Republican News

Sunday night MSNBC went all out smearing parents in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Loudoun County as domestic terrorists. On Alicia Menendez’s American Voices, the MSNBC host and her far-left guest cruelly painted parents standing up to school boards, including a father whose daughter was allegedly raped by a transgender student on campus because of the schools’ liberal policies, as radical rioters who were like the January 6 “insurrectionists.”

Menendez set up the smear campaign against concerned parents with a graphic that read, “The Radicalized Right” in big bold letters at the bottom of the screen and “Threats of Violence” in the top corner. 

Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat running in the state’s gubernatorial race is facing backlash for saying parents don’t have a say in their child’s education. There has been uprisings from parents across the country, including in Virginia, over Critical Race Theory and transgender bathroom policies. Menendez complained that McAuliffe’s opponent, Glenn Youngkin, was seizing on that. She also repeated the media’s bold-faced lie that CRT ideology isn’t taught in K-12:

This weekend at a campaign rally he promised to ban race theory in schools, even invoking a quote from MLK to make his point. Youngkin is searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist. Critical Race Theory is not part of Virginia’s K-12 school curriculum. This summer Loudoun County, Virginia became ground zero for our nature’s culture war on what is and what isn’t taught in the classroom. Parents showed up at school board meetings in droves speaking out against critical race theory and the policy addressing students by their preferred pronouns. Heated debates like this have turned into real life threats against officials across the country.

She then introduced her guest, Soros-funded Loudoun County prosecutor Buta Biberaj, who sought jail time for a dad who erupted at a Loudoun County Public Schools board meeting in June over his daughter’s alleged rape by a transgender student that the school lied about and covered up. In MSNB’s twisted logic, the liberal prosecutor was the real victim of this story:

Right wing media is stoking flames, accusing the prosecutor of targeting the father. However WUSA in Washington reports ‘the prosecutor says deputies were unaware he was the father of an alleged school rape victim when they arrested him and our office did not target the father but accepted a referral from prosecution from the sheriff’s office.’ Right wing media has seized on the story, bending the truth, radicalizing the far right. The prosecutor, she is now receiving death threats because of a smear campaign. 

Menendez teed up her left-wing guest to defend herself: “How did a referral for prosecution from the Sheriff’s Office turn into this conspiracy?” she asked. 

Biberaj pinned blame on the Sheriff’s office. Like MSNBC, she lacked any sympathy for the actual victimized student or her father.  

She then actually said with a straight face, “[I]f you have ever seen the video, it really has the hint of the insurrection on January 6th as far as the mob mentality, the heated rhetoric. It just was a very unsafe situation that the officers found themselves in.” Ironically the media shown by MSNBC didn’t back up Biberaj’s narrative of a supposed violent mob.

The MSNBC host and Biberaj also used the interview as an opportunity to campaign for Democrat Terry McAuliffe. After Youngkin called out Biberaj’s knowledge of the rapes the school covered up, Menendez again painted the liberal prosecutor as the victim: “Glenn Youngkin, the Republican running for governor in your state called you out at a campaign rally this week embracing the narrative that led to the threats against you. Your response to him?”  

After giving Biberaj the chance to trash Youngkin, Menendez turned to MSNBC regular Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, and Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan to hammer home their point that “January 6” was now “local” and liberals should be very afraid. Watts erroneously claimed the backlash against schools was mostly “white and male” despite many parent activists speaking out against school boards being minority women. 

Consumer Cellular sponsored this nasty attack against parents and Democrat PR piece for Terry McAuliffe. Contact them at the Conservatives fight back page linked.

Read transcript portions below:

American Voices with Alicia Menendez

10/24/2021

ALICIA MENENDEZ: The state’s race for governor heads into its final stretch with election day just nine days away, the race is being defined by two factors: Education and Donald Trump. Both fiends of the Republican party drift into the land of lies and fear. Terry McAuliffe is busy reminding his opponent Glenn Youngkin’s ties to the former president. The Washington Post frames the stakes writing, ‘Mcauliffe has highlighted Youngkin’s statements welcoming Trump’s endorsement, his opposition to abortion, his opposition to vaccine or mask mandates and a support for election integrity.’ McAuliffe’s strategy is playing out as a new poll shows the race at a virtual tie in a state typically leans blue. As the race tightens, Youngkin continues to throw red meat to the GOP base. 

