WND's Lively Still Simping For Russia
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily homophobe Scott Lively is still a self-proclaimed Putin apologist, and the fact that the war Russia started in Ukraine is not going well for Russia isn't stopping him from continuing to be one. Lively began his May 15 column this way:

I haven't seen anyone else offer this opinion, but I believe the flood of illegal immigrants who have been coming over our southern border for the past decade – mostly military-age young men – may actually be intended to serve as cannon-fodder for the now-admitted American-run Ukraine war of attrition against Russia. Their status as non-citizens of the U.S. would allow them to become foreign mercenaries to Ukraine identified only by their country of origin, theoretically preserving the ability of our corrupt elites to plausibly deny that their actions constitute direct U.S. war with Russia (triggering all the serious complications of constitutional and international law that would entail).

These young men would be recruited/conscripted in the U.S., perhaps in conjunction with the threat of deportation/prosecution (in carrot-and-stick fashion), then trained and equipped in the U.S. or Europe alongside native Ukrainian soldiers, but paid by U.S. tax-money laundered through the Ukrainian government in the form of wages. Conversely, we might openly declare war and institute a draft to do pretty much the same thing. (Interestingly, even illegals are legally required to register with Selective Service.)

Is this a plausible theory? The corrupt elites whose minions rule us from their deep-state bunkers in the Defense and State departments of our government love fighting wars with proxy armies. They learned a hard lesson during the Vietnam War that Americans would no longer tolerate forever wars in which large numbers of their own children died for ideological pretexts masking mega-corporate, geopolitical strategies. So proxy wars became necessary to keep the military-industrial complex humming and Anglo-American global hegemony intact.

Lively doesn't seem to consider the possibility that nobody else has offered this particular opinion because it's stupid and has no basis in reality. He then went into pro-Putin mode again:

The Russian Federation, with its hopeful championship of pro-family normalcy and rightness of cause in defending its legitimate national interests in the face of relentless NATO aggression, will not be the salvation of the world but only play its role as global scapegoat in the looming great collapse and great reset. The current, unsustainable partnership of Orthodox Russia with Islamic nations and Communist China would inevitably devolve into conflict, even if it survived World War III intact, which it won't and neither will we. The Antichrist kingdom will be the temporary victor pending Christ's second coming, and all the world will suffer that evil rule together.

Lively seems to have missed the part about NATO being a defensive alliance, not one interested in "aggression."

Lively served up more Ukraine-related conspiracies in his May 22 column:

For years I have been in correspondence with an American ex-pat who shares my respect for Russia. I have appreciated this man for introducing me to information sources outside of the U.S./U.K. media bubble. By having learned about and regularly monitored these sources, I believe I am one of the better informed Americans on the Russian perspectives of the issues.

Unfortunately, this man has become increasingly hostile to Israel over this same period, and particularly scornful toward "Christian Zionists." I've given up trying to reason with him on the matter because he's become ideologically entrenched. Essentially, while I remain simply a truth-seeker anchored by a mature biblical worldview, he has become a "team player" for the Russian Federation, which has responded to NATO aggression/sanctions by building alliances with the Islamic nations and Communist China. Its new worldview is thus laced with coalition-affirming arguments from Islamic and Communist perspectives in the same way U.S. propaganda has traditionally included pro-Saudi themes for the same reason (even after 9/11).

Russia's "marriage-of-convenience" geopolitical partnerships are ultimately incompatible with the Russian Orthodox theology at the core of post-Soviet Russia and will eventually produce schisms, but in the meantime the nascent anti-Semitic inclinations of Orthodox believers (rooted in the doctrine of supersessionism – or "replacement theology" – which it shares with Roman Catholicism and some Protestant denominations), has been rekindled by close relations with the Muslims. That has manifested in a strong and growing anti-Zionist sentiment among both Russian nationalists and Orthodox Christians (even here at home). It is made much worse by blatant anti-Torah perspectives and policies of the Israeli government, symbolically represented recently by its outrageous equation of hostility toward the morally reprobate George Soros with anti-Semitism.

Hey, if people use anti-Semitic tropes to attack Soros, they are going to be credibly accused of anti-Semitism.

The rest of his column was a lot of convoluted explaining of how all this supposedly affects Israel, complete with a claim that ultra-orthodox Israelis "are the true 'Zionists'" and ranting about how "the (Soros-like) Synagogue of Satan that brings in the Antichrist Kingdom right before our eyes."

MRC Helps Transphobe Walsh Spread Lies About Target
Topic: Media Research Center

The Bulldog Award it gave to vicious transphobe Matt Walsh shows how virulent the Media Research Center's anti-LGBTQ agenda has become. It's been a promoter and defender of Walsh for a while, of course:

• In the aftermath of a Novmeber gun massacre at a gay nightclub, Jason Cohen defended Walsh from suggestions by "twits on Twitter" who suggested thatWalsh would like to have seen more dead gay people: "Just because someone is critical about something does not mean they want violence." But he never quoted Walsh explicitly disavowing the sentiment.
• An April 13 post by Tim Graham complained that PolitiFact ruled Walsh to be "mostly false" in trying to directly link gender-affirming care to suicide, maliciously framing such care as "gender-denying care" and complaining that PolitiFact used facts he didn't like: "Debating causation is tricky, but it's weird that radical activist groups like the Trevor Project constantly warn that the "trans" kids are much more likely to commit suicide, but it's constantly blaming that on "transphobia," not on gender dysphoria." Graham made no effort to actually disprove any of those "radical activist groups."
• Catherine Salgado touted Walsh's pronoun meltdown in an April 25 post:

The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh blasted YouTube for attempting to force him to use Dylan Mulvaney's preferred pronouns last week.

In a speech at the University of Iowa, Walsh described YouTube’s draconian policy that barred him from using biological pronouns. “YouTube has decided that I’m not allowed to use biologically accurate language when discussing Dylan [Mulvaney] or presumably any other trans-identified person,” Walsh said, later adding, “Basically what they've told me is '[If] you want to keep the money that's fine, keep the platform, just give up your integrity and your soul in its place.' And to that I say, 'Hell no.'"

In that same speech, Walsh also said, “I would rather be demonetized than use someone’s preferred pronouns one time. I’d rather you kick me off of every platform and banish me to Mars than use someone’s preferred pronouns.” Hence he will no longer post his full show on YouTube, despite the considerable amount of revenue he previously received from YouTube ads.

Quite the petulant child, isn't he? Yet the MRC decided that this immature rant was award-worthy -- and it eagerly signed on to promote a new anti-trans rage campaign. Tom Olohan merged hate with rah-rah in a May 24 post:

Conservative podcast host Matt Walsh is calling on conservative women to launch a Bud Light-style boycott to rebuke another woke company pushing the rainbow mafia agenda on children.

On May 23, The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh issued a call to action, asking conservative women to boycott Target after the chain store promoted “pride” month merchandise from a Satanist designer to children, including “tuck-friendly” swimsuits. Walsh responded to an account encouraging women to boycott Target by tweeting, “Yes. Women need to get in the fight. Some of them have but not nearly enough. It’s time to get serious. There’s only so much men can do to defend womanhood. You all need to step up.” He added: “It’s up to conservative women to make the Target boycott work. If you guys mobilize, you could crush Target. It’s up to you.”

