webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

2 two face hypoc

3 22 THIS IS CORPS SAYING X AND DOING Y

ESP RELEVANT WITH PHASE 4 FALLBACK DELAYISM/ GREENWASH

merri ok

see other Hypocrisy node

see Claim Credit Vote Against

see tenn house eco-hypoc BS

// BAD FAITH?

see also 180 on sedition caucus pledges pdq

see FF CEO, see greenwash, ccs, algae

===

pod save 7 24

ppl expect pols to be hypocrites, so not much effect when busted for it

===

---

---

omg hypoc

Tulsi Gabbard Believes in Nothing - YouTube

Mar 3, 2026 Bulwark Takes

Will Saletan revisits Tulsi Gabbard’s past warnings that Trump “lied” about ending wars—and compares them to her current role defending new bombings in Iran and moves in Venezuela.

---

---

AN 1 26

Trump blames welfare fraud investigation for 'violent' protests in Minnesota

---

2X SAME DAY ADMIN WORDS BITE ASS

AN 1 26

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to respond to President Donald Trump's claimthat a national emergency justified his drastic tariff moves. However, the Constitution allocates tariff-regulation power to Congress, not the presidency.

The New Republic's Greg Sargent spoke with MS NOW's Steve Benen on Monday morning, noting that Trump’s own words may be the strongest case against his tariff powers. The two analysts argued that Trump has repeatedly blown up the legal and political rationale for his trade war in public statements.

During a morning podcast "The Daily Blast,"Sargent and Benen dissected Trump’s recent threats to increase tariffs on parts of Europe not because of some economic reason but because the countries sent military to aid in the defense of Greenland from the U.S.

Trump keeps publicly admitting that his “emergencies” are more whims and leverage plays. Trump threatened tariffs on Brazil for multiple reasons and also claimed that France rejected his Gaza 'Board of Peace.'

Trump boasted that he raised tariffs from 30 to 39 percent after a call with Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter “rubbed [him] the wrong way,” then lowered them after being courted by industry executives who brought him a Rolex and a personalized gold bar.

The two incidents make it clear that there isn't an "emergency" necessitating a tariff, but that Trump is using them for his own personal gain, the men agreed.

Benen argued that these anecdotes from the president undermine the administration’s legal claim that Trump is using emergency powers under the 1977 law to address a genuine economic emergency, namely trade deficits.

He continued, saying that Trump is "so far gone, is so wrapped up in his own delusion that he forgets he’s supposed to maintain the emergency pretense." Trump then ends up “confessing in public that the entire rationale for his policy is a sham.”

The trade deficits that Trump claimed are an emergency, Benen said, are not inherently harmful.

He explained, “You and I have trade deficits with our grocery store,” and they have been shrinking, not exploding into crisis. The Constitution vests tariff power in Congress, through Article I, not to the presidency. It's the main reason most legal scholars and experts think Trump is likely to lose at the Supreme Court if the justices follow the statute and the Constitution. In fact, one of Trump's own officials thinks the policy might fall at the high court.

The two men go on to skewer House Speaker Mike Johnson, who praised Trump’s supposed “Article II” tariff power, which simply doesn’t exist. Tariff authority sits in Article I, Benen told Sargent, making Johnson’s hands-off posture “completely antithetical” to the system he claims to revere.

Meanwhile, Republicans who privately dislike tariffs are allowing Trump to proceed unilaterally, even though it is "pushing prices up and that it’s becoming a drag on the economy."

Sargent agreed, saying, "It’s very, very clear that affordability is an enormous issue in these elections." Those high costs are hammering voters and it could cost the GOP the House, and possibly the Senate, in 2026.

If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s approach despite his public admissions, Benen said, it would mark “a breakdown of American governance at crisis levels,” normalizing an enormous abuse of power with no institutional check.

---

---

AN 1 26

Trump blames welfare fraud investigation for 'violent' protests in Minnesota

---

2X SAME DAY ADMIN WORDS BITE ASS

AN 1 26

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to respond to President Donald Trump's claimthat a national emergency justified his drastic tariff moves. However, the Constitution allocates tariff-regulation power to Congress, not the presidency.

The New Republic's Greg Sargent spoke with MS NOW's Steve Benen on Monday morning, noting that Trump’s own words may be the strongest case against his tariff powers. The two analysts argued that Trump has repeatedly blown up the legal and political rationale for his trade war in public statements.