This weekend at a campaign rally he promised to ban race theory in schools, even invoking a quote from MLK to make his point. Youngkin is searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist. Critical Race Theory is not part of Virginia’s K-12 school curriculum. This summer Loudoun County, Virginia became ground zero for our nature’s culture war on what is and what isn’t taught in the classroom. Parents showed up at school board meetings in droves speaking out against critical race theory and the policy addressing students by their preferred pronouns. Heated debates like this have turned into real life threats against officials across the country. And now an elected prosecutor finds herself in the middle of a firestorm over the arrest of a father accused of scuffling with deputies at a school board meeting in June. Dad showed up at the meeting looking for answers after his daughter reportedly was sexually assaulted at school. Right wing media is stoking flames, accusing the prosecutor of targeting the father. However WUSA in Washington reports ‘the prosecutor says deputieswere unaware he was the father of an alleged school rape victim when they arrested him and our office did not target the father but accepted a referral from prosecution from the sheriff’s office.’ Right wing media has seized on the story, bending the truth, radicalizing the far right. The prosecutor, she is now receiving death threats because of a smear campaign. That prosecutor joins us now, Buta Biberaj, the prosecutor for Loudoun County.  First I want to start with the threats that you are receiving. How did a referral for prosecution from the Sheriff’s Office turn into this conspiracy? 

BUTA BIBERAJ: It definitely was an interesting turn of events. As everybody knows, the prosecutor’s office does not investigate cases. That comes from law enforcement. So the Sheriffs Office put together the investigation after the incident at the Loudoun County School Board where there was a physical altercation between the man that was arrested as well as law enforcement officers. They chose then to charge him with two misdemeanor offenses, obstruction of justice as well as indicating the fact that he had not complied with their directives. That was referred to as before we ever even knew about the incident with his daughter. So we took forward that case. It was presented to us based on affidavits and critical complaints sworn under oath by the officers.

 So we have to accept it as being the truth, which we did and we went forward on that prosecution because of the actions within that board room which if you have ever seen the video, it really has the hint of the insurrection on January 6th as far as the mob mentality, the heated rhetoric. It just was a very unsafe situation that the officers found themselves in, and they had to create some opportunity for calmness. 

MENENDEZ: We are seeing this vitriol aimed at local elected officials across the country. What is it like being an elected official in this current political climate? 

….

MENENDEZ: Glenn Youngkin, the Republican running for governor in your state called you out at a campaign rally this week embracing the narrative that led to the threats against you. Your response to him? 

BIBERAJ: For starters, it seems very convenient that he is calling out a Democrat who has nothing to do with the investigation, but you don’t call out the sheriff who is a Republican who is in charge of the investigation and who is at the core of all these decisions? That’s the political climate he’s created.The  hardest thing is that he needs to understand that we cannot have violence being encouraged in our communities. We cannot have that. And we cannot have that from a leader because if that is how he is going to lead, he should never hold office because what you are doing is making it okay for people to harm one another or to intimidate or to look into situations where what they’re going to do is they’re going to take safety and throw it to the wind. That’s not leadership. And he should definitely never be coming out of his mouth. Why hasn’t he come out and indicated that, you know what, I’m going to renounce the fact that these threats are happening to our elected leaders. Why hasn’t that happened? That’s what a true leader does. That’s the point that’s very offensive. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci pushed back on

funding “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Unequivocally anything that knows anything about viral biology and phylogeny of viruses know that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses that were worked on to turn into SARS-CoV-2,” Fauci said.