[...]

Prior to his call-to-action tweets, Walsh condemned Target’s “pride” merchandise on “The Matt Walsh Show” on May 16. Walsh highlighted how Target not only marketed “pride” clothing and other merchandise to children, but also placed them in the front of the store to make a statement. As for the small “tuck-friendly” bathing suits, Matt didn’t mince words:

“We can clearly see that the bathing suits, though not in the kids section, are available in kid sizes. Either those are sizes for kids, or for very, very, very small adults,” Walsh said before brutally mocking Target. “Which I guess is the excuse they are going to go with, ‘No it's not, this is just for extremely undersized adults, I mean you could buy it for your kid, but that’s not what it's meant for’. That’s obviously what it is meant for.”

Olohan and Walsh are lying about the designer, Erik Carnell, by calling him a "Satanist" -- he considers himself an atheist, and none of his vaguely Satan-adjacent stuff (done to make a political point, not to promote Satan) was ever sold by Target. They are also lying by claiming that "tuck-friendly" swimsuits were being marketed to children; kids' swimsults are constructed differently.

But facts don't matter when there are people to be demonized and companies to attack for a partisan hate agenda. Kevin Tober explaned on the lies later in the day:

On Wednesday, NBC Nightly News dedicated an entire segment of their newscast to Target being forced to remove some of their clothing from their stores which visibly worship satan. In addition, Target announced they were reviewing some of their other clothing which caused a national uproar. Most notably, their "tuck friendly" bathing suits in which men are able to "tuck" their private parts in their bathing suit bottoms to pretend they're women. 

In fact, not even the MRCTV post to which Tober linked offered evidence that anything sold at Target "worshipped Satan." He went on to whine that "The left-wing correspondent parroted leftist gender ideology vocabulary like “gender-affirming operations.” --though he didn't explain how being transgender is an "ideology" -- then complained that things were fact-checked and others admitted they felt threatened by the hate campaign:

He then spoke to Ben Collins, NBC’s senior reporter who proclaims he’s on the so-called “dystopia beat.” 

“The misinformation here was that kids were being targeted with this stuff,” Collins proclaimed. “They realize if they can threaten enough people. If they can scare enough people in real-life locations that maybe support for the LGBTQ community will diminish among corporations.”

He provided no evidence that anyone has been “threatened” over this controversy.

Not to be outdone, Sarah Kate Ellis of the LGBTQ group “GLAAD” parroted the leftist line that different opinions from theirs constitute “violence.” 

“I think there's this really small group who has an outsized voice at this moment in time and it's of hate and it's of discrimination and it's violent,” Ellis cried. 

NBC allowed her to cry discrimination and allege violence without any pushback.

Alex Christy managed to avoid repeating any of the lies from Walsh and his co-workers in a May 25 post, but he complained that a transphobe didn't get enough airtime on CNN:

The View’s Alyssa Farah Griffin and Rolling Stone’s Jay Michaelson teamed up on Wednesday’s CNN Tonight to attack conservatives for wanting to boycott Target for certain Pride-themed merchandise aimed at children. In things never said about liberal boycotts, Farah Griffin labeled it “very totalitarian,” while Michaelson warned of “stochastic terrorism.”

CNN did have an actual conservative voice in Joe Pinion to go up against Farah Griffin, Michaelson, and senior political analyst John Avlon. However, the three-on-nature of the panel—four-on-one if you count host Alisyn Camerota—meant that after references to various insanities coming out of Washington and New York he was sidelined as the other three ganged up on him.

Chrsity went on to dismiss Michaelsen as a "liberal rabbi and former Merrick Garland clerk," then tried to play whataboutism: "One wonders if Michaelson, who once accused Antonin Scalia of all people of inciting terrorism, thinks Nashville was “stochastic terrorism” or does that label only get applied to hypothetical right-wingers? Either way, people aren’t going to suddenly believe that boys can suddenly become girls because that’s not hate, that’s just science." Christy is referencing the Nashville gun massacre, which Christy and the MRC care about only because the shooter was allegedly transgender, not because guns were used to kill both adults and children.

WND's Brown Goes Soft On Trump Again
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Along with hating LGBTQ people, Michael Brown is also known for trying to sell Donald Trump to evangelicals, imploring them to ignore his amorality because he delivered on right-wing agenda items, though the Capitol riot caused him to waver. So as we play catch-up with Brown's hating on non-heterosexuals, it's worth noting another example of Brown's wishy-washiness over Trump's growing extreme rhetoric. He wrote in his March 10 WorldNetDaily column:

Former President Trump's "I am your retribution" comments at CPAC have created the expected firestorm. For his loyal supporters, this was vintage Trump, as once again, he stood up boldly to fight for "us" against "them." To paraphrase, "They may have hurt you, but I will make them pay!" For Trump critics, this was Trump at his arrogant and dangerous worst, pledging a holy war against those who stood in his way.

To quote Trump in full, "In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today, I add I am your warrior, I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution. Not going to let this happen. Not going to let it happen. I will totally obliterate the deep state."

To repeat those central words: "I am your retribution."

What are we to make of this?

Weirdly, Brown didn't reference Trump's name again in this column, even though the column was a response to Trump. Instead, he ruminated on the biblical aspects of retribution, concluding by arguing that retribution is for God alone but, again, not calling out Trump for trying to substitute his judgment for  God's:

So, rather than try to destroy our enemies or bring retribution on them, our goal should be their conversion and transformation. That is the radical Jesus way.

Of course, some of us will immediately try to rationalize our way out of this command, saying that such efforts are a sign of compromise. Or we'll create ridiculous scenarios, asking, "So, if a killer breaks into my house, am I supposed to cook him a nice meal?"

That is obviously not what the Word is saying.

But God is calling us to crucify our flesh, to put down our carnal desires for retribution, and to make it our goal to overcome evil with good, thereby following in the footsteps of the Lord.

As for vengeance and retribution, we do best to leave that to God.

Which may be true. But if Brown won't specifically address Trump with that admonishment, his words are meaningless in this context. If Trump is claiming retribution where he shouldn't Brown needs to actually say so. Otherwise, he's just serving up more wishy-washiness over someone whose agenda he loves too much to be completely turned off by his severe character flaws.

MRC Trots Out Bogus, Made-Up 'Secondhand Censorship' Numbers Again
Topic: Media Research Center

"Secondhand censorship" is a completely made-up and meaningless metric, but that's not going to keep the Media Research Center from treating it with gravitas, if only because it generates absurdly huge, clickbait-worthy numbers it can promote to advance its right-wing victimhood narrative. A May 10 post by Heather Moon and Gabriela Pariseau promoted the latest manufactured numbers:

Big Tech has sent conservatives a clear message through its outrageous censorship practices: There is no room for worldviews that contradict the leftist version of reality, and real people are being harmed as a result.

