​Univisión dedica 17 segundos a ataque terrorista proaborto contra iglesia en Virginia

This post was originally published on this site

​Univisión dedica 17 segundos a ataque terrorista proaborto contra iglesia en Virginia 1

Mientras los activistas que abogan a favor del aborto causan estragos en todo el país lanzando bombas incendiarias en los centros de crisis de embarazo, amenazando a su personal, invadiendo iglesias semidesnudos, divulgando información confidencial de los jueces conservadores de la Corte Suprema y sus familias, e incluso personificándose en la casa del juez Brett Kavanaugh con la intención de matarlo, los medios corporativos en español siguen dando a estos incidentes el menor tiempo posible en el aire.

Incluso después de que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos anunciara su decisión de revocar Roe vs. Wade, lo que incitó un aumento en las represalias por parte de terroristas proaborto, incluida Jane’s Revenge, estos medios siguen minimizando la estela de destrucción.

Para muestra con un botón basta, como vemos en este informe de 17 segundos de Univisión, sobre el ataque contra una iglesia católica en Reston, Virginia:

ILIA CALDERÓN: Las autoridades están investigando el vandalismo a una iglesia católica de Virginia tras el histórico fallo sobre el aborto. En uno de sus muros se leía “This won´t stop”, esto no va a parar. La policía y los bomberos fueron alertados tras encontrar graffitis y un pequeño incendio a las afueras del templo.

El informe no ofreció nombres, ni detalles, ni entrevistas para el beneficio de los feligreses, no solo de Virginia, sino de todo el país. ¿Fue un incidente aislado? ¿Fue intencional el incendio? ¿Deberían las personas de otras religiones también estar en alerta? ¿Debería alguna persona que se oponga al aborto preocuparse por su seguridad y la de su familia?

El público de Univisión tampoco supo de las reacciones oficiales de las autoridades del Condado de Fairfax, que informaron, mediante comunicado de prensa: “Continuamos aumentando las patrullas en los lugares de culto, contactamos a los líderes religiosos de la comunidad y estamos trabajando con nuestros socios regionales para aplicar la ley y determinar quién es responsable”.

Así es como el sesgo proaborto luce en las principales cadenas noticiosas en español hispana, y que anunciantes como Advil habilitan con su auspicio. Puede comunicarse con ello aquí.

MSNBC Meltdown Over Latest Conservative Supreme Court Win: ‘Scary,’ ‘Extreme’

This post was originally published on this site

MSNBC Meltdown Over Latest Conservative Supreme Court Win: ‘Scary,’ ‘Extreme’ 2After another week of conservative Supreme Court wins, MSNBC seems to have had enough. The guests on Thursday treated the Court slapping down the authority of the EPA as a “scary,” “extreme” decision that is a “loss for America” and “the world.” 

Reacting like this was an administrative version of overturning Roe v. Wade, guest Paul Butler compared, “Just like overturning Roe vs. Wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies.” 

In a 6-3 ruling, all six conservatives said that Congress and not the EPA retains the right to regulate greenhouse gasses. Guest Joyce Vance (a law professor) complained, “This is a big loss for the Biden administration, but also for the country.” Guest Neal Katyal escalated, “I don’t think it’s right to think of it as a loss for the Biden administration. It’s a loss for America. It’s a loss for the world.” 

As though quoting from on high, Katyal read from Elena Kagan’s dissent: 

Just to give you a sense of how dangerous and scary the decision is, let me read to you the last words of Justice Kagan’s dissent in the case. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself rather than Congress, the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.” 

The liberal freak out on MSNBC was sponsored by Liberty Mutual. Click on the link to let them know what you think. 

A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more. 

Jose Diaz-Balart Reports

6/30/2022

JOSE DIAZ-BALART: Let’s focus in on West Virginia versus EPA. I know that you’ve been studying that. What are the repercussions of this and what does it mean? 

JOYCE VANCE (Univ. Of Alabama School of Law professor): The repercussions are broader than just this ruling which restricts the EPA’s ability to engage in meaningful climate change protective work. Here, we’re talking about limits being imposed essentially on using coal and the shift to more climate-friendly sources of power incentivized by the government. Let me point out, Jose, this was a case that the Court did not have to decide. The Biden administration had acknowledged that it did not intend to put back into use the provision that the states were challenging because market forces had already, in essence, put that provision into effect, pushing companies toward that shift that would benefit the environment. The Court decided to hear the 

case, nonetheless. That’s a good signal to how far its reach will be, because this is part of the conservative agenda of dismantling what they call the nanny state and limiting the ability of the federal government and executive branch agencies to work in meaningful work on behalf of the public. That means less work that can be undertaken in places like public health and the economy. This is a big loss for the Biden administration, but also for the country. 