In 2019, NewsBusters reported that in her first six weeks at the helm of CBS Evening News, anchor Norah O’Donnell was floundering in the ratings. A couple of years later and things weren’t much better. And according to a Sunday report by The New York Post, she was “in danger of losing” her job “as cost-slashing execs at the broadcasting giant quietly search for her replacement,” and internal frustrations and backbiting mounted.

According to The Post via reporter Alexandra Steigrad, O’Donnell’s contract was “in the ballpark of $8 million a year” and the new network executives (co-presidents Neeraj Khemlani and Wendy McMahon) were getting tired of the newscast being “stubbornly stuck in third place” behind ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News, respectively.

And the ratings breakdown was not looking good for her (Click “expand”):

Although TV ratings are down across the board, O’Donnell’s show continues to bring up the rear. With 5.9 million total viewers in the 2019-2020 season, it trailed “ABC World News Tonight with David Muir” with 9.4 million total viewers and “NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt” with 8.3 million, according to Nielsen.

O’Donnell helmed half of the 2018-2019 season, which was up slightly with 5.8 million total viewers, but down from the 2017-2018 season under Glor, who reeled in 6.2 million viewers.

While O’Donnell has had some ratings wins, she is also losing the all-important 25 to 54 age demographic. In the most recent season, “CBS Evening News” saw a nearly 15 percent decline in those viewers, to 1.1 million, from the 2017-2018 season hosted by Glor.

The paper recalled O’Donnell “muscled her way into the evening slot in 2019,” leaving then-anchor Jeff Glor to get relegated to weekend CBS Mornings co-anchor. And as a NewsBusters study found at the time, Glor was the least anti-Trump anchor on broadcast TV.

“CBS poured millions of dollars into the move, giving the show a redesign and a new theme song, with the still-unrealized hope that it would lift it out of third place,” Steigard wrote, noting the network moved the show from New York to Washington, D.C. for O’Donnell.

But according to CBS insiders who spoke to The Post, O’Donnell’s failing ratings weren’t the only thing grinding gears at the network. Apparently, “O’Donnell’s diva-like behavior wouldn’t be missed in the network’s corridors. They said she continues to be rude to hair, makeup and wardrobe staff — despite years of complaints that she is ‘divisive’ and ‘toxic’ with colleagues.”

And her elitist mentality had also led to demands for “new designer threads throughout the pandemic, a move that rubbed some the wrong way, as she reports on COVID deaths, political upheaval and unemployment.”

There were also raw feelings about previous CBS boss Susan Zirinsky giving O’Donnell Walter Cronkite’s old title of “managing editor,” with accusations she was not living up to his legacy. And stemming from that, O’Donnell reportedly didn’t want to elevate other journalists at the network:

While Zirinsky had pitched the new “Evening News” as a place for strong investigative journalism, that hasn’t panned out because “Norah O’Donnell didn’t want it,” a source said. When original, investigative stories that are of interest to O’Donnell do make it on the air, she usually is the correspondent presenting the piece, the source said. If O’Donnell isn’t the focus, the segments tend to get shot down by the anchor, the source added.

One unnamed source took a dig at O’Donnell that cut deep, especially since she prides herself on being the embodiment of girl power: “’She is a woman version of an outdated anchor,’ said the insider. ‘Her appointment was an example of the worst kind of change. It was about optics.’”

On Friday’s The 11th Hour, for about 30 seconds, Brian Williams did something that is rare for him and other journalists to do as he admitted that the national news media live in a liberal bubble, mostly interact with others who are in the same bubble, and are therefore out of touch with a mostly red country.

Williams made his analysis as he hinted that Republicans many be on the verge of winning the upcoming elections in Virginia based largely on local school issues. After reading from an article in Politico which informed readers that many Virginia voters are concerned about issues of race and transgenderism in schools, Williams recalled past instances when the liberal press have been shocked as he correctly diagnosed a problem in his industry:

I have always believed we should be more critical of ourselves. The press corps — the people we read and the people we see all day long on cable news — tend to live in blue dots. No fault of their own — it’s where their employers are located. But it helps explain why the press corps largely was shocked at the rise of the Tea Party, shocked at the election of Donald Trump.

