Biden White House's refusal to comment on Donald Trump's indictment:

During the media-wide prostration over New York City Tuesday for former President Trump’s arrest and arraignment, a White House press briefing took place and reporters such as The New York Times’s Michael Shear called out Jean-Pierre and President Biden for the double standard in refusing to weigh into some but not all criminal probes.

Shear came a few moments after Doocy Time as the Fox correspondent asked why the White House wouldn’t say more about something the country has never seen before. Shear latched onto Jean-Pierre’s ducks and dodges, noting Biden including “at least two major speeches that I can think of, and he’s talked at length” about it despite there being “more than 500 active legal cases going on.”

Noting that those “potentially could have been affected...by whatever his opinions were,” Shear questioned “what is different between his being willing to talk about...the issues presented by — by what happened on January 6th and questions about” Trump.

“But there are issues that are presented — people have been talking about it for weeks now — when a former President — any former President would be indicted for the first time and arrested for the first time. What is the White House’s reticence? And what’s the difference between that and this,” he added.

Jean-Pierre insisted Biden was within his bounds because “January 6th was a devastating day” and people “died” in a “devastating” “attack on our democracy” that “millions and millions of Americans...watched”.

“[A]nd so the President will never shy away when it comes to our democracy, when it comes to the fabric of who we are as a country and what makes this country who it — what it is and so it — it was a different, different moment and a different time,” she explained.

[...]

Jean-Pierre stuck to her talking points that January 6 “was incredibly devastating” and “people died on that day,” so it’s been necessary for Biden to weigh in on a subject such as “protecting our democracy” and has left “many people...scared”

Of course Houck had to sneak in his "Doocy Time" man-crush, even if it was only linking to a tweet. In writing up the next day's briefing, he got mad that Jean-Pierre defended National Public Radio after Elon Musk aribrarily changed its description on Twitter to "state-affiliated media" (a fit of mallicious trolling that the MRC absolutely loved):

Tuesday was a banner day for liberals and their media allies as not only did they see former President Trump arrested and arraigned in New York on 34 charges, but they flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the far-left candidate won the Chicago mayoral runoff. But some still ended the day infuriated as Twitter chose to label National Public Radio (NPR) as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” As such, it came up at Wednesday’s White House press briefing.

Marek Wałkuski of Polskie Radio — which is NPR’s equivalent of state-run media in Poland — bemoaned to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that the designation placed NPR “in the same category as Russia Today or Chinese media.”

Asked to comment, Jean-Pierre rushed to NPR’s defense, gushing that “there’s no doubt of the independence of NPR’s journalists and has been — if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of their — of their questions, you know this.”

She continued with the gag-tastic takes: “You know that they have their independence in journalism. NPR journalists work digitally [sic] to hold public officials accountable and inform the American people. The hard-hitting, independence nature of their coverage speaks — speaks for itself and so I’ll leave it there.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Fox’s Peter Doocy did his thing in pushing Jean-Pierre, starting with this:“[D]oes it bug President Biden when former presidents suck up all the oxygen?”

For his writeup of the April 6 briefing, Houck complained that Jean-Pierre let Jhn Kirby handle most of the questions about a new report on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan:

On Thursday’s White House press conference, the incompetent Karine Jean-Pierre once again used National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby as a crutch by letting him brief the members of the White House press corps for nearly the entire time. The topic of the day was the conveniently timed release of the Biden regime’s post-mortem on the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The reporters in the room skewered Kirby on the report’s findings as well as the pre-holiday news dump. During what WMAL radio talk show host Vince Coglianese refers to as “the grownup press briefing,” Kirby struggled with the rare barbs from all sides. 

First up was CBS’s Ed O’Keefe who was furious at what he called the “major holiday news dump.” “I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues in this room when we want the record to reflect that this was sent to us about 10 minutes before the briefing began with little notice,” O’Keefe fumed. 

“So, why today? And is this all we get? And is this a response to the studies that were done by the agencies? Or is this considered a summary of them?” O’Keefe asked.

Houck then ramped up his mancrushing over you-know-who:

Then came the moment everyone waits for at every press conference: Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy:

“Who’s going to get fired over this?,” Doocy demanded to know. 

“The purpose of the document that we’re putting out today is to sort of collate the chief reviews and findings of the agencies that did after-action reviews,” Kirby responded in bureaucratic gibberish. 

“Do you admit that the intel was bad? So how can President Biden ever trust, when they come into the Oval Office with the PDB, that anything in there is legit?” Doocy shot back. 

“What I said was intelligence is hard business, and they get it right a lot too. There were some pieces here that weren’t accurate,” Kirby replied. 

Then things got heated between Doocy and Kirby.

We suspect that Houck's definition of "everybody" who is waiting for Doocy to hurl biased questions at White House press briefings doesn't extend beyond the MRC's headquarters and may not even extend much farther than Houck's cubicle.

WND Columnist Ignores History To Bash Biden For Not Attending Coronation
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Barbara Simpson complained in her April 21 WorldNetDaily column:

I don't know about you, but I think it is a terrible affront that our president is not going to the coronation of King Charles III.

There will be dozens of heads of state and presidents attending the event from across the entire world. They will be showing respect for the man, for the event and for the country. They will be doing so – but our president will not.

I am ashamed of him for his decision.