Since MRC Free Speech America began tracking secondhand censorship in the first quarter of 2022, we have counted a total of 396,571,484 times that users have been harmed through the silencing tactics used by Big Tech platforms. And the year 2023 is off to a much worse start than most of 2022. MRC Free Speech America researchers recorded 363 documented cases of censorship in the first quarter (Q1) of 2023, which amounted to 82,249,700 times Big Tech harmed users. That’s more than triple the fourth quarter of 2022 when Big Tech harmed users 25,280,704 times by keeping information from them.

Several notable issues raised the ire of Big Tech companies in Q1 2023 more than others. Most notably, Big Tech censors targeted content regarding “transgenderism,” COVID-19 vaccines and the January 6, 2021 events at the U.S. Capitol. In particular, Big Tech made it a point of going after efforts by conservatives to bring attention to the infamous so-called “Trans Day of Vengeance.”

Big Tech’s 82,249,700 times of keeping information from social media users in the first quarter follows the 314,321,784 tallied times that users were harmed through secondhand censorship in all of 2022. Nearly half of the 2022 number was just in the first quarter alone at 158,641,918. In Q2 of 2022, the figure was down to 62,030,798, and by Q4, MRC Free Speech America counted 25,280,704 times users were harmed by Big Tech, who kept them from seeing information they had deliberately requested to see by following censored user accounts.

Moon and Pariseau are lying. Nobody was "harmed by Big Tech" because of content moderation, which they dishonestly insist is "censorship." And in case it wasn't already clear that the metric is a partisan tool and not a scientific one, note the subjects Moon and Pariseau focus on: the Capitol riot, COVID vaccines and "transgenderism" (complete with scare quotes). On the first item, they complained that Tucker Carlson's cherry-picked riot footage -- which dishonestly portrayed things as much more benign than they actually were -- saw reducted exposure:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson devoted several of his Fox News programs to this issue as he was granted access to previously unreleased security footage taken on January 6. Facebook slapped the page with fact-checks at least two times when the Tucker Carlson Tonight page posted video from his evening show discussing what his team found in some of that footage, labeling them both “Partly false information.”

Additionally, the Glenn Beck Facebook page posted a link to a clip from his radio program in which he discussed Carlson’s findings. Facebook’s fact-checkers labeled this video “Partly false information” as well.

Moon and Pariseau didn't dispute the accuracy of the fact-checker's assessment, nor did they explain why readers shouldn't have been alerted to the videos' dishonesty. That's because they appear to be Capitol riot truthers themselves, given their laughable reference to "the politburo-styled Jan. 6 Committee."

On the COVID front, Moon and Pariseau claimed:

Undercover journalism outlet Project Veritas took a major blow from Big Tech over this issue when it released a series of videos allegedly showing a Pfizer executive speaking about its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Multiple platforms, including YouTube, Google, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter censored the outlet. The total harm to users across the five platforms amounted to at least 7,923,000 times Big Tech prevented users from viewing Project Veritas’ exposé.

Again, they failed to mention that the video has been debunked or explain why those platforms must be forced to make misinformation available.

On the "transgenderism" issue, Moon and Pariseau began by huffing that "Big Tech has been targeting content that refuses to affirm the unreality of so-called “transgender” ideology for some time." They didn't explain why they put "transgender" in scare quotes or how a person's identity is an "ideology."  They then rehashed fretting that right-wing rants about a planned "Transgender Day of Vengeance" were removed -- but they censored the fact that Twitter stated it blocked all tweets posting a flyer of the (ultimately canceled) event regardless of the ideology of those posting it.But the important thing for Moon and Pariseau is that the incident goosed its metric: "The 'Trans Day of Vengeance' censorship event alone accounted for no less than 14 million times that users were harmed from Big Tech censorship."

Moon and Pariseau concluded by invoking a serial misinformer:

Even Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted that censorship is “a direct assault on our democracy.” He further explained that “without free speech, democracy just withers and dies,” while “democracy’s advantage is that through the free flow of information, the best policies can triumph in the marketplace of ideas.”

The longer that national policymakers wait to take action against the grave threat posed by Big Tech censorship, the more that our American republic and free speech are threatened.

MRC Free Speech America calls on the American public to push tech companies to end their authoritarian suppression of viewpoints.

They didn't mention that Kennedy is an anti-vaxx conspiracy theorist -- and they still didn't explain why they demand that lies and misinformation must never be countered.

NEW ARTICLE: WND's Capitol Riot Revisionism
Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rather than admit there was an attempted right-wing insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, WorldNetDaily would rather downplay the violence, dismiss the post-riot deaths of law enforcement and pretend that Ashli Babbitt was a victim, not a domestic terrorist. Read more >>

MRC Ignores Bad News About Twitter, Stays In Musk-Fluffing Mode
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center doesn't care about bad things happening on Elon Musk's Twitter unless it directly affects them and their fellow right-wingers. Thus, you will never hear the MRC complain about, say, the plethora of animal torture videos on Twitter. Instead, it hyped Twitter accusing Microsoft of misusing data, and it published a column by Ben Shapiro headlined "Will Elon Musk Break the Legacy Media Stranglehold?" Gabriela Pariseau touted a new "Twitter files" release in a May 24 post:

Many shocking reports of Australia's draconian COVID-19 lockdown measures have come out over the last couple of years but the latest “Twitter Files Extra” show how far those measures went online.

The new supplemental Twitter files centered around the “The Covid Censorship Requests of Australia's Department of Home Affairs (DHA)” and reportedly helped confirm a report by The Australian. Andrew Lowenthal, author of the Network Affects Substack, tweeted that The Twitter Files team “found 18 DHA emails, collectively requesting 222 tweets be removed.”

He added that “Jokes & true information were included in censorship requests, which came from the “Social Cohesion Division” of the DHA’s ‘Extremism Insights and Communication’ office.”

Pariseau failed to mention reports that Musk's Twitter has approved more censorship requests from other countries than pre-Musk Twitter did; still, she unironically whined that "it’s telling that Twitter bowed to a foreign government repeatedly pushing the platform to behave like a state actor."

Because no criticism of Musk is allowed unless it comes from the MRC itself for not letting hate and misinformation go completely unchecked, Joseph Vazquez was in full Musk defense mode in a May 25 post:

Apparently attempting to promote free speech on a Big Tech platform is now “right wing.” At least, that’s what The Atlantic is suggesting in its latest conniption over Twitter 2.0 under owner Elon Musk.

Atlantic Staff Writer Charlie Warzel bemoaned in his whiny May 23 piece how “Twitter has evolved into a platform that is indistinguishable from the wastelands of alternative social-media sites such as Truth Social and Parler. It is now a right-wing social network.” Warzel — apparently disturbed that Twitter 2.0 isn’t the Orwellian censorship cesspool it once was — laced his headline with nutty agitprop: “Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network.” In Warzel’s view, “It can no longer be denied.” Apparently more people being allowed to speak freely is the bogeyman The Atlantic sees in its nightmares. The Atlantic’s tweet of Warzel’s story tried to smear Musk’s Twitter as a “right-wing, alt-tech” platform.