The liberal former NBC Nightly News anchor then added: “Out beyond the last exit for a Whole Foods, people have been listening to Steve Bannon, and Trumpers have been running for town and city council, and boards of ed, and this is happening in town after town across what is still a very red country.”

After liberal author and frequent guest Baratunde Thurston responded by portraying Republican voters as voting the way they do because they feel fear on racial issues, Williams never got around to proposing that anything be done to deal with the problem he acknowledged exists in journalism.

In the fact, on that very night, his own show displayed multiple examples of the blue-centered bias in his field. Not only did an earlier segment feature a disgruntled former Republican accusing Republicans of being fascists, with Williams describing the GOP as acting like “killers,” but just minutes earlier, one of the network’s Republican contributors, Susan del Percio, cheered for Democrats to win the next election.

The MSNBC bizarro world frequently features disaffected Republicans who attack their own party instead of providing balance against Democrats touting liberal views. Del Percio — who was described on screen as a “Republican strategist” — condemned Supreme Court conservatives for not blocking the Texas abortion ban and urged Democrats to run on the issue:

…they (the U.S. Supreme Court) are literally causing so much pain and problems for women today by not putting a stay on that. And these women are confronted with real life problems that are going to cost — affect them for the rest of their lives. Ten days is not soon enough, and we know they’re not going to give a decision after they hear the discussion. 

So, hopefully, the Democrats will use this, among other things, including voting rights, as saying we must fight for the rule of law. That’s it. Full stop. Go to the streets, get people registered to vote because turnout will be the thing that causes the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate.

Williams also frequently uses the last couple of minutes of his show to highlight some sort of attack on Republicans that might thrill his liberal audience, sometimes playing entire ads released by anti-Republican groups.

This episode of The 11th Hour with Brian Williams was sponsored in part by Alka Seltzer. Their contact information is linked.

Transcript follows: 

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

October 22, 2021

11:38 p.m. Eastern

SUSAN DEL PERCIO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Democrats have never gotten their act together as far as using the courts as a way of voter turnout. This should certainly do it. If the courts rule against Roe v. Wade, it should make the Women’s March that we have seen look like a picnic and like a small turnout. There should be millions upon millions of women and men calling out that the courts and saying we need to have representation and follow the rule of law.

Every one of the nominees that got confirmed under Trump said, “Yes, precedent is important, and that is what Roe v. Wade is, and I wouldn’t want to overturn it,” basically, without saying the “overturn” part. And here they are, and they are literally causing so much pain and problems for women today by not putting a stay on that. And these women are confronted with real life problems that are going to cost — affect them for the rest of their lives. Ten days is not soon enough, and we know they’re not going to give a decision after they hear the discussion. So, hopefully, the Democrats will use this, among other things, including voting rights, as saying we must fight for the rule of law. That’s it. Full stop. Go to the streets, get people registered to vote because turnout will be the thing that causes the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate.

(…)

11:44 p.m. Eastern

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Baratunde, I want to talk about the Virginia governor’s race as a springboard into a related conversation. Here’s the quote from Politico. “Glenn Youngkin is betting on parents’ anger with local school boards to help him edge out a victory in the governor’s race against Terry McAuliffe. And if it works, it could be a playbook for Republicans to seize on frustrations over COVID school closures paired with culture war fights over how race is taught in schools and the rights of transgender children to recapture suburban voters, potentially rocketing fights over education to the top of campaigns across the country — across the country.

Baratunde, there’s a larger issue here. I have always believed we should be more critical of ourselves. The press corps — the people we read and the people we see all day long on cable news — tend to live in blue dots. No fault of their own — it’s where their employers are located. But it helps explain why the press corps largely was shocked at the rise of the Tea Party, shocked at the election of Donald Trump.

Out beyond the last exit for a Whole Foods, people have been listening to Steve Bannon, and Trumpers have been running for town and city council, and boards of ed, and this is happening in town after town across what is still a very red country.