DIAZ-BALART: And let’s talk about that. It has a lot to do with the Clean Air Act of 1963. What are, continuing with Joyce’s explanation, what are the real repercussions of this decision? 

NEAL KATYAL (former acting U.S. Solicitor General): It is incredibly major. So, it’s an 89-page opinion, Jose. I started to read it in the last six minutes. And I will say — I’ll say to you just everything I’ve read so far, and obviously we’ll have to study it more, suggests a major, major loss for climate regulation. I don’t think of it as a loss for Biden or anything . I think it’s a loss for the federal government’s ability to regulate climate change in a 6-3 fully-throated decision by the Chief Justice. Just to give you a sense of how dangerous and scary the decision is, let me read to you the last words of Justice Kagan’s dissent in the case. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself rather than Congress, the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.” I think that tells us just how significant this decision is. Not just in removing a power from the federal government, but removing a power over climate regulation, what the Supreme Court earlier, 15 years ago, described as one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. This is, you know, in conjunction with the earlier decisions on abortion and guns, as extreme a result from the U.S. Supreme court as in our lifetimes, Jose. And I repeat, I don’t think it’s right to think of it as a loss for the Biden administration. It’s a loss for America. It’s a loss for the world. 

DIAZ-BALART: I want to bring in Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. And professor of political science at Texas Tech University. Doctor, thank you for being with us. What’s your reaction to this? 

KATHARINE HAYHOE (The Nature Conservancy Chief Scientist): Well, the legalities of the case may be complex. But the harmful impacts are crystal clear. It makes it even more difficult to address the pollution and the climate crises. 

DIAZ-BALART: Paul Butler, I want to continue with your thoughts. You were telling us what your perspective was before on announcing this decision. Now that you see it, what’s your reaction? 

PAUL BUTLER (Former federal prosecutor): Jose, this case was about the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to do its most important job, fighting climate change. And if that wasn’t important enough, there are other seismic consequences to the Court’s ruling today. Just like overturning Roe vs. Wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies. And, Jose, the Court could have gone narrow and just ruled on the issue before it, about the power of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Or the court could have gone extreme, like it did with Roe vs. Wade. And so in the next minutes and hours, what we lawyers will be doing is looking carefully at the words of the court to see whether they’ve gone extreme as, again, the brief reading I’ve done suggests they did, or whether they’re more narrow in how they interpreted this provision. 

Amanpour Urges Swedish Prime Minister to Denounce Dobbs Ruling

This post was originally published on this site

Amanpour Urges Swedish Prime Minister to Denounce Dobbs Ruling 3

For the Wednesday night edition of Amanpour and Company on PBS and CNN International, host Christiane Amanpour thought it was appropriate to ask Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson to condemn the Supreme Court for its Dobbs ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade.

Following some discussion on Sweden’s imminent acceptance into NATO, Amanpour switched gears, “Can I just quickly switch a little bit to — presumably you’ve all been having discussions with your other counterparts, including President Biden. I just wanted to ask you, you know, Sweden has, for a long time, had a certain feminist foreign policy. You know what’s happened in the United States, the reversal of women’s rights in the United States for the first time ever in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.”

After referencing the January 6 hearings, Amanpour wondered, “What kind of things have you been saying to President Biden as you all talked about trying to maintain democracy in the world against Putin?”

Andersson avoided the January 6 bait, but was happy to play along on the abortion question, “Well, I mean, what is happening when it comes to women’s rights in the United States is of course something that is worrying me and so many other women and men across the world. We in Sweden, we’ve had a feminist policy, a feminist government for many years now. And of course, we stand up for women’s rights all over the world.”

Of course, Andersson was doing this interview from the NATO summit in Madrid because Sweden feels it is compelled to join the real world and yet she is unwisely commenting on the internal affairs of her new ally, “I’m so worried that the decision in the United States will make so many women suffer, both for their lives and for their health because this is what we see in countries where abortions aren’t legal.”