Warzel doubled down on his December 2022 assertion that Musk was some kind of a “far right activist” simply because he decried the “woke mind virus” and allowed conservatives more ground to express opinions on hot button issues:

"Woke mind virus" isn't actually a thing, but Vazquez won't tell you that. Instead, he quoted a feillow MRC employee spouting pro-Musk talking points:

“Liberals used to claim to stand staunchly in favor of promoting free speech,” said MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “But apparently that speech only extends to the ignorant spewing of expletives and denigrating the American flag and Constitution, not to conservatives in the new digital town square of the internet. Shame on The Atlantic for not rallying behind free speech online.”

Musk still has a bad habit of suspending the accounts of anyone who criticizes him or his other companies, so it's laughable for Morris to hold him up as a paragon of "free speech."

Autumn Johnson contibuted a slice of fawning Musk PR in a May 26 post, gushing over how "Elon Musk is once again warning about the dangers that unchecked artificial intelligence poses to humanity."

Clay Waters offered his own defense of Musk in a May 30 post:

PBS is an echo chamber for arrogant liberals who think they should manage everyone's information. PBS NewsHour hosted a conversation on Elon Musk's recent Twitter moves Thursday evening. The guest was liberal Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, who is no friend of Musk and his moves to, as Bump himself said, “equal [the] playing field” on Twitter by ridding it of the management of verification badges (i.e. “blue checks”) beloved by liberals.

In Bump's view, the move gave so-called “objective” journalists relatively less influence compared to “partisan” conservatives spreading “unvetted” and false information. As if liberal journalists didn't further demonstrate their bias and partisanship on Twitter, a cause for ineffectual hand-wringing among their editors for years.

[...]

No matter the reams of evidence from the "Twitter Files" and other sources, demonstrating left-wing cancel mobs pressuring Twitter to ban conservatives, and Twitter squelching the accounts of prominent scientists who strayed from the authoritarian party line on fighting the Covid pandemic, Bump sided with the censors.

The only "prominent scientist" Waters is actually referring to here is Jay Bhattacharya, who proved he was wrong about the COVID pandemic by signing the Great Barrington Declaration, which irresponsibly pushed "herd immunity" at a timewhen thousands of peopole were dying of COVID daily and no vaccine yet existed.

Waters went on to complain: "After Bennett noted Bump’s argument that Musk was out to 'dismantle' certain communities on Twitter, Bump argued that he’d taken over Twitter to mute his bad press. (So Musk spent $44 billion just to avoid bad press?)" Given Musk's penchant for suspending the Twitter accounts of his critics, that's not an unreasonable take.

How Has WND's Brown Been Hating LGBT People Lately?
Topic: WorldNetDaily

There has been so much fake news and misinformation to document at WorldNetDaily of late that we got behind in documenting Michael Brown's hatred of LGBTQ people (even as he pretends he doesn't hate them), so we are still in catch-up mode. In his Feb. 22 column, Brown effectively argues that God mandates Christians to hate LGBTQ people:

If you decide not to acquiesce to the latest LGBTQ+ talking points on the job or in school, you will be vilified, marginalized and demonized. You will be excluded, marked, mocked and even canceled. You will be branded a bigot, a hater, a Nazi, to the point of losing promotions, jobs, scholarships and your reputation. Who wants any of this? Better to conform than to resist. At the least, better to be silent. That's certainly what the flesh wants to do.

Yet when we do this, compromising our convictions for the sake of our comfort, we compromise our very souls. This, too, is part of the Lord's warning, and it accurately describes the culture of the day. Lawlessness abounds. Wickedness has increased. The opposition to holiness is mounting. The resistance to the Gospel is growing.

Brown's Feb. 27 column was inspired by ther film "The Jesus Revolution," arguing that Christians shouldn't reject others interested in the faith -- while also being condescending to those same people if they're not straight:

To say it once more: We cannot afford to repeat that same error in the days ahead, as thousands (millions?) of young people (and others) from many different backgrounds begin to pour into our churches, looking for God, looking for hope, looking for meaning, looking for truth. 

I fully expect that among them will be many who identify as LGBTQ+, including men wearing dresses and carrying Bibles, and same-sex couples, telling us how they really felt the Spirit in our services.

Will we have wisdom to meet them where they are, helping them truly encounter the Lord while the Spirit convicts them and changes them? Will we have the patience to recognize that they are coming from many different backgrounds and, in some cases, are totally without biblical foundations? Will we have sensitivity without compromise? Will we walk in both grace and truth?

Seems like the answer is going to be no.

Brown spent his March 6 column insisting that LGBTQ people shouldn't be treated with empathy, and that transgender people deserve no empathy at all:

It is partly because of empathy that a disproportionate percentage of Gen Z'ers identify as LGBTQ+, even though only a small percentage of them are actively, let alone exclusively, involved in same-sex relationships and activity.

As a result, this quality of empathy, which can be very positive in and of itself, has been coopted in a destructive, negative way. And so, to give just one example, out of empathy, many teens will instinctively defend a trans-identified peer, not realizing that this peer is about to destroy his or her life via chemical castration and genital mutilation. Their empathy in the short term actually contributes to their friend's long-term pain.

And so, rather than lovingly help their friend not to mutilate and alter the healthy body God has given them, their empathy moves them to side with an act of self-destruction.

It's the same with the pursuit of justice and equality, in the name of which a male who identifies as female can compete against real females, not to mention share a locker room with them. Yes, this uncomfortable, unequal and potentially abusive situation is justified in the name of equality.

He added: "This reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand (hat tip to John Hawkins for the quote): 'Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.' How easy it is to turn something good on its head." Strange that Brown is citing a woman who rejected religion to justify his hate.

In his March 13 column, Brown portrayed transgender people being allowed to have rights as "more evidence that the world is losing its mind":

In the midst of many positive things that are happening in America and abroad, including the beginnings of both spiritual and moral awakenings, there's also plenty of evidence that, on another level, the world is losing its mind. Here are some striking, recent examples.

Writing for Breitbart, Jack Montgomery reported, "Women and 'non-binary' people with breasts will be able to go topless at Berlin swimming pools after a ruling from the German capital's diversity ombudsman."

Indeed, "Dr Doris Liebscher, who heads the city's ombudsman office, hailed the change, saying: 'The ombudsman very much welcomes the decision of the bathing establishments because it creates equal rights for all Berliners, whether male, female or non-binary and because it also creates legal certainty for the staff in the bathing establishments.'"

But of course! There's no difference between a man's body and a woman's body, right? If a man can go topless, why not a woman? Equality for all!

And then this priceless paragraph (and note the gender pronouns): "The municipal government in the university city made the change in response to a complaint by a biologically male transman, who was banned from a pool for refusing to cover their breasts on the basis that they were a man, and men did not need to cover their chests."

So, if I have this right, this is a biological male, who now identifies as a female (but is being referenced here as a "transman") and who (apparently) has female breasts, who is protesting the fact that he (who now claims to be a she) must cover his chest. But since men do not have to cover their chests and he is really a man (at least for the sake of the court case, since he otherwise identifies as a woman), then he, even as a she, shouldn't have to cover his chest (sorry, their chest). Is that correct?