BARATUNDE THURSTON: I will just acknowledge your analysis there, Brian. There wasn’t a question, but I will share some thoughts. I think that a lot of people are afraid. I think people have been sold a path to power through grievance. I think folks are feeling a little lonely and a lot scared when power shifts. And make no mistake, power is shifting. Virginia was the capital of the confederacy, and now they are taking down confederate flags.

And the racial makeup of that state is changing — the politics of that state have changed. It’s become a younger — it’s become a browner and all kinds of colors that aren’t white. And that makes certain people feel afraid.

How dare society expect an elite group of police officers to meet rigorous physical standards! Or so says this week’s episode of CBS’s S.W.A.T.

In the episode, “Sentinal,” on Friday, October 22, S.W.A.T. member Christina “Chris” Alonso (Lena Esco) is upset that the year’s applicants list for the SWAT Academy has no women. She talks to Nora Fowler (Norma Kuhling), a female officer who pulled herself from consideration, to find out why.

Fowler: I was interested, but I decided not to take the risks that come with trying out. 

Alonso: What do you mean?

Fowler: I took a closer look at the swat training and fitness standards. Not only are they out of date, they’re biased in favor of male cadets. 

Alonso: You’ve got the skills and drive to get past all the boys’ club nonsense. 

Fowler: This isn’t a willpower issue. It goes deeper than that. And I’m not the only walking wounded. You know Officer Park, North Hollywood Division? 

Alonso: Yeah.

Fowler: She tore her rotator cuff trying out for one of the swat PFQs.

Alonso: A cadet had the same thing happen when I was training for SWAT. 

Fowler: Let me guess– female officer? 

Alonso: Nicki Bradley. How’d you know that? 

Fowler: Swat PFQs put a ton of emphasis on explosive strength. Push-ups, pull-ups, box jumps… Are all exercises proven to put women at a physiological disadvantage. 

Alonso: Nicki was worried about the push-up portion. She was training so hard for it, she got hurt.

Fowler: That makes sense. If you can’t do 50 push-ups, like most of the guys… 

Alonso: You don’t make SWAT.

Fowler: Exactly. Male candidates are more likely to succeed, and female candidates are more likely to injure themselves trying to clear these arbitrary fitness thresholds that have nothing to do with actual SWAT work. Take a look at the data yourself. The other female applicants and I all talked. It doesn’t seem worth it to risk a whole career.

Alonso: What if we can change that? 

Fowler: Good luck. In the meantime, I got to watch my own six. 

Is the audience really supposed to pretend that high levels of “explosive strength” are not a critical aspect of police work, especially on a SWAT team? Is it now wrong to expect candidates to have the capacity to, say, subdue a hostile male suspect? Gender politics has been lowering physical standards in numerous fields requiring levels of strength associated with males in the aggregate. The reduction has been happening in both the military and law enforcement.

“Look, I’m all for improving and expanding our training and recruitment, but let’s be honest. We can’t just simply lower the bar for female officers,” cadet trainer David ‘Deacon’ Kay (Jay Harrington) later tells Alonso. “I’ve never had to get into a push-up contest with a suspect before,” Alonso replies.

Push-ups are a critical measurement of upper body muscle strength. Upper body strength is very important when grappling with a potentially hostile or aggressive suspect. Nonetheless, Deacon eventually gives in to Alonso’s concerns and alters the physical requirements for female cadets. Gosh, I am sure that will make the team so much more effective.

Also during the episode, SWAT had to take on a suspect who was stealing insulin shipments for his daughter. The episode detailed the prohibitive cost of vital insulin treatments. It left out the fact that Trump had lowered the cost of insulin treatments to low-income patients and the Biden administration inexplicably halted that order.

In a new twist, this season of S.W.A.T. has finally recognized that Latino officers are in important positions in the Los Angeles Police Department. Unfortunately, it did so by introducing a Hispanic lieutenant who is trying to get a black man fired.