During a morning podcast "The Daily Blast,"Sargent and Benen dissected Trump’s recent threats to increase tariffs on parts of Europe not because of some economic reason but because the countries sent military to aid in the defense of Greenland from the U.S.

Trump keeps publicly admitting that his “emergencies” are more whims and leverage plays. Trump threatened tariffs on Brazil for multiple reasons and also claimed that France rejected his Gaza 'Board of Peace.'

Trump boasted that he raised tariffs from 30 to 39 percent after a call with Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter “rubbed [him] the wrong way,” then lowered them after being courted by industry executives who brought him a Rolex and a personalized gold bar.

The two incidents make it clear that there isn't an "emergency" necessitating a tariff, but that Trump is using them for his own personal gain, the men agreed.

Benen argued that these anecdotes from the president undermine the administration’s legal claim that Trump is using emergency powers under the 1977 law to address a genuine economic emergency, namely trade deficits.

He continued, saying that Trump is "so far gone, is so wrapped up in his own delusion that he forgets he’s supposed to maintain the emergency pretense." Trump then ends up “confessing in public that the entire rationale for his policy is a sham.”

The trade deficits that Trump claimed are an emergency, Benen said, are not inherently harmful.

He explained, “You and I have trade deficits with our grocery store,” and they have been shrinking, not exploding into crisis. The Constitution vests tariff power in Congress, through Article I, not to the presidency. It's the main reason most legal scholars and experts think Trump is likely to lose at the Supreme Court if the justices follow the statute and the Constitution. In fact, one of Trump's own officials thinks the policy might fall at the high court.

The two men go on to skewer House Speaker Mike Johnson, who praised Trump’s supposed “Article II” tariff power, which simply doesn’t exist. Tariff authority sits in Article I, Benen told Sargent, making Johnson’s hands-off posture “completely antithetical” to the system he claims to revere.

Meanwhile, Republicans who privately dislike tariffs are allowing Trump to proceed unilaterally, even though it is "pushing prices up and that it’s becoming a drag on the economy."

Sargent agreed, saying, "It’s very, very clear that affordability is an enormous issue in these elections." Those high costs are hammering voters and it could cost the GOP the House, and possibly the Senate, in 2026.

If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s approach despite his public admissions, Benen said, it would mark “a breakdown of American governance at crisis levels,” normalizing an enormous abuse of power with no institutional check.

---

---

MMA

Fox News defends Trump’s domestic crackdown after previously describing DEI and the metric system as tyrannical

Written by Helena Hind, Isabella Corrao & Jane Lee

Published 01/22/26

From the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, Fox News has defended and whitewashed the president’s abuses of power, domestic crackdowns, and authoritarian tendencies.

But over the years, Fox News personalities have been quick to call out tyranny and dictatorial behavior where they saw it — in things like Planned Parenthood, the metric system, pandemic safety measures, and regulations on gas stoves in new buildings. They have asserted that permitted and standard actions of Democrat leaders, such as issuing executive orders, exemplified their "dictatorial powers,” and amounted to “a serious crime.”

Things Fox News personalities have designated as tyrannical and dictatorial

---

PC4 WOKE SILENCE GAG CONSERVATIVE SOC MEDIA BIAS CANCEL

// RETALIATE BC JDV? BUT ALSO // THUGSWARM

AN 11 25

Two months after the assassination of MAGA podcaster Charlie Kirk, over 600 people have been targeted by the government with firings, suspensions, investigations and other actions, Reuters reports.

Educators, they note, are the main target, noting that "more than 350 education workers were fired, suspended or investigated in the days following the assassination, including 50 academics and senior university administrators, three high school principals, two cheerleading coaches and a theology instructor."

Reuters reports that "Republican officials publicly threatened to deprive universities and schools of taxpayer funds unless specific critics of Kirk were fired."

One of those people, Lauren Vaughn, a kindergarten assistant in South Carolina, was fired from her job after posting a Kirk quote defending the Second Amendment on social media followed by the now ubiquitous liberal rallying cry for gun control, "thoughts and prayers."

According to a Reuters review of court records, public statements, local media reports and interviews with two dozen people who were fired or otherwise disciplined, Vaughn "was one of more than 600 Americans fired, suspended, placed under investigation or disciplined by employers for comments about Kirk’s September 10 assassination."

At least 15 people were punished for "allegedly invoking 'karma' or 'divine justice,'" they note, "and at least nine others were disciplined for variations on 'good riddance.'"