Not only did Amanpour promote abortion and ask a foreign leader and soon to be ally to condemn Americans, her framing wasn’t even accurate. For one thing, Dobbs made America more democratic and secondly, Sweden’s abortion limit is 18 weeks, something Roe and Casey wouldn’t have allowed.

This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.

Here is a transcript for the June 30 show:

PBS Amanpour and Company

6/29/2022

11:16 PM ET

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Can I just quickly switch a little bit to — presumably you’ve all been having discussions with your other counterparts, including President Biden. I just wanted to ask you, you know, Sweden has, for a long time, had a certain feminist foreign policy. You know what’s happened in the United States, the reversal of women’s rights in the United States for the first time ever in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. And you can see the hearings and what they’re saying about President Trump’s attempt to reverse democracy writ large. What kind of things have you been saying to President Biden as you all talked about trying to maintain democracy in the world against Putin?

MAGDALENA ANDERSSON: Well, I mean, what is happening when it comes to women’s rights in the United States is of course something that is worrying me and so many other women and men across the world. We in Sweden, we’ve had a feminist policy, a feminist government for many years now. And of course, we stand up for women’s rights all over the world. I’m so worried that the decision in the United States will make so many women suffer, both for their lives and for their health because this is what we see in countries where abortions aren’t legal.

Lefty 'Fact Checkers' Met In Oslo, Let's Guess What Topics DIDN'T Come Up

This post was originally published on this site

Lefty 'Fact Checkers' Met In Oslo, Let's Guess What Topics DIDN'T Come Up 4Washington Post “Fact Checker” Glenn Kessler penned an “Analysis” that was really more of a press release for “Global Fact 9,” a convention for all the “independent fact-checkers around the world” through the liberal Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network. Kessler discloses at the bottom that he’s on an IFCN advisory board. 

The headline was “Fact-checking movement grapples with a world awash in false claims.” How would the world survive without “Fact Checkers”? Kessler touted the Oslo gathering “confronting a world awash in baseless claims promoted by politicians and even governments and increasingly embraced by receptive audiences.”

The torrent of false information, such as the election-fraud claims that led to the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Russian disinformation about the invasion of Ukraine and pseudoscientific assertions about the coronavirus pandemic, has emerged despite the astonishing growth of the fact-checking movement.

Yes, the “fact-checking movement” sounds a lot like a political coalition, and not just a group of fact-obsessed objective journalists. Since this originates with a liberal-media organization like Poynter, we can guess what didn’t come up at the convention (it didn’t come up in this story):

— Were we all wrong on the Wuhan lab leak theory? (Kessler said “Ahem” and amended that original stance.) 

— Were we all wrong in promoting the idea that Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t real, it was a Russian disinformation tactic? The Post and The New York Times proclaimed in 2022 that no, the Hunter laptop was a real thing.

— Were we all wrong about anything? Ever? Is there any introspection? 

Instead, Kessler and the Democracy Dies In Darkness crowd kept patting themselves on the back: 

Kessler really underlines the tilt by highlighting Anne Applebaum, who explained that you can’t really fact-check Russia when it’s engaged in a long-form cascade of lies about Ukraine, which led to the curious argument that “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has striven to demonstrate his authenticity — wearing T-shirts and shunning the trappings of power — to effectively counter the ‘contrived fake world’ of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government.” You fight lies by what you wear?

Then this was a real tell: 

Applebaum also praised the hearings by the congressional select committee on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as “a really interesting example of how to present and convey facts.” She described it as “a giant fact-checking and fact-confirmation operation,” made even more compelling by the committee’s decision to feature mostly testimony by Republicans and former Trump administration officials.

As naturally as a rainbow follows rain, CNN’s Brian Stelter adored all this in his “Reliable Sources” newsletter. 

All this underscores that in Liberal Media Land, they prefer a stacked partisan committee without Trump-defending Republicans on it, and it doesn’t matter if their star witness is contradicted in her hearsay accounts. What counts is a “common framework for generating knowledge” — which we can interpret as “a framework that excludes partisan Republicans.” As Applebaum wrote about the Pelosi Panel: 

Aside from everything else, it seeks to restore a common framework for generating knowledge—that is, a network of people and institutions and fact-checking mechanisms whose overall story should resist even the attempts to cast doubt on one or another witness. 