Last season, the year of endless BLM scripts, Daniel ‘Hondo’ Harrelson (Shemar Moore) went to the media about some racist cops who had not been removed from the force. Higher-ups in the LAPD are still not happy about it. They installed a new head of the S.W.A.T. team, Rodrigo Sanchez (David DeSantos). It turns out Sanchez is really there to find a way to get Hondo to quit the force.

“Sentinal” ends with Hondo and Sanchez fighting.

Sanchez: I am not the architect of this plan. I’m just the tool. 

Hondo: You know what? You’re damn right, you are a tool. You are a brown man coming after a Black man for calling out racist cops. That don’t make no kind of sense. 

Sanchez: This has nothing to do with race.

Hondo: No? What’s it about, then?

Sanchez: You are a cop who went outside the chain of command. Now they’re gonna use you to make an example for everyone to witness. 

The left is losing Latinos and now they are portraying them as “tools” of an inherently racist white system. Vilifying Latinos along with white people is a strategy, I guess.

Apparently, leftists do not like it when their intersectional fantasies do not comport with reality. It will be interesting if Hollywood pushes more Latino “tool” narratives as Hispanics increasingly reject the Democrats’ agendas.

This rant was brought to viewers in part by Progressive, Neutrogena and Charmin. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.

YouTube and Instagram are among the Big Tech platforms that have banned “Let’s Go Brandon,” an anti-Biden song at the top of iTunes. 

Rapper Bryson Gray took the popular euphemism and turned it into a rap song. The song quickly went viral on TikTok, and is now Apple Music’s number one Hip Hop song. The song even surpassed Adele’s new hit, “Easy On Me.”

According to Fox News, the lyric version of the video was originally banned, “but then the actual music video was taken down,” as well.

The reason it was banned, however, might shock you–YouTube said the video contained “medical misinformation.” A strike was issued against Gray’s account.

“YouTube has banned “Let’s Go Brandon” song from YouTube due to “medical information”. What medical misinformation is in the song? Whoa,” Gray tweeted.

However, Gray was not disheartened over the ban.

“WE DID IT. FROM BANNED ON YOUTUBE TO PASSING ADELE ON THE ITUNES CHARTS TO BECOME THE #1 SONG IN THE COUNTRY! Gray tweeted. “Stop being afraid of censorship. Stop being afraid to be cancelled. STAND UP. Thank y’all so much! KEEP IT GOING!”

YouTube apparently said they would “re-review” the matter, but no changes have been made yet.

“Jumping in – we’re passing this along to the right team for a re-review,” the reply said. “We’ll share updates once we hear back from them. Appreciate your patience in the meantime.”

Instagram later banned the video as well, saying it contained “harmful false information.”

“Instagram just banned the music video also. Haha cute but it’s too late,” he added, noting that a ban cannot stop the spread of the song.

Peacock’s new series One of Us Is Lying went out with a literal bang on Thursday, as the killer of a student was shot dead at the end of the double-episode finale. But there were more than two lives lost, as it was also revealed that a teacher (who is labeled a “good person” and “the opposite of a killer”) helped one student (who is “not ashamed”) get a secret abortion behind her parents’ back.

One of Us Is Lying is a teen murder mystery based on the book by Karen M. McManus in which high school student Simon (Mark McKenna) falls dead from a peanut allergy in the middle of serving detention after someone secretly laces his cup of water with peanut oil. The five students serving detention with him become prime suspects and band together in a “murder club” to find the real killer. It’s worth noting that, although the show centers around teens, it’s not at all appropriate for teen viewing due to extremely foul language, drugs, and rampant gay and straight sex.

Near the end of the season, the five students begin to suspect their teacher who oversaw the detention, Ms. Avery (Andi Crown), after they learn that Simon was blackmailing her over a secret he threatened to publish on his Gossip Girl-esque burn blog.

When Addy (Annalisa Cochrane), who is one of the five suspects, confronts her friend Vanessa (Sara Thompson) as to why she was seen at Ms. Avery’s house, Vanessa first claims she was getting extra help with her studies. But after further discussion, Vanessa admits Ms. Avery helped her get an abortion and even paid for it so Vanessa’s parents wouldn’t find out:

Vanessa: I had an abortion, Addy.