"Other offending posts appeared to exult in the killing or express hope that other Republican figures would be next," they add.

But others like Vaughn were disciplined for simplycriticizing Kirk's politics, they note.

"This account is the most comprehensive to date of the backlash against Kirk’s critics, tracing how senior officials in President Donald Trump’s administration, local Republican lawmakers and allied influencers mobilized to enforce the Trump movement’s views," Reuters explains.

"The story maps the pro-Trump machinery of retaliation now reshaping American political life, detailing its scale and tactics, ranging from shaming on social media to public pressure on employers and threats to defund institutions," they add.

While Reuters notes that "Americans sometimes lose their jobs after speaking out in heated political moments," the post-Kirk situation was different "because of its reach and its public backing from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other top government officials."

"It represents a striking about-face for Republicans, who for years castigated the left for what they called 'cancel culture' – the ostracism or punishment of those whose views were deemed unacceptable," they add.

Vaughn is challenging her dismissal in a federal lawsuit filed September 18, seeking reinstatement, they write, but the school district maintains that her post “appeared to endorse Mr. Kirk’s murder or indicate that it was ‘worth’ him losing his life to protect Americans’ constitutional rights.”

Like Vaughn, Julie Strebe, a sheriff’s deputy in Salem, Missouri, lost her job after posting comments on Facebook about the shooting, including, “Empathy is not owed to oppressors.'

"She said her bosses were besieged with calls for her dismissal and that, at one point, a hand-drawn sign appeared across from her home reading, 'Julie Strebe Supports the Assassination of Charles Kirk,'" and has since had to install five surveillance cameras at her house to protect herself.

Reuters notes that "many Republican officials have embraced the punitive campaign," proposing "extraordinary measures," from lifetime social media bans to revoking visas over those they deem to have reveled in Kirk's death.

"Some academics compared the backlash to the 'Red Scare,' the anti-Communist purge that peaked in the 1950s, when officials, labor leaders and Hollywood figures were accused of Communist ties," Reuters notes.

Landon Storrs, a University of Iowa history professor, agrees, saying, "there are very disturbing parallels."

Even Trump loyalist Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) says it has gone too far, warning on his podcast that letting government decide “what speech we like and what we don’t” sets a dangerous precedent. Silencing voices like Jimmy Kimmel's might feel good, he said, but “when it’s used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.” BC DEMS GUBMINT EVIL SO THEY WILL USE PWR WE GIVE THEM FOR EVIL, AND WE ARE ALREADY PERSUCUTED VICTIMS OF BIG TECH WOKISM

Far right social media influencers like the X account Libs of TikTokstarted the revenge campaign almost immediately following Kirk's death, Reuters says.

"In the week after the shooting, Libs of TikTok shared the names and profiles of at least 134 people accused of celebrating violence or mocking Kirk’s memory, frequently tagging Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi. At times, the influencer posted disciplinary actions taken against specific government employees," they write.

The people Reuters has identified may not be accurate, they say, noting that "the tally of more than 600 people punished for criticizing Kirk is likely an undercount. Many companies and government organizations haven’t publicly disclosed terminations or suspensions."

The fallout has led to many peoples' silence, they report, saying, "The retaliation has silenced many voices. Scores of people who posted anti-Kirk comments have since scrubbed or locked their accounts, Reuters found. Others said in interviews that they are pushing back."

One of those, Kimberly Hunt, an HR worker in Arizona who was fired for her Kirk comments, is doing just that.

Hunt says she has raised more than $88,000 from a GoFundMe campaign titled, “Doxxed, Fired, but Not Silenced," saying she wants to use the money to further her education, become a content creator, and keep calling out people like Kirk.

“It’s definitely just emboldened me,” she says.

Not so for Florida Atlantic University associate professor Karen Leader, who was placed on administrative leave for her comments after a former staffer of Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) shared screenshots of her posts and tagged her employer.

“Whether my career is over or not, I don’t know,” Leader says. “But my life has changed.”

---

MMA

Star Fox host Laura Ingraham is now in business with the president’s son

Written by Matt Gertz

Research contributions from Tyler Monroe

Published 10/20/25

Fox News star Laura Ingraham spent years railing against the purported corruption caused by the business interests of President Joe Biden’s son. But now she’s going into business with Donald Trump Jr., federal records show, a wildly and obviously unethical conflict of interest that no credible news outlet would tolerate.