So the media and their “fact checkers” assemble to keep the “overall story” as the dominant narrative.

Trump v. Liberal Media: When Is it Okay to Criticize a Court Ruling?

This post was originally published on this site

Since the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, the liberal media have been clutching their pearls to powder while opining that “Trump judges” are destroying the Court’s credibility.

The liberal media often question the legitimacy of the highest court in the land over rulings they dislike. But just a few years ago, they accused former President Trump of “assaulting institutions” when he would criticize courts for ruling against his policy initiatives. A double standard if ever there was one.

Take NBC political director Chuck Todd for example. In the fall of 2018, he praised Chief Justice John Roberts for rebuking Trump on the idea of “Obama judges.” 

“Roberts defended an independent judiciary,” he once touted. And at one point suggested Trump’s goal was to “undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary.” 

But now he claims “this is a rigged court.”

And CNN legal analyst and Roberts biographer Joan Biskupic recently criticized “the three Trump judges and two different Bush judges in this majority here.” Meanwhile, she too praised Roberts for rebuking Trump’s labels back in 2019.

Trump v. Liberal Media: When Is it Okay to Criticize a Court Ruling? 5In March of 2017, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough bloviated: “Hopefully Donald Trump will have the discipline to let the court system play out the way the court system is supposed to play out … instead of being an idiot and questioning the legitimacy of judges.”

But in the wake of Roe’s demise, his stance abruptly changed: “We’ve heard for quite some time that expanding the court would undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has done that already.”

So, the so-called “fourth estate” forbid Trump from criticizing rulings but gives themselves the privilege to undermine and question the legitimacy of the Court.

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade

This post was originally published on this site

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade 6When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade it wasn’t just lefty reporters who became apoplectic, the Hollywood elite were enraged too. Actors immediately flew to Twitter to unleash their (in some cases) profanity-laced attacks on the conservative Justices.

Of course, the late night talk show hosts also lectured their viewers. Pop singers like Olivia Rodrigo and sports figures like Megan Rapinoe also got into the act.

The following are just some of wildest and angriest outbursts and tweets from celebrities post the Supreme Court decision to throw the abortion issue back to the states:

[LANGUAGE WARNING]

Anti-SCOTUS Lectures from Late Night Libs

“In the land of the American dream, the land of the free, a country which prides itself on the protection of an individual’s liberties, we move instantly back to a dark age where a court has imposed the minority political view on a country for decades to come. With a decision that endangers millions upon millions of women and their families….If only the American leaders on the right would care and fight as much for the rights of women as they do their guns.” 
— Host James Corden on CBS’s The Late Late Show, June 28.

“I am your guest host, Chelsea Handler. I will be here all week long or at least until Republicans make it illegal for women to talk….At this point I probably have more rights if my vagina was an AR-15….[GOP House Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy, since you mention it, let’s talk about what it means to be pro-life. Universal health care. That’s pro-life. Restricting guns, that’s also pro-life. Fighting climate change. That’s also pro-life….Not forcing women to give birth like livestock. Pro-life. But your party opposes all of those things. Calling Republicans pro-life is like calling O.J. Simpson pro-wife.”
— Substitute host comedian Chelsea Handler on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, June 27.

“Because they [Supreme Court] struck down a New York law about carrying guns, you know, on your body when you leave the house, so everyone now can be strapped at all times in public. Wow, welcome to right-wing America, where if you want to end a young life, you have to shoot them.”
— Host Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time, June 24.

The Daily Show Meteorologist Desi Lydic: “Trevor let’s start in this part of the country with these red states. Where you can expect a real shitstorm, we’re looking at widespread power outages as in your power to make your own decisions. So ladies, you might want to stock up on those raincoats before Justice Alito bans them too….Let’s take a look at the nation’s capital. Here is where you are going to see a strong downpour of unprecedented shitbaggery. We’re seeing three separate natural disasters converging to form what meteorologists like to call a what-the-[bleep]-nado. Now first let’s talk about Congress which is experiencing a severe drought of leadership, very, very dry conditions. Now over at the White House they have been experiencing some very high winds, just completely blowing it. But the real weather event is happening over at the Supreme Court. Now our storm centers have been tracking this for years so we knew this acid rain was coming but that doesn’t mean it still doesn’t burn the hell out of twats so that’s the weather, back to you, Trevor.”…
Host Trevor Noah: “Thank you very much, Desi. But clearly that wasn’t about the weather.”
Lydic: “No, no, it wasn’t. [Bleep] Sam Alito and anyone else that tells a woman what to do with their own body.”
— Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, June 27.