President Biden is, in fact, snubbing King Charles and his coronation. It is an historic event, perhaps one of the most important days in modern British history, and yet, our president chooses not to be there representing our country and our people.

Yes, I know, he is sending his wife, but she is just a figurehead. She is a token. The American people did not elect her. We elected him. HE is the president, and he is the one who should be representing our country at such an historic event. But it is not to be.

Simpson is ignoring one pertinent fact -- no U.S. president has ever attended the coronation of a British monarch, so it is hardly out of line for Biden not to attend and to sent his wife instead. Simpson did vaguely hint at that later in her column:

Yes, President Eisenhower did not attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953, which occurred during his tenure, but travel and various aspects of dealing with British protocol have changed. In fact, Eisenhower sent four high-level individuals from our government to represent the American people. He did not send his wife, Mamie. He knew better.

Today, there is just no excuse – short of illness – for a head of state not to attend the event. Given our history with England, this snub is unforgivable.

Nevertheless, Simpson went on to manufacture a conspiracy theory about it based on Biden's Irish heritage:

The president consistently backs anything Irish – he is Irish, in case you hadn't noticed – as though that is the most important aspect of his life. Perhaps it is, but it is not fitting for that attitude to be the main theme of his presidency.

He may think it's "cute." I think it's disgusting and demeaning of his office and also of our country. He represents all Americans, thousands of whom are Irish and British – and they deserve respect from our president. They don't get that from Joe Biden – and he should be ashamed.

[...]

Biden has just returned from a trip to Northern Ireland, a trip that was to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which occurs later this month. He wasn't about to miss that.

The White House allowed that a man of his age should not attempt such major trips so close together, and so the decision was made for him to go to Ireland (Biden is Irish, you may recall) and send his wife, Jill, to London for the coronation on May 6.

Simpson went on to quote some British guy complaining about this, but he too failed to note that no U.S. president has ever attended a coronation.

MRC's Defense Of Man Who Shot Protester Didn't Age Well
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in an April 11 post:

We all remember the liberal media’s Orwellian portrayal of the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 as “fiery but mostly peaceful.” Well, ABC kept the gaslight flowing on Tuesday with hate crime hoaxer John Quinones spinning lies and misleading Good Morning America viewers about a July 2020 self-defense shooting of a BLM “protester” by Army Sargent Daniel Perry, and the possible pardon he could receive from Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott; even lying about what transpired during the altercation.

With the BLM riots raging out of control that summer and stories of innocents being killed and targeted by the mobs, Perry found his car surrounded and “protester” Garrett Foster brandishing a weapon at him. Perry drew his legally concealed-carry handgun and neutralized the threat before retreating and immediately called police. A detective concluded that Perry used lawful self-defense but the Soros-backed Travis County district attorney, Jose Garza, indicted him and was later found guilty of murder.

On Tuesday’s ABC, Quinones didn’t try to hide his disappointment that Perry could soon walk free. He asserted it was “an open-and-shut case” and openly whined that “that killer could come one step closer to being a free man.”

In his retelling of the events leading up to and during the shooting, Quinones omitted Perry’s account that Foster brandished the gun at him and the fact he was surrounded by an angry mob. He then LIED about Perry taking a handgun from Foster and shooting him with it:

Fondacaro worked hard to name-check all the requisite right-wing bogyemen -- BLM! Soros! Gaslighting! Quinones was wrong about the ownership of the handgun -- it belonged to Perry, not Foster -- but Fondacaro offered no evidence to prove the error was deliberate, making his shireking about a "LIE" premature and unproven.

Fondacaro went on to try and disprove Quinones not by citing established facts but, rather, Perry's attorneys, who have a certain bias:

Quinones scoffed that “attorneys for Perry say he had no choice but to shoot Foster for his own protection,” adding that “prosecutors say Perry could have fled the scene instead.”

But Perry’s car was surrounded by other so-called “protesters” who were banging on his car. Would Quinones prefer Perry run over those people? In that case, he would likely still want Perry charged.

He also wrongly stated Perry’s defense hinged on Texas’s stand-your-ground law (something liberals find controversial) when his lawyers were using so-called castle doctrine.

In a statement to Fox News in December 2021, Perry’s lawyers said: “Garrett Foster either intentionally or accidentally pointed his rifle at Daniel Perry’s head and Daniel Perry fired in self-defense … And as a practical matter he had no ability to retreat nor was he required to." “Texas castle law extends to one's vehicle in some circumstances,” Fox noted.

Fondacaro omitted that prosecution witnesses stated that Perry initiated the confrontation by driving into the midst of a crowd of protestersand that no witness to the incident saw Foster point his rifle at Perry.

But it turned out that not only was Fondacaro's "LIE" attack on  Quinones premature and unproven, so was his entire defense of Perry. A few days after this post was written, unsealed documents from the case revealed that Perry had a history of making racist and violent comments on social media, stating just a couple months before the shooting that “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," and stating in another post that “It is official I am a racist because I do not agree with people acting like animals at the zoo."

Fondacaro did not update his post to reflect this new information about a man he was defending, but neither he nor the MRC has written anything more about the case.

NEW ARTICLE: James Hirsen's Moral Projection, Part 2
Topic: Newsmax
The Newsmax columnist still won't apologize for spreading lies about election fraud, but he will hype faith-based films and melt down over a cartoon that wasn't about white Christians. Read more >>