Addy: What?

Vanessa: Mm-hmm. And Ms. Avery was there for me because she’s a good person. She’s like the opposite of a killer. I mean, unless you’re my parents. If they found out, they would say we’re both baby killers.

Ms. Avery: I know what you all think of me, but I’m not a monster. I do actually care about my students.

Addy: Vanessa, I’m so sorry.

Vanessa: She caught me trying to skip, and I told her I had a doctor’s appointment, so she thought I was lying because, you know, I usually am. And she said she had to call my parents to check my story, so I panicked. I completely broke down, and I told her everything.

Ms. Avery: I helped Vanessa when she needed it, and in doing so, I violated school rules.

Bronwyn: What school rules?

Vanessa: She helped me make an appointment with a good doctor. And then she drove me there. And she held my hand while I waited. She even paid for it, so my parents would never find out.

Addy: We’re talking about the same Ms. Avery?

Vanessa: Mm-hmm. Even total bitches have feelings, Addy. You should know. Look, I’m not ashamed about what I did. I just really don’t want Ms. Avery to get punished for being nice to me.

No, Vanessa, Ms. Avery was not being nice to you. Helping an underage student undergo an abortion behind her parents’ backs and then leaving her with said parents who are responsible should any complications arise, is not what a “good person” would do. That baby was the parents’ grandchild, which means the parents should have been involved in the decision-making process, not some teacher who had no regard for the baby’s life.

Yes, this is a fictional story, but sadly, these situations can be very real. It was rumored that a very liberal teacher in my high school often helped pregnant students undergo abortions. My children attended school in Loudoun County, VA where parental rights in general are at serious risk right now. It certainly doesn’t help matters when Hollywood portrays teachers who defy parental rights as heroes and the parents as villains as this show has. Is it really any surprise that parents are revolting at school board meetings all over the country now and standing up for their rights?

Conservatives Fight Back! This episode was sponsored by Google and AT&T. Click each advertiser for their contact information so that you can let them know how you feel about this storyline.

Late last week, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) wrote a letter admitting that they funded controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where they would take virus samples and make them more infectious to people to learn how they acted. All of that was whitewashed by ABC as This Week host George Stephanopoulos teed up Dr. Anthony Fauci to deny and lie about the research they funded.

Of course, instead of looking at what the NIH had done, Stephanopoulos tried to make the story about people supposedly overreacting or making it political. He suggested the controversy was over subcontractor EcoHealth Alliance not disclosing “some results in a timely manner.”

“Now, some critics and analysts have seized on that to say you and others have misled the public about U.S. funding of this so-called gain-of-function research. The NIH says that’s false. Our medical unit backs that up,” he claimed without evidence.

Stephanopoulos then played a recent soundbite of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul calling for Fauci to be fired and teed up the doctor to attack him. “I want to give you the opportunity to respond to Senator Paul, but also explain, what was the United States funding? What wasn’t it funding? And why that’s important,” he wanted to know.

“Well, I obviously totally disagree with Senator Paul. He’s absolutely incorrect. Neither I nor Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH lied or misled about what we’ve done,” Fauci asserted. But that wasn’t true.

In his testimony to Congress, Fauci said the NIH didn’t fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. And on Sunday, he tried to deny what the NIH blatantly admitted:

The framework under which we have guidance about the conduct of research that we fund, the funding at the Wuhan Institute was to be able to determine what is out there in the environment, in bat viruses in China. And the research was very strictly under what we call a framework of oversight of the type of research.

And under those conditions which we have explained very, very clearly, does not constitute research of gain-of-function of concern. There are people who interpret it that way, but when you look at the framework under which the guidance is, that is not the case.

Fauci claims they made the definition of GOF clear, but there were accusations that the NIH had edited it off their website. According to an archived page from October 19, 2021, there was a lengthy explanation of what GOF research entailed. Including: “The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation.”