Whoopi Warns Clarence Thomas: They’ll “Come for You” Next

“What’s next? As Clarence Thomas is signaling, they would like to get rid of contraception. Do you understand, sir? No, because you don’t have to use it….He better hope — we were not in the Constitution either. We were not even people in the Constitution. Well, you better hope that they don’t come for you, Clarence, and say you should not be married to your wife who happens to be white. Because they will move that, and you better hope that nobody says, ‘You know, well, you’re not in the Constitution. You’re back to being a quarter of a person,’ because that’s not going to work either.”
— Co-host Whoopi Goldberg on ABC’s The View, June 27. 

Guns Have More Rights Than a Woman

“It’s about damn time we talk about the fact that guns have more rights than a woman. It’s a sad day in America.”
— Actress Taraji P. Henson at the BET Awards, June 26.

Don’t Go Away Angry Billie, Just Go Away!

“Fuck America. I’m fucking renouncing my citizenship. I’m fucking coming here. There’s just too much fucking stupid in the world to go back to that miserable fucking excuse for a country.” 
— Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong at a
concert in London, June 26. 
 

Sad Singers Savage SCOTUS  

Singer Olivia Rodrigo: “But I’m also equally as heartbroken over what happened in America yesterday….The Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which is a law that ensures a woman’s right to a safe abortion and other basic human rights. I’m devastated and terrified that so many women and so many girls are going to die because of this. And I wanted to dedicate this next song to five members of the Supreme Court who showed us that at the end of the day they truly don’t just give a [bleep] about freedom….This song goes out to the Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh! We hate you.”
Singer Lily Allen: “We hate you.”  
— Live from the stage of Glastonbury Festival in London, June 25.

“Now, y’all know it wouldn’t be me if I didn’t take a second to call out these stupid men. Texas really embarrassing me right now y’all. That’s my home state. And I want to have it on the record that the [bleep] and the hot boys do not support this bull [bleep]. My body, my [bleep] choice!”   
— Rapper Megan Thee Stallion live from the stage of Glastonbury Festival in London, June 26.

“The song we’re about to do is, I think, one of the favorites that we’ve written and it’s about the concept of power and how we need to always remember how not to abuse it. Today is a really, really dark day for women in the U.S. and I’m just gonna say that because I can’t bear to think about it any longer at this moment.”
— Singer Billie Eilish live from the stage of Glastonbury Festival in London, June 24. 

“You wanna know a secret, girls? Your bodies were destined to be controlled and objectified since before you were born. That horror is your birthright. Fuck the Supreme Court!” 
— Singer Lorde live from the stage of Glastonbury Festival in London, June 26.

Angry Tweets

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade 7“Today’s Supreme Court ruling overturning #RoeVsWade will have deadly consequences, with the harm falling hardest on people of color who already face disproportionate discrimination in our country and grapple with a severe maternal mortality crisis. If abortion is banned nationwide, pregnancy-related deaths could increase 21 percent nationwide, and 33 percent among Black women. Banning abortion will disproportionately impact people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people struggling to make ends meet, young people, and those living in rural areas. Banning abortion is about controlling women and trans men. It is about white supremacy, the patriarchy and misogyny. It’s a sad day for America.”
— June 24 tweet thread by actress Alyssa Milano.

“fuck you roberts.

fuck you thomas.

fuck you alito.

fuck you kavanaugh. 

fuck you gorsuch.

fuck you coney barrett.”
— June 24 tweet by anti-bullying activist Monica Lewinsky. 

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade 8“GET YOUR FICTIONAL HATEFUL BIBLE STORIES AND YOUR FAKE FICTIONAL RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT OUT OF OUR FUCKING LIVES. FUCK YOU.”
— June 24 tweet by actor Billy Eichner. 

“Women have no right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Separation of Church and State is being obliterated. Everyone has a right to carry a concealed firearm. We’re being tyrannized by an Autocratic minority.”
— June 24 tweet by film director Rob Reiner.