This gentleman may be very sincere and may truly feel aggrieved. But turning logic and reality upside down will solve nothing.

Brown then cheered that anti-transgender hate is spreading:

The bad news is that the world is really losing its mind. The good news is that many others are now waking up and saying, "Enough is enough."

May God help these trans-identified individuals find wholeness within their natural bodies, and may the rest of society regain its bearings, before the slippery slope becomes a steep and treacherous cliff.

Brown spent his March 20 column complaining about the handling of an event by Charlie Kirk's right-wing Turning Point USA at the University of California at Davis and against the school 's diversity policy:

Under the heading of "Diversity and inclusion," the UC Davis website states: "Respecting difference, striving for equity. The way we see it, the world is just too big to be bound by narrow perspectives. In an intellectually vibrant place like UC Davis, creativity connects ideas from the obvious to the outlandish. The most comprehensive solutions come from the most diverse minds."

Put another way, we warmly welcome all points of view that challenge the narrow bigotry of the right. As for those hateful, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist voices, they have no place on our campus. We are diverse! We are inclusive!

Does no one see the irony and the contradiction?

I have no doubt that hostile, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant views against conservatism (and/or conservative Christianity) are expressed at UC Davis on a regular basis. And I have no doubt that students who hold to these conservative and/or biblically based views feel isolated and marginalized.

Once again, diversity and tolerance seem to be one-way streets, and this should be recognized whether or not one likes or dislikes Kirk and TPUSA.

Brown didn't explain why his hatred of LGBTQ people should be tolerated by the rest of us, or why he's trying to reframe that hate as "conservative and/or biblically based views."

MRC Unironically Attacks Reporter For Alleged Bias, Gives Fox News Reporters A Pass
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck unironically complained in a May 9 post:

Being a frequent NewsBusters reader and/or a trip to our taxonomy term for ABC chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce would give one the impression that Bruce was little more than a doormat for the Biden administration and loyally delivered the day’s preferred spin. Such was the case on Tuesday’s Good Morning America as she enthusiastically spun for President Biden on the border crisis and debt ceiling. 

Simply put, if Biden and his handlers (who actually run the administration) want a Press Secretary who can successfully string together complete sentences, they should give Bruce a look. Besides some tough press briefings here and there, she’s a loyal foot soldier.

If Houck actually about reporters pushing political agendas, he would be writing about Fox News reporters like Peter Doocy and Jacqui Heinrich. Instead, he gushed about "Doocy Time" and "jacqui Time" whenever they ask their biased questionsa. Both Doocy and Heinrich would have made adequate successors to Houck's beloved Kayleigh McEnany in the Trump White House -- which was something that was actually needed because McEnany infamously abandoned her job after the Capitol riot rather than face questions about her boss' role in inciting it.

If liberal media bias is bad, then conservative bias is bad too -- but Houck refuses to acknowledge that simple bit of logic. Because Houck is a political acitivist and not a journalist, he only sees things frough his narrow partisan right-wing lens. And that's the way everything from the MRC should be treated -- they aren't offering honest criticiques of journalism, they are working the refs to push their partisan narratives.

Larry Tomczak and 'Useful Idiots'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Larry Tomczak began his May 16 WorldNetDaily column this way:

The past two years living under radicalized, extremist "progressive" policies have caused untold suffering for the citizens of this nation. Simply put, we have been betrayed.

Joe Biden may not be around for the coming catastrophic consequences, but Americans must wake up by refusing to be useful idiots anymore! The Bible offers hope to transform us ("An idiot will become intelligent," Job 11:12 NASB) if we go God's way.

Leftist-leaning leaders have advanced their agenda to destroy traditional America because they lack a moral code and take advantage of the "useful idiot" tactic employed in other countries to manipulate the masses.

The term "useful idiot" is used to describe someone perceived as lacking discernment and being used to advance the agenda of a political movement. It also refers to a person propagandizing for a cause originating from a devious, ruthless source.

Actually, the useful idiot here is Tomczak, because he quickly descends into right-wing anti-Biden talking points. First, Tomczak targets Biden's age to claim he's a "pretender":

Joe is confused, yet convinced he's doing a great job. He's disconnected from reality. Perceptive people and our enemies know he's weak and wobbly, cognitively impaired, carrying out his role more like an aging monarch than a leader addressing our vexing problems.

He gives scripted speeches. He's treated as royalty by the media, which covers for him because they're invested in his tenure. He rarely engages in interviews. He makes social appearances as a dignitary supported by handlers propping him up and covering for his many blunders and bumbling ways.

He practices for his teleprompter reading to sound official (wearing his bomber jacket and aviator sunglasses like Tom Cruise's "Maverick"), but when he regularly says embarrassing things, he doesn't process mentally to catch himself. Recently, as "Mr. Uniter" he gave the commencement address to black graduates at Howard University, telling them angrily that white supremacy is the No. 1 problem in America. What's he talking about?!

He then declared that Biden was a "pro-abortionist":

Biden professes to be a devoted Roman Catholic. His religion, aligning with Scripture, prohibits killing an unborn baby in the womb. Our Christian duty is to see all life as sacred and defend it from womb to tomb.

Joe promotes taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for any reason at any time until the minute of birth! He aggressively advocates a federal law to guarantee abortion in total defiance of the Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade!

Finally, he ranted that Biden is a "purveyor of perversion" -- that is, he doesn't hate LGBTQ people as viciously as Tomczak does:

Biden's spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre, just carried out something unprecedented at the White House. She honored Joe for promoting LGBTQ activism as she hailed "Lesbian Visibility Week." She highlighted her own "queer lifestyle," praising the lesbians flanking her, extolling the beauty and battles of LGBTQIA+ people while paying tribute to how they set the example for young people in America today.

Biden brazenly has promoted activities the Bible deems sexual perversion. Whether he's fully cognizant of what's going on or not, he gives approval to it all and has stocked his Cabinet and high-level positions with gays, lesbians, transgenders and their organizations like no other president in history.

Joe and Jill actively stand for sexual education that teaches children the LGBT agenda and risky sexual behavior. Joe pushes legislation that will coerce schools to either yield to transgender policy in sports, restrooms and locker rooms or forfeit federal funding (Title IX). He publicly states that "it's almost sinful" for any parent or guardian to stand in the way of a minor getting gender mutilation surgery while his wife says no books should be banned in schools!

As a professing "Christian," Biden knows that the sacred Scripture and Roman Catholic dogma reveal marriage is between one man and one woman; there are two genders – male and female; and parents – not the government – have the primary responsibility to train their children according to their values, not LGBTQ propaganda.

The Bible throughout condemns sexual perversion and lays out chilling consequences for those who practice what today is called "gay." Romans 1:18-32 describes in no uncertain terms the debauched characteristic of the ancient pagan world.

The definition of the verb "pervert" is "leading someone away from what is considered right, natural or acceptable." In our "woke" society where deceived and broken people "parade their sin as Sodom; they hide it not" (Isaiah 3:9) in month-long celebrations and everyday life, it's tragic that the leader of the free world is the baton-master at the front of the parade.