Ingraham and Donald Trump Jr. are among the directors of “Colombier Acquisition Corp. III,” a special-purpose acquisition company which is seeking to raise $260 million in an initial public offering in order to acquire another company, according to a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday and first reported by Bloomberg. The firm’s CEO is Omeed Malik, co-founder and managing partner of the venture capital fund 1789 Capital, which invests in companies aligned with the MAGA movement and has “grown into a financial powerhouse” since November, when Trump was elected president and his son became a partner. Several other executives and directors for the SPAC are also 1789 Capital employees, the filing shows.

No credible news outlet would allow a conflict of interest of this magnitude

The SPAC’s prospectus positions the company as a way to benefit from “the market’s excitement to fund the next chapter of American Exceptionalism by investing in the Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Growth (‘EIG’) economy, a set of era-defining business and investment opportunities that we believe will build the next period of American prosperity.” It continues: “These opportunities are rooted in America-first cultural shifts after the 2024 U.S. election, a resurgence of merit-based investing in growth equity, a focus on market-based solutions for America, and a celebration of America’s most prominent founders. Opportunities in the EIG economy include but are not limited to companies that reindustrialize the American economy and enhance American prosperity and security.”

Ingraham’s bio in the document identifies her as “the host of ‘The Ingraham Angle,’ an hour-long cable news program, which launched in October 2017, on Fox News (weeknights),” a program which “features Ms. Ingraham’s analysis of politics, business, legal matters and the culture, along with her interviews with prominent individuals in those fields.”

The potential conflicts of interest created by Ingraham’s roles with the SPAC and Fox are legion:

Notably, Ingraham regularly claimed the business dealings of Hunter Biden in the years prior to his father’s presidential election implicated Joe Biden in rampant corruption. Hunter Biden’s name was mentioned during at least 164 episodes of Ingraham’s Fox show in the less than two years from January 3, 2023, when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives after promising to use their power to investigate those business interests, through Trump’s election on November 5, 2024, according to a Media Matters review of the Kinetiq video database.

Ingraham claimed during one such program, in June 2023, that Hunter Biden’s clients were “sophisticated players” who were “prepared to pay millions” because “they believed they would get certain benefits in return from the U.S. government.”

“Every single person in the White House press room knows how all this works,” she added. “The only defense that they have is that we can’t prove that Biden himself did lobbying or was directing Hunter’s business.” Ingraham concluded by bemoaning that “these foreign interests are now encouraged to believe that America is for sale” and arguing that “one pillar of the 2024 campaign for Republicans should be, the Bidens are getting richer while your family is getting poorer.”

Video

Citation

From the June 26, 2023, edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle

A few short years later and President Trump’s son is overseeing a business empire which includes not only the venture capital funding through 1789 Capital but also foreign real estate deals; massive crypto investments; and nebulous advisory roles with several companies. And Ingraham has looked at the various financial schemes involving the president’s family and decided to join him and cash in.

Again, no credible news outlet would allow a conflict of interest of this magnitude, roughly analogous to if Hunter and MSNBC star Rachel Maddow were to have gone into business together during the Biden administration. But don’t expect the Fox brass to step in: Once you’ve put the president’s daughter-in-law on the payroll and given her an hour a week to produce propaganda for the administration, you’ve acknowledged that you are in a different line of work.

---

---

AN 10 25

In right-wing media, the term "woke" is often used to attack political opponents of the left. And some people who vote Democrat have a negative view of "wokeness" as well, including "Real Time" host Bill Maher and veteran Democratic strategist James Carville.

When CNN's Jake Tapper asked Maher to define "woke," hedescribed "wokeness" as political correctness on steroids and argued that it is contrary to the spirit of traditional liberalism. The "woke," Maher complained, are so obsessed with language policing that traditional liberal causes fall by the wayside.

Maher, however, is also a scathing critic of President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, and often attacks the far right for language policing and "cancel culture" as well.

In a blistering video posted by the New York Times on October 19, Stephanie Shen and Alexander Stockton make the same argument, accusing MAGA Republicans and the Trump Administration of using the same "woke" tactics they accuse the left of.