But on the current version of the page, they’ve replaced it with something called “ePPP Research.” Here, they say ePPP involved enhancing a virus, but added: “While ePPP research is a type of so called [sic] ‘gain-of-function’ (GOF) research, the vast majority of GOF research does not involve ePPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving ePPPs.”

Keep that in mind as Fauci went on to defend the research being done at the Wuhan lab (Click “expand”):

But one of the things that gets mixed up in this, George, and it really needs to be made clear to the American public. There’s all of this concern about what’s gain-of-function or what’s not, with the implication that that research led to SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19. Which, George, unequivocally anything that knows anything about viral biology and phylogeny of viruses know that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses that were worked on to turn into SARS-CoV-2, because they were distant enough molecularly that no matter what you did to them, they could never, ever become SARS-CoV-2.

And yet when people talk about gain-of-function, they make that implication which I think is unconscionable to do, to say, well, maybe that research led to SARS-CoV-2.

“So, things are getting conflated, George, that should not be conflated,” he whined as the interview came to an end.

This was the first time ABC viewers have heard of the NIH’s admission to funding GOF research and it has gone unmentioned by CBS and NBC newscasts.

ABC allowing Dr. Fauci to deny and lie about the NIH funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from CarMax and Vicks. Their contact information is liked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund.

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

ABC’s This Week
October 24, 2021
9:29:32 a.m. Eastern

(…)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The controversy over whether the U.S. was funding risky COVID research in Wuhan was kicked up again this week when the NIH released a letter about that research, which showed that the subcontractor had not disclosed some results in a timely manner.

Now, some critics and analysts have seized on that to say you and others have misled the public about U.S. funding of this so-called gain-of-function research. The NIH says that’s false. Our medical unit backs that up.

But Senator Rand Paul stepped up that criticism in a new interview with Axios on HBO. Let’s play it.

[Cuts to video]

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Dr. Fauci should be fired?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: By the president?

PAUL: Yes, absolutely. The thing is, is just for lack of judgment, if nothing else. He’s probably never going to admit that he lied. He’s going to continue to dissemble and try to work around the truth and massage the truth.

[Cuts back to live]

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to give you the opportunity to respond to Senator Paul, but also explain, what was the United States funding? What wasn’t it funding? And why that’s important?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, I obviously totally disagree with Senator Paul. He’s absolutely incorrect. Neither I nor Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH lied or misled about what we’ve done.

The framework under which we have guidance about the conduct of research that we fund, the funding at the Wuhan Institute was to be able to determine what is out there in the environment, in bat viruses in China. And the research was very strictly under what we call a framework of oversight of the type of research.

And under those conditions which we have explained very, very clearly, does not constitute research of gain-of-function of concern. There are people who interpret it that way, but when you look at the framework under which the guidance is, that is not the case.

So I have to respectfully disagree with Senator Paul. He is not correct that we lied or misled the Congress. It’s just not correct, George. I’m sorry.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That — right. It showed that what was being researched was very far from the COVID — the SARS-COVID virus. But it did show that the subcontractor did not release some results in a timely manner.

What did learn from the letter? Does it show that some of the research we were finding was riskier than we know?

FAUCI: No, it isn’t. We knew what the risk was, and what the oversight is. Certainly, they should have put their progress report in a timely manner. No denial of that, and there will be administrative consequences of that.

But one of the things that gets mixed up in this, George, and it really needs to be made clear to the American public. There’s all of this concern about what’s gain-of-function or what’s not, with the implication that that research led to SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19. Which, George, unequivocally anything that knows anything about viral biology and phylogeny of viruses know that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses that were worked on to turn into SARS-CoV-2, because they were distant enough molecularly that no matter what you did to them, they could never, ever become SARS-CoV-2.

And yet when people talk about gain-of-function, they make that implication which I think is unconscionable to do, to say, well, maybe that research led to SARS-CoV-2.

You can ask any person of good-faith who’s a virologist, and they will tell you, absolutely clearly, that that would be molecularly impossible.

So, things are getting conflated, George, that should not be conflated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Fauci, thanks as always for your time and information.