“Not too long ago, this would have been dystopian sci-fi. But the legacy of the 2016 election and the indelible mark of the GOP is printed here in black and white. How much farther this will go once again depends on American voters. Blame extremism or apathy, but this is America.”
— June 24 tweet by Family Guy creator/actor Seth McFarlane.

“What a sad day in America. It’s getting harder and harder to feel like we aren’t moving backwards. Concealed carry yesterday…demand carry today. What’s next?”
— June 24 tweet by longtime radio personality and BET’s Video Soul host Donnie Simpson.

“AMERICA :: IF you have NEVER VOTED :::: NOVEMBER is YOUR choice.”
— June 24 tweet by actor Henry Winkler.

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade 9“Some bitch on TV saying, ‘have your baby and then give it up for adoption; adoption is a beautiful and noble thing to do.’ She’s delusional.  Many babies are never adopted but are shunted from foster home to foster home where they are abused & used as slaves until they age out. This is so short-sighted and selfish of the right wing. 1) it’s none of your goddamned business what I do with my body!  2) the country will soon be littered with orphans that no one wants; are they going to raise every unwanted child to adulthood? No fucking way! They won’t even pay for teachers and decent schools! They won’t pay for child care! They want more white people and don’t care how they get them or what shape they’re in when they are grown.”
— From June 24 tweet thread by actress/singer Bette Midler. 

“How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!”
— June 25 tweet by actor Samuel L. Jackson. 

“I think all of our nerves are collectively fried from so many years of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. +pandemics, mass shootings, wars and the total lunacy, hypocrisy, ignorance of the GOP-it’s all a bit much. But we will stick together. Good will prevail over evil.”
— June 26 tweet by pop singer Pink. 

“One of the worst American days of my lifetime.”
— June 24 tweet by former ESPN writer and creator of The Ringer Bill Simmons. 

Rapinoe Raps “Cruel” Court for Imposing “White Supremacist, Patriarchal Christianity”

Celebrities’ Wildest Reactions to SCOTUS Rejection of Roe v. Wade 10“I just can’t understate how sad and how cruel this is. I think the cruelty is the point….To have the entirety of the U.S. government say to people’s faces — to women’s faces: ‘We do not care. We are going to force our belief system, which is deeply rooted in a white supremacist, patriarchal Christianity. We are going to force that upon you.’ First of all, your religion is a choice, and it is a belief that you have. It is not my belief, and it is not many people’s beliefs, and it certainly is not the law of the land. And it certainly in the context of Roe v. Wade is not the will of the country. And that has been explicit for so long. The makeup of the Court is ill-equipped to handle this kind of decision; frankly, a majority-male court making decisions about my body or any other woman’s body is completely misguided and wildly out of touch with the desires of the country, the will of the country, and the will of the people.”
— US Women’s National Team soccer player Megan Rapinoe at a press conference, June 24.

Colbert Compares Praying Football Coach to Satanic Goat Sacrifice

This post was originally published on this site

Colbert Compares Praying Football Coach to Satanic Goat Sacrifice 11

CBS’s Stephen Colbert used Wednesday’s edition of The Late Show to express his displeasure at the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a praying public high school football coach. According to Colbert’s less than brilliant analysis, the decision could lead the way to Satanic goat sacrifices at your local high school football game.

Even worse from Colbert’s perspective was the fact that this wasn’t the only win for religious liberty at the Court this term, or as he framed it, “[Carson v. Makin] was not the only ruling where the conservative majority shoved their religion down our state.”

This case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, was about Coach Joe Kennedy trying to “yank the First Amendment away from Charlie Brown.”

Colbert reported that, “In the majority decision here, Justice Gorsuch writes that the coach, ‘Offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.’ Okay, quietly. That sounds okay. Let’s check out those quiet prayers.”

Most people know that “quietly” isn’t the same thing as “silently” and that in an open-air football stadium quiet can be a relative term, but Colbert then played video footage from The Seattle Times in 2015 of a Kennedy-led prayer in an attempt to prove his point.

The video was close-in footage, perhaps giving the impression the prayer was louder than it really was. Still, Colbert was not happy, reading from Politico he declared, “Okay, I enjoy praying, but, Jesus. Now, the praying got even less private during one homecoming game, when the coach was joined by ‘a state legislator and the media.’ ‘Spectators jumped over the fence to reach the field, and people tripped over cables and fell, and school band members were knocked over.’”