"The truth is: wokeness is actually alive and well," Shein argues in the video. "Now, wokeness just wears a MAGA hat. This is the woke right. They're now going around policing people's language. They've limited what federal agencies are allowed to mention in their documents, such as these dangerous words."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

The "dangerous words" that the video mentions range from "LGBTQ" to "socioeconomic" to "underprivileged." And Shein notes that journalists who use "Gulf of Mexico" rather than "Gulf of America" are "getting their credentials rescinded because the woke right loves telling people what to say."

The video also accuses MAGA Republicans of practicing the very "cancel culture" they claim to oppose and makes that point by showing clips of Vice President JD Vance and Fox News host Jesse Watters calling for government retaliation against anyone who criticizes the late MAGA activist Charlie Kirk.

Shein warns, "So, they're protecting free speech by revoking the visas of numerous international students…. If you do commit any crimes the language police deems a threat to society, like criticizing anything MAGA, they will try to cancel you. And it's not just the lefty celebrities. They've canceled respected four-star Gen. Mark Milley by removing his portrait from the Pentagon."

---

---

mma

Greg Gutfeld once denounced Donald Trump’s “antiscience point of view” on vaccines and autism

The Fox host is now a strong supporter of antivax crusader and HHS secretary RFK Jr.

Written by Matt Gertz

Research contributions from Isabella Corrao

Published 09/09/25

When a Republican presidential candidate pushed the falsehood that childhood vaccines cause autism at a 2015 debate, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld denounced that candidate for adopting a “hysterical antiscience point of view.” He warned that the false narrative was “stupid,” “destructive,” “deadly,” and “dangerous,” and described its proponents as “bozos” who risked the lives of children.

That candidate was Donald J. Trump.

A decade later, President Trump has installed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — the anti-vax crusader who has long blamed increasing cases of autism on childhood vaccinations — at the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, which Kennedy is using to undermine public confidence in and access to vaccines.

And Gutfeld, rather than vigorously standing up for the importance of vaccination against the “antiscience point of view,” has embraced Kennedy as “open-minded” and honest, and is running cover for the secretary against his purportedly “unglued” critics.

The collapse of Gutfeld’s moral clarity demonstrates how the right stopped worrying about the potential deaths of children and brought vaccine deniers into the fold during the COVID-19 pandemic — and how fealty to Trump has become the MAGA movement’s sole defining principle.

Gutfeld in 2015: Trump linking childhood vaccines to autism “is destructive and it's ignorant because it’s not science”

Republican presidential candidates argued over the fabricated link between vaccines and autism after CNN moderator Jake Tapper raised Trump’s past comments about it during the party’s September 16, 2015, presidential primary debate.

Trump defended his prior remarks, calling for “smaller doses” of vaccines “over a longer period of time,” citing the case of “a beautiful child [who] went to have the vaccine” and then, “a week later, got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” Fellow candidates Rand Paul and Ben Carson, both medical doctors, responded by defending vaccines, with Carson noting, “We have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccination.”

Gutfeld picked this portion of the debate to discuss the following day on Fox’s panel show The Five, calling it “a moment that I didn’t like.” After airing portions of comments from Trump, Paul, and Carson, the Fox host warned about potential disaster if the GOP adopted such lies.

Video file

Video Player

Citation

From the September 17, 2015, edition of Fox News' The Five

“This is a really bad thing to happen to the Republican Party, an anti — hysterical anti-science point of view about vaccines,” Gutfeld said. “And using the anecdote with a child is destructive and it’s ignorant because it’s not science.”

“It’s a false causal argument to say because vaccines and autism symptoms appear at the same time, ergo, the vaccines cause autism,” he continued. “That’s the same as saying, you know when you have ice cream and you get sunburns in the summertime, therefore ice cream causes sunburns. It’s stupid and it’s bad for Republicans.”

“And not only that, it’s deadly and it’s dangerous,” Gutfeld added. “We’re seeing outbreaks of measles all around the world. We’re seeing it in Australia, we’re seeing it in Africa where people are actually dying. Meanwhile, we’re having outbreaks in Disneyland.”

“Why is this happening? Because people are listening to bozos who are questioning the validity of what is really a wall,” he concluded, referencing Trump’s call to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “Science built a wall against disease and it’s called vaccines.”

Gutfeld didn’t stop there — he went on to criticize Paul and Carson for not being explicit enough in their criticism of Trump and defence of vaccines.

“It was terrible,” Gutfeld said of their remarks. “They’re doctors. And I’m glad Ben Carson, feebly, came up and said something, but they are doctors and they have a responsibility to defend the profession because there are doctors like them everyday who have to confront this argument.”