Tomczak concluded: "Here's the deal: We must refuse to listen to and let this man use us as useful idiots. As election season gets underway, may we awaken, pray and engage to see a turnaround in America before it's too late."All this parroting of rote right-wing anti-Biden hate tells us who the real "useful idiot" is.

MRC's Hatch Act Hypocrisy
Topic: Media Research Center

Just like its former "news" division CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center cares only about Hatch Act violations by people in government when those people work for a Democratic administration. Kevin Tober complained in a June 12 post:

On Monday, NBC News had an exclusive report on their website revealing that President Biden’s incompetent press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (KJP) was found to be in violation of the Hatch Act, a law enacted to strictly limit government officials from getting involved in campaigns. What made this ironic was that KJP frequently tied herself in knots to avoid answering questions due to her hiding behind the Hatch Act. Meanwhile, on Monday night, NBC Nightly News ignored their own network’s reporting. 

Instead of reporting on KJP’s violation of the Hatch Act, NBC wasted air time on local weather reports and a tour boat capsizing in upstate New York.

According to reporting by NBC’s Katherine Doyle, “White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre violated a law intended to prevent federal employees from using their offices to influence elections when she repeatedly referred to “mega MAGA Republicans” in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections.”

 [...]

Despite finding KJP in violation of the law, Galindo‐Marrone wrote: “We have decided not to pursue disciplinary action and have instead issued Ms. Jean‐Pierre a warning letter.”

By contrast, the MRC did not find it newsworthy when members of the Trump administration were found to have violated the Hatch Act. In November 2021, the Office of Special Counsel issued a report stating that numerous Trump officials -- including press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- violated the Hatch Act during the Trump years. The report stated that the Trump officials “intentionally ignored the law’s requirements and tacitly or expressly approved of senior administration officials violating the law.” The MRC completely ignored the report.

A couple weeks before that report came out, however, the MRC published a column by Cal Thomas asserting that Vice President Kamala Harris violated the Hatch Act by appearing in a video played at a church in which she encouraged viewers to vote for the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor.and "even reminds them they can vote on Sundays and urges them to do so following their church service, presumably after worshipping an Authority higher than the state."

On top of that, a July 2020 post by Adam Burnett demonsdtrated the dismissive attitude the MRC took toward Hatch Act violations during the Trump years; when a commentator noted how Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway has repeatedly violated it, Burnett huffed in response: "It should be noted that Hatch Act violations are rarely prosecuted and there are deep questions still about the constitutionality of the law." Further, an August 2020 post by Scott Whitlock mocked MSNBC host Joy Reid for pointing out that Trump cabinet members who attended Trump's Republican National Convention acceptance speech. given at the  White House, was likely violating the Hatch Act.

Jeffrey Lord dismissed the Hatch Act further in a June 2019 column: "The idea that the White House staff in any presidency is somehow 'violating' the Hatch Act is ridiculous. The presidency itself is a political institution - with all policy decisions always involving politics."

Going back before Trump, when there was a Democratic president, the MRC raged against a fictional violation of the Hatch Act. An October 2016 post by Karen Townsend attacked an episode of the TV show "Madam Secretary" for showing "a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act while politicizing the NFL. A two-for-one!" After describing the alleged fictional offfense, Townsend huffed: "Sounds like current election shenanigans, right? The rules only apply to some people, not all." We don't recall Townsend complaining about Hatch Act "shenanigans" under Trump.

The MRC didn't care about Hatch Act violations when Trump officials violated it, so it's hypocritical for them to suddenly care when a Democratic official is involved.

Newsmax Turning Trump Political Statements Into PR 'News' Articles
Topic: Newsmax

Newsmax is nothing if not Trump sycophants and stenographers, and few things demonstrate that more than its touting -- by writing what are effective press releases -- about every detail of Donald Trump's so-called "Agenda 47," the list of things he claims he'll if he's re-elected. Here are some of them:

• Trump: 'Fire Radical Marxist Prosecutors'
• Trump Promises to End Regulatory Onslaught
• Trump: End Drug Crisis, Biden's 'Death, Destruction, Misery'
• Trump: 'I Will Never Yield,' 'Will Never Stop Fighting for You'

The most embarassing, though is a May 31 article by Eric Mackthat servd up straight Trump stenography about a national birthday party he plans to drag out for more than a year:

Continuing his Agenda 47, former President Donald Trump announced his plans for "Salute to America 250," a year-long 250th birthday celebration for the United States that will run from Memorial Day 2025 through July 4, 2026.

As part of the plan, Trump hopes the Iowa State Fair will welcome plans to host a year-long "Great American State Fair" to showcase America to the world.

"Three years from now, the United States will celebrate the biggest and most important milestone in our country's history — 250 years of American independence," Trump said in his latest 47th president agenda video released Wednesday. "That's why as a nation, we should be preparing for the most spectacular birthday party. We want to make it the best of all time."

[...]

Trump's announcement comes as he travels to Iowa for a barnstorming tour, where he will participate in a town hall and plead to Iowa caucus voters to keep him atop the Republican Party ticket for the 2024 presidential election.

"My hope is that the amazing people of Iowa will work with my administration to open up the legendary Iowa State Fairgrounds to host the Great American State Fair and welcome millions and millions of visitors from around the world to the heartland of America for this special one-time festival," Trump said, appealing to a potential boon for tourism.

"Together we will build it, and they will come," Trump added, using the famed quote from the classic American movie "Field of Dreams," filmed in Dyersville, Iowa.

Mack didn't discuss further Trump's attempt at vote-buying by promising to hold the fair in Iowa while campaigning in the state.He did, however, try to push a narrative about this by claiming Trump wanted this extended birthday party while president:

Trump first teased the 250th year of America in his first address to a joint session of Congress in February 2017.

"In nine years the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding — 250 years since the day we declared our independence," Trump said then. "The 250th year for America will see a world that is more peaceful, more just, and more free."

"When we fulfill this vision," he continued, "when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom — we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American greatness began."

Mack did not discuss how Trump's history of lies and crime fit into his "American greatness" claim.

WND Smears Chelsea Clinton For Advocating Childhood Vaccines
Topic: WorldNetDaily

It took two articles for WorldNetDaily to fully attack Chelsea Clinton for advocating that children receive vaccinations. The first was a May 6 article stolen from right-wing fake-news content mill The People's Voice with the false headline "Chelsea Clinton: 'It's time to force-jab every unvaccinated child in America'." In fact, nowhere in the original People's Voice article is Clinton quoted as actually sayibng that, so it's a blatant lie to put those words in quotes.

Two days later, Bob Unruh wrote an article that was lighter on Chelsea Clionton slander but continued to fearmongered about vaccines, citing as a prime source the anti-vaxxer site Chiuldren's Health Defense:

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of ex-President Bill and two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary, now is campaigning to give all the children in the world many more vaccinations.

Following shortly after the catastrophic results of the COVID-19 vaccinations that many people were forced to get, resulting in injury up to and including death, a report at Children's Health Defense explains how Clinton, long an executive for her parent's foundation who attended a long list of elite schools, at one point taking a a master's degree in "public health" from Columbia, is pursuing her agenda.