Colbert concluded his ramblings by asserting that “If the Court believes this type of Christian ritual is okay for public schools, then I’m sure they’ll be fine with every religion going varsity. I can’t wait for the Satanic cheerleaders: ‘D-E-V-I-L! C’mon team let’s burn in hell! Saaaaacrifice a goat!’” 

No, Stephen, that is the not the appropriate analogy. It is not as if Bremerton High School cheerleaders was chanting “J-E-S-U-S!” That would arguably be establishing a state religion, the coach praying with some players after the game would not be, but it is not as if Colbert was ever good at trying to find the appropriate analogy for this case.

This segment was sponsored by Crest.

Here is a transcript for the June 29 show:

CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

6/29/2022

11:45 PM ET

STEPHEN COLBERT: That was not the only ruling where the conservative majority shoved their religion down our state. They also ruled in favor of a public high school football coach who prayed at midfield. [Blows Whistle] “Illegal procedure! 12 apostles on the field. The Center” [Blows Whistle]. There’s nothing the guys up in the sound booth like better than a whistle. [Blows Whistle] Is this on?

At the center of the case was former coach Joe Kennedy, seen here about to yank the First Amendment away from Charlie Brown. Kennedy—Kennedy– sued his school district after they fired him for “engaging in public prayers on the field while flanked by student athletes after games.” According to the school, “players’ parents complained their children on the team felt compelled to participate.” Oh, I’m sure the students didn’t feel any pressure. Coaches famously don’t expect players to follow their leads: “Johnson, that’s your fifth fumble. Take a lap… If you want. You are the captain of your own journey.” 

In the majority decision here, Justice Gorsuch writes that the coach, “Offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.” Okay, quietly. That sounds okay. Let’s check out those quiet prayers. 

JOE KENNEDY: In Jesus’s name. Yes, Lord. Hallelujah. Praise Jesus. Amen.

STUDENTS: We love you, Jesus! Jesus!”

COLBERT: Okay, I enjoy praying, but, Jesus. Now, the praying got even less private during one homecoming game, when the coach was joined by “a state legislator and the media.” “Spectators jumped over the fence to reach the field, and people tripped over cables and fell, and school band members were knocked over.” The next night, they held a prayer vigil for the prayer victims. Thoughts and prayers. But if the Court believes–  If the Court believes this type of Christian ritual is okay for public schools, then I’m sure they’ll be fine with every religion going varsity. I can’t wait for the Satanic cheerleaders: “D-e-v-I-l! C’mon team let’s burn in hell! Saaaaacrifice a goat!” 

Communist Surveillance Tool: FCC Commish Asks Apple And Google To Remove TikTok App

This post was originally published on this site

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has tweeted out his official letter asking Apple and Google remove the TikTok app from their app stores.

“TikTok is not what it appears to be on the surface. It’s not just an app for sharing funny videos or memes. That’s the sheep’s clothing. At its core, TikTok functions as a sophisticated surveillance tool that harvests extensive amounts of personal and sensitive data,” Carr writes.Communist Surveillance Tool: FCC Commish Asks Apple And Google To Remove TikTok App 12

In the letter that Carr tweeted out Tuesday, he claims TikTok collects browsing histories, keystroke patterns, faceprints and voiceprints.

In his letter, Carr argues that TikTok is a serious national security threat and that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, “is beholden to the Communist Party of China and required by Chinese law to comply with the PRC’s surveillance demands”:

Carr notes that both the RNC and DNC have warned campaigns against using TikTok and concerns about the social media app are shared on a bipartisan basis.

“Moreover, Apple and Google have long claimed to operate their app stores in a manner that protects consumer privacy and safeguards their data. Therefore, I am requesting that you apply your app store policies to TikTok and remove it from the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store for failing to comply with those policies,” the letter said.

Carr is asking for responses from the companies by July 8.

Conservatives are under attack. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable. 

Mandy Moore Ends Tour With ‘Heavy Heart’ For Pregnancy

This post was originally published on this site

Wowza! Someone in Hollywood cares about something other than themself!Mandy Moore Ends Tour With ‘Heavy Heart’ For Pregnancy 13

A Walk To Remember star Mandy Moore just canceled her remaining tour dates through an Instagram post. In light of recent news where everybody and their mother wants to kill their babies, it is refreshing to see one of Hollywood’s own standing up for the health of her child.