“Whenever they go in there and have worried mothers or elderly people who don’t want vaccines, they are the ones in the frontlines,” he added. “And those doctors are on TV and they should have come out, they should have been forthright about it.”

“You know, hats off, that’s just so strong and so right, I’m so glad you said that,” liberal co-host Juan Williams replied.

Gutfeld in 2025: “Open-minded” RFK Jr. is defending “his vaccine policies” from “unglued” Democrats who “gave us Rachel Levine”

As Gutfeld warned, Trump’s 2015 vaccine comments were a harbinger of the GOP moving toward a “hysterical anti-science point of view about vaccines.” But it was his network that played an instrumental role in that shift, first helping supercharge anti-vaccine sentiment within the party, then propelling Kennedy into Republican prominence and then Trump’s cabinet.

And Gutfeld, who once righteously ranted against both anti-vax Republicans and those who fail to offer a sufficiently vehement response to their lies, has taken up the side of the liars. He has long since made peace with Trump’s domination of GOP politics and rebooted himself as a MAGA diehard, adopting a tone far more deferential to the “bozos” he once decried.

In late January, following Kennedy’s confirmation hearing, Gutfeld could have tried to hold the line and urge Republican Senators to vote against someone who espouses a view he had described as “dangerous” and “deadly.” He did not, instead presenting the nominee as a “glorious mixed bag” whom the senators should support.

Video

Citation

From the January 29, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Five

“On one hand, he's passionate, he's persuasive, he's open-minded, he's not woke, he's interested in the world around him, not himself,” Gutfeld explained to his co-hosts in The Five. “On the other hand, he has stuff on vaccines and autism that seems more reliant on his gut instinct than science, the correlation, the rise of childhood autism or autism and the use of vaccines, it's not cause and effect, it's a correlation.”

“If I were in the Senate — and who's to say I'm not? — I would vote for him,” he concluded. “All Republicans should say yes.”

Republican senators, even those who had questioned Kennedy’s vaccine views, ultimately agreed with Gutfeld and confirmed Kennedy to lead HHS. Every Democratic senator and a single Republican — Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who survived childhood polio — voted against him.

Since ascending to the top position in the U.S. health bureaucracy, Kennedy has proved correct the critics who warned that he would use that power to carry out his political project of sabotaging the nation’s vaccination regime. Kennedy has slashed funding that went to vaccinate vulnerable children and terminated grants that supported research into next-generation mRNA vaccines. Amid a pediatric measles outbreak in the American Southwest, he went out of his way to talk down the need for children to be vaccinated against the disease.

But perhaps most concerning of all, Kennedy has replaced the members of a vaccine advisory board with his own picks — some of whom were notorious vaccine critics — who plan to review the childhood vaccination schedule. According to former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susana Monarez, she was asked to resign and then pushed out when she refused to preapprove that board’s recommendations; her removal last month triggered an exodus of top CDC scientists.

When Kennedy appeared before the Senate Finance Committee last Thursday, he drew rebukes not only from its Democratic members but also from three Republicans who sit on the committee and voted for his confirmation. Notably, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a gastroenterologist, said that under Kennedy’s leadership, “we’re denying people vaccine,” while Sen. John Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, said he had “grown deeply concerned” with the secretary’s oversight of vaccination efforts.

But Gutfeld, introducing a segment on the hearing later that day, simply disappeared all the critiques from Republicans.

Video

Citation

From the September 4, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Five

“RFK Jr. defending his vaccine policies against Democrats on Capitol Hill, furious over his ousting of the CDC director,” he said. “Junior says it's time for new blood at the health agency after they failed Americans during COVID.”

He alleged that “the Dems came unglued” at the hearing, and later mocked them on the grounds that “they don’t look like they’re in excellent health.”

Gutfeld had previously denounced Paul and Carson for not being strenuous enough in their criticism of Trump’s vaccine claims, arguing that as doctors, “they have a responsibility to defend the profession because there are doctors like them everyday who have to confront this argument.” But he never got around to addressing the Kennedy criticisms made by Republican senators who are also medical doctors — though he did argue that, in his opinion, babies don’t need the hepatitis B vaccine the CDC recommends they receive at birth.

Gutfeld returned to the subject of Kennedy’s hearing the following day, this time offering a firm defense of the HHS secretary.