And she's working with the World Health Organization and Gates Foundation, both ardently pro-vaccination ideologues, on the project.

It's called the "Big Catch-Up" initiative, and WHO said it's a "targeted global effort to boost vaccination among children…."

Chelsea Clinton, "via the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) — along with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" wants to make it the "largest childhood immunization effort ever."

She talked about her desires at a recent elite conference in Marina del Rey, California.

Note Unruh's portrayal of Clinton as some kind of "elite," as if vaccines are only the realm of rich people. Still, his anti-vaxxer fearmongering continued:

During the recent conference, Chelsea Clinton said there's a problem with "vaccine hesitancy" as well as those who simply reject vaccinations.

"No one should die of polio, measles, or pneumonia — including in this country, where we also need people to vaccinate their kid," she said.

In addition to traditional vaccinations, the program also is pushing the politically charged HPV vaccine and Gates Foundation spokesman Chris Elias said, "We must double down to reach all children…"

Unruh didn't explain why children shouldbn't be vaccinated against polio, measles, or pneumonia, nor did he explain why the HPV vaccine is "politically charged."

On the other hand, WND appears to have accepted the fact that Chelsea is Bill Clinton's child, after years of suggesting that Webb Hubbell is her real father, so that's something.

NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC Flips Over Elon Musk, Part 11: The Wavering
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center continued to promote "Twitter files" releases -- but it also fretted that Elon Musk wasn't doing enough to help right-wingers escape accountability for their hate and misinformation on the platform. Read more >>

MRC Transgender Hate Watch, Cooking Show Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center continues to wage war on transgender people. TIm Graham had a meltown over a cooking show in an April 15 post:

Even food shows have to be woke. On the April 9 episode of CNN's  the Desperate Housewives star promoted "two-spirited" trans women in the province of Oaxaca.

You could consider this the P.C. antithesis of the Great British Baking Show doing a brief cheesy comedy routine in sombreros to kick off "Mexican Week," which was greeted on the Left like a hate crime.

[...]

After some prep cooking, Longoria, speaking in Spanish with subtitles, asked "And what's your love life like? Can you go out with someone?"

One of the muxes replied "Yes, our custom, our culture is different. We have partners, but in secret. We go out with heterosexuals because they're more manly."

They're "heterosexuals"? Another man in a dress added "If he doesn't want to, then he's a coward and I don't want him." Longoria laughed heartily. What a silly heterosexual! 

Graham concluded by sneering, "LGBT advocacy is obviously a crucial part of CNN." And vicious hatred of LGBT people is obviously a crucial part of the MRC.

Two days later, Graham played comedy cop over a non-binary "Saturday Night Live" cast member:

When NBC's Saturday Night Live made the dramatic announcement that they'd hired their first "non-binary" cast member, you could guess that the lectures would follow. Molly Kearney unloaded a sermon for "trans kids" on the fake-news "Weekend Update" segment on Saturday. 

Over giggles, "Weekend Update" co-host Michael Che tried to be earnest: "Since the start of this year, over 400 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced across the country, many of which target trans youth. Here to talk about it is someone with their own introduction."

Then over rock music, an announcer yelled "Introducing SNL's first nonbinary cast member. It's Molly Kearney!" Kearney was lowered down from above in a harness.

[...]

"That's an awesome transition," said Che, smirking at the double entendre. "As of this week, there are now over 14 states that have passed bills restricting health care for trans kids."

Kearney responded: "Listen to that, Michael, restricting health care for kids. For some reason, there's something about the word trans that makes people forget the word kids. If you don't care about trans kids' lives, it means you don't care about fricking kids' lives!" The audience cheered wildly.

Amputating a teenager's breasts or penis is "health care for kids." If you don't want the amputations, then you don't care about kids! 

Then Kearney made a joke about how she was left in the harness too long, but said "we have a code word for emergencies," "trans rights." Then confetti fell from the ceiling. "That was the code for confetti! My bad!" Har har har.

In another April 17 post, Clay Waters tried to gaslight people by blaming transgender people for being hated by his fellow right-wingers:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? When it comes to the transgender agenda, only the opposition is "mobilizing." On the front page of Sunday's paper, The New York Times falsely cast conservatives as the culture-war instigators over the controversy of transgender children on Sunday’s front page: “How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives.”

The subheadline oozed anti-GOP cynicism:

Defeated on same-sex marriage, the religious right went searching for an issue that would re-energize supporters and donors. The campaign that followed has stunned political leaders across the spectrum.

In the Trump years, the Times thrilled its liberal readership with the motto "Truth: It's more important now than ever." But obviously, when it comes to transgender issues, the feelings of people are Truth, and the biological realities are somehow just a sad excuse for a conservative crusade.

Reporters Adam Nagourney and Jeremy Peters (both of whom are gay activists in their work) wrote as if defeated social conservatives cynically went out to pick a fight against an imaginary foe, as if the left didn’t start the transgender fight through demands for “gender-affirming care,” howls about unsubstantiated epidemics of trans suicides, and invading women's spaces, especially sports for women and girls.

[...]

The Times never considers the idea conservatives are fighting for children not to be subject to irrevocable surgical operations at a vulnerable age, or trying to protect women’s spaces like locker rooms and restrooms from male intrusion and possible violence.

Waters doesn't explain why the conservative war against transgender people should be assumed to have only pure motives and not the result of a search for a new target designed to generate hate and donations.

Similarly, an April 20 post by Alex Christy didn't want people to think the right-wing anti-transgender war has any ill effects on the transgender people they're targeting:

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell teamed up with Politico White House correspondent Eugene Daniels to reduce the integrity of women’s sports to GOP “red meat” with Daniels taking it a step further, accusing Republicans of villainizing people and implying such bills lead to suicides.

Mitchell’s “red meat” remarks about Republicans playing to their base came as she simultaneously condemned them for not doing what the Democratic base and the media—but we repeat ourselves— want, “And Eugene, Republicans today also passed a transgender sports ban for schools. Now, this is red meat for the base, but it’s going to be vetoed, you know, if it got through the Senate. Meanwhile, they are not doing anything about guns or a lot of other issues.”

[...]

Daniels then played the suicide card, “And when you talk to these advocates, this is what they were worried about and most importantly, I think they are worried about the numbers, the vast numbers, disproportionate numbers of young trans people who either kill themselves or feel scared living in this country as folks try to pass bills like this and so it’s red meat for the base, it’s not going to go anywhere and also it’s—it’ll will be interesting how the politics of this plays out in general elections, right?”

Ignoring that public opinion is on the GOP side, Daniels concluded, “People don't typically--have not gone to the ballots in strong waves against transgender people, that is something Republicans have been trying to do but it doesn't seem like it will try to work. So how they do that as it moves forward in a presidential when you have Democrats painting this Republican Party as extremists and pretty extreme on this issue in particular.”

Mitchell would follow up by agreeing, telling USA Today’s “I'm not sure it has the constituency” to win a general election.” Meanwhile, MSNBC’s position polls in the twenties and thirties.