OMG how dare Moore care more about a clump of cells than her career. How selfish of her to be unwilling to murder her child for her fans to enjoy her performances!

Psych!

“I know that I have to put my family and my health (and the health of my baby) first and the best place for me to be right now is at home,” Moore wrote. Though she never used direct pro-life phrasing, she alluded to the sanctity of the life of her son which, for Tinsel Town, is a step in the right direction.

Moore said she needed to emphasize her family and her health and ALSO the health of her baby therefore implying that her health and the health of her baby are two separate things. Legacy media has done an incredible job pushing the narrative that only one life is affected when a woman is pregnant. It was nice to see Moore support the reality of the situation. 

Moore also said “baby” not “fetus” which is what most pro-aborts are calling unborn children these days.

Previously, Moore posted the sonogram of her child and was happy that she was able to attend OB appointments in the cities she visited while on tour.  “Grateful for OB visits in new cities along the way to make sure baby boy is a-okay,” People reported.  

I bet her liberal colleagues would object to her decision. Afterall, to them, Moore’s baby is a mere fetus and deserves no priority or protection whatsoever. 

While Moore is affirming the value that her child has, other celebrities have thrown temper tantrums about the overturn of Roe. At the Glastonbury Festival in England celebrities screamed “F**K You” at the Supreme Court and encouraged the audience to join in for a “My body, my f**king choice” chant. 

Hopefully the rest of Hollywood will follow suit in realizing that a woman’s body and her baby’s body are separate entities and BOTH deserve love and care.

I doubt it though.

Disney+ Kid Cartoon 'Baymax!' Pushes More LGBT Content with Two Men Dating

This post was originally published on this site

Disney+ Kid Cartoon 'Baymax!' Pushes More LGBT Content with Two Men Dating 14Baymax!, a new series of cartoon shorts that premiered Wednesday on Disney+, uses the beloved character of Baymax from the children’s movie Big Hero 6 to push the LGBTQUIA agenda. The animated series includes an episode in which two men have a crush on each other and decide to date. 

In the episode, ‘Mbita,’ the main character of the same name is running a fish soup business when he discovers he has developed a fish allergy. This means he must sell a new food instead, but he’s afraid to try something different. Baymax (Scott Adsit) helps Mbita (Jaboukie Young-White) overcome his anxieties.

Mbita also has a crush on a man named Yukio (Brian Tee). At the end of the short, Mbita works up the courage to both seek out a new business and ask Yukio on a date.

Dialogue about Mbita overcoming his fears to try a new food hint at him also overcoming fears regarding his sexual desires. 

“Fear is a natural emotion when dealing with change or unpredictable outcomes,” Baymax says.

“Well, natural or not, how do I get past this fear?” Mbita replies.

Ultimately, Mbita finds the courage to find a new type of food to sell. He also runs into his crush, Yukio, and asks him out. 

What audience exactly is Baymax! targeting with this scene? Cute cartoon shorts on Disney+ generally appeal to very young audiences, yet the series is rated TV-PG which suggests the need for at least some parental guidance.  The popular parental advisory site Common Sense Media rates the show for ages 5 and up.

On Tuesday, journalist Christopher Rufo leaked a scene from another Baymax! episode that includes transgender propaganda. That episode, ‘Sofia,’ involves Baymax buying feminine hygiene products for a 12-year-old girl. ‘Sofia’ includes a moment in which a male-appearing character wearing colors of the transgender flag tells Baymax that he uses maxi-pads with wings.

Since Baymax is a character liked by younger children, why does the series even include a rather detailed menstruation episode? That topic is usually geared to tween audiences.

Perhaps the targeted audience for Baymax! is meant to be deliberately confusing, enough to lure parents in with cartoon shorts about a lovable inflatable robot while letting their guard down.

Baymax! writer Cirocco Dunlap previously wrote for Netflix’s sexually-exploitative adult cartoon, Big Mouth.

The Walt Disney Company may control popular franchises and have a century long legacy it can use to draw in audiences, but it cannot rely on name recognition forever.

Parents don’t like walking on eggshells trying to figure out if their children can watch a show. If they don’t feel they can trust the once family-friendly company to provide age-appropriate content for their kids, they will eventually walk away.