Video

Citation

From the September 5, 2025, edition of Fox News' The Five

“I can disagree with RFK on a lot of things and I have and I've written about it actually,” Gutfeld said, without outlining the subjects on which they disagree. “But I will never call him a liar. And I have seen him debate people who actually seriously disagree with him. And he does something that Democrats don't do: He listens.”

Gutfeld then recited a litany of examples he suggested show that it is Kennedy’s critics who are untruthful, claiming they are “disqualified from this discussion” because they purportedly “lied about” former President Joe Biden’s health; his son Hunter Biden’s laptop; the existence of man-made climate change; and “10% for the big guy.”

“I honestly cannot be told that my side is anti-science when you gave us Rachel Levine,” Gutfeld concluded.

That’s Gutfeld in a nutshell. A decade ago, he warned that Republicans would become “antiscience” if they adopted a Trumpian stance against vaccines. Now that has come to pass — but he won’t accept it because trans people exist.

//

  1. ### Fox helps Kennedy Jr. spin the CDC purge

08/28/25 12:31 PM EDT

  1. ### Fox News championed anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. Now he’s killing research into next-generation vaccines.

08/11/25 9:56 AM EDT

  1. ### RFK Jr., measles, and the dangerous legacy of Fox News’ COVID-19 coverage

03/12/25

---

AN 7 25

SEE EPSTEIN BACKLASH = 1ST TIME HYPOC MATTERS?

Revealed: Trump admin pulls back on work combating human trafficking amid Epstein scandal

---

AHA NO TOPIC GENERATES AS MUCH BAD FAITH Rationalization hypocrisy than tariffs?

Greg Gutfeld: Tariffs create higher food prices that “disincentivizes” eating

02/13/25 MMA

===

an 1 25

// budde?

During a late January appearance on Fox News, Vice President JD Vance tried to make a Christian argument in favor of President Donald Trump's MAGA/America First ideology. But his comments are getting some pushback from theologian Joash Thomas.

Vance is popular among Christian nationalists and far-right white evangelicals because of his extreme social conservatism, including his attacks on women who don't have biological children. The vice president, however, is not an evangelical Protestant, but a convert to Catholicism. And on Fox News, he claimed that MAGA Republicans have a better understanding of Christianity than the left.

Vance told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "I think it's a very Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor — and then, you love your community. And then you love your fellow citizens and your own country. And then, after that, focus and prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that."

READ MORE:[Inside Trump's scheme to concentrate power

The vice president continued, "They seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders. That is no way to ruin a society. And I think the profound difference that Donald Trump brings to the leadership of this country is a simple concept: America first."

But Thomas argued that Vance's thinking is flawed.

In a Thursday, January 30 thread on X, formerly Twitter, Thomas wrote, "I am a theologian trained at one of America's top conservative evangelical theological seminaries. This is *not* a Christian concept; it's a western individualistic one."

Thomas continued, "I've studied Augustine. He was right on some stuff and way off on others. According to your logic, executing our theological enemies for heresy is 'Christian' too. If it doesn't look like Christ, it shouldn't be called 'Christian.' The Jesus I worship taught us to love enemy…. And he showed us how to love our enemies by laying down his life for his enemies. Don't like my definition of Christian? Your beef isn't with me. It's with Jesus. So take it up with him."

READ MORE:['Heinous personality': Internet unleashes on 'psychopath' Trump after he jokes about crash

*Watch the JD Vance interview below or at this link.

---

an 10 24

Chris LaCivita, Donald Trump’s current campaign co-manager, reposted statements on social media condemning the violent and deadly January 6, 2021 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol—and blaming Donald Trump for that day’s violence.

“On January 6, 2021, LaCivita reposted several posts that harshly condemned Trump, suggesting that even some of his closest allies once viewed the deadly outcome as a direct result of Trump’s lies,” CNN‘s Andrew Kaczynski reports.

Among them, “a statement on January 6 from former President George W. Bush, who expressed ‘disbelief and dismay’ at the violent assault on the Capitol, calling it ‘a sickening and heartbreaking sight.'”

“I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions, and our law enforcement,” Bush’s statement read. “The violent assault on the Capitol – and disruption of a Constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress – was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes.”

READ MORE: ‘Charlatan’ Pastor at Latino Event Lays Hands on Trump, Prays God Makes Him President

CNN reports it also “reviewed a video showing a screen recording of posts that LaCivita liked on January 6, including one from Republican former Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia, who called for Trump’s