Destroying the lives of people because it's politically popular to do so is quite the take. The next day, Christy complained that someone argued the issue of transgender athletes isn't as black-and-white as right-wingers like himself want you to believe:

In theory, Alyssa Farah Griffin is supposed to be one of CNN’s conservative commentators, but in the real world that conservatism is often missing. On Friday’s CNN This Morning, Farah Griffin lamented that Republicans don’t appreciate the “nuance” of “transwomen in sports” and condemned the GOP and the White House for not compromising on a dichotomous issue.

Co-host Poppy Harlow began by telling Farah Griffin that “We were really intrigued by this sort of tweet thread you posted yesterday referring to polling about LGBTQ support. There is a distinction here, as you want to point out, between support for transgender women and girls playing in male sports. But my question to you is what is the bigger picture you're trying to point to here?”

[...]

As for the sports question, Farah Griffin claimed “The transwomen in sports issue is a very nuanced issue and Congress is where nuance goes to die. I mean, the breakdown of that vote just shows that there was absolutely no effort to try to meet in the middle and find something that works for both sides.”

It isn’t nuanced. Running, swimming, and other sports are not like the chess club and the fallacious argument to moderation does not change that. Nevertheless, Farah Griffin continued, “I have talked to a lot of parents, mostly, you know, who have female daughters, who have concerns over this issue. But there is certainly something that I think is a step below a federal bar on trans athletes competing in women's sports that could be reached.”

Now Christy is opposed to"moderation" when it comes to transgender people -- they must be hated with all the partisan force he can muster.

WND's Orient Fishes For New Right-Wing Narratives Post-Pandemic
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As the COVID pandemic winds down, right-wing grifters who peddled conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID and its vaccines, must move on to something else. And so it is for Jane Orient of the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, whom we last saw here pushing the fact-free conspiracy theory that the on-field collapse of NFL player Damar Hamlin was caused by a COVID vaccine. Her last COVID-related gasp was a Feb. 13 WorldNetDaily column defending a fellow fringe doctor who had a patient die after she was prescribed hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID:

I am not acquainted with the physician, Dr. Medina Culver. Some people seem to disapprove of her because she has long hair, a flamboyant personality and a large following on social media, none of which seem relevant or newsworthy to me. Neither does her membership in America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) – which is also being sued for allegedly promoting the drug improperly.

The plain facts are that the patient had a telemed appointment with Dr. Culver in August 2021, at which time Dr. Culver reportedly prescribed hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment or "preventative therapy." Dr. Culver never performed a physical examination of Mr. Parker – it was a telemed visit, remember.

[...]

HCQ has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, is available without prescription in many places and is safer than many over-the-counter drugs such as Tylenol.

Telehealth is touted as a great answer to physician shortages and difficult access to care – despite the inability to do a physical examination. Unless it involves an "off-label" prescription for COVID.

People die, often after taking a treatment. If it happens after a COVID vaccine, correlation doesn't prove causality, and beware of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") logical fallacy. But different rules apply to early, officially disparaged COVID treatment.

More than 1 million U.S. deaths have been attributed to COVID. Very few of those patients probably received early treatment with a repurposed drug. More than 34,000 deaths have been reported in association with COVID vaccines, but causation has not been proved.

Finally, someone is suing because a patient was given HCQ or ivermectin, instead of because a hospital denied a patient ivermectin. Doctors who prescribe a potentially life-saving drug despite vilification by authorities, hospitals and medical associations had better take notice: malpractice attorneys may target you. Ditto for entities that organize telehealth services and/or provide favorable information on a repurposed drug.

Of course, that logical fallacy never stopped Orient from blaming Hamlin's collapse on a COVID vaccine, even though she had no evidence he ever had one.

From there, it was time for Orient to move on to other things in a bid to stay relevant. So she spent her March 30 column attacking transgender people:

The whole concept of a transition is bogus. A person of one sex does not turn into one of the opposite sex, either suddenly or gradually. One can only remove characteristic male or female features, say, by shaving the Adam's apple or amputating breasts; inducing changes such as a deep voice or beard or breast development with cross-sex hormones; or trying to surgically mimic anatomic parts of the opposite sex.

[...]

Some adults with gender dysphoria are evidently living successfully as a member of the opposite sex. They have had elaborate, expensive plastic surgery and expert medical management of their hormones and health complications. Persons who do not know them intimately may not suspect what sex they really are. Though such treatment may help some deeply troubled patients cope, surgery does not cure delusional thinking.

Heavy makeup is a vain, superficial attempt to cover up reality. Powerful hormones can unleash real, deeper problems. One of the only two lone female school shooters in U.S. history, killing six innocents this week, used the pronouns he/him. Will we ever learn how much testosterone this angry, suicidal person was given? Will we blame the person who sold the gun – or deadly transgender and rage-inciting ideology and the $5 billion industry that prescribes mind-altering therapy to mentally ill patients?

Happiness depends on accepting who you are – not on trying to force others to pretend that you are what you really aren't.

Orient spent her April 11 column shifting her conspiracy theories from medical to political over the (first indictment of Donald Trump:

The triumphant anti-Trump crowd loves to say, "No one is above the law."

Most Americans have, however, felt safe from the dreaded knock on the door from the Gestapo or the KGB, from the "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" principle of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's secret police chief.

Law-abiding Americans assume that since they have not assaulted or robbed anyone or deliberately disobeyed a regulation, they will never come in contact with the criminal justice system. After all, mens rea – criminal intent – is required. Americans are presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they have a right to a prompt trial before an unbiased judge and jury.

But those are constitutional rights, and our "archaic" Constitution is being rewritten. Ordinary Americans, especially doctors who prescribe pain relief, have experienced the reality of politicized prosecutions for many years. But the Russian proverb has applied: "You'll know it's true when it happens to you."

Now that a former president has been criminally charged, the sordid process is at the top of the news.

[...]

Perhaps the Left wants Trump to win the primary, keeping out a younger person without the baggage, especially baggage from the COVID debacle. Other indictments may come down; lawfare and other attacks will continue; and electoral fraud has not been fixed, so Trump could well lose. Bragg's actions might stem from pure hatred, without strategic considerations. In any event, the theatrics are drowning out concerns such as deteriorating foreign policy and the destruction of the dollar.

Whether you love Trump or hate him, the weaponization and politicization of the criminal justice system and the shredding of the Constitution affects you, too.

Orient had a pronoun meltdown in her May 8 column:

Pronouns do not define your identity or create or solve social injustice.

Using an incorrect pronoun used to get you a red mark on your essay. Today, the red mark might be considered racist – a sign of white supremacy, implying that there is a correct answer. Or it might make someone feel unsafe or excluded.

Instead, there's now a permanent Scarlet Letter, or job loss and cancellation, for not using a person's preferred pronouns, no matter how ungrammatical.

[...]

Language is our tool for thinking, and even the smallest words count. Activists do not own pronouns, or English grammar, or our thoughts. They have no right to dictate our opinion of their gender or to force us to allow them access to our private spaces.

And they cannot change the reality of sex.

When in doubt -- and when fishing for a new right-wing narrative to latch onto -- going after people you don't like is always good clickbait, and Orient is playing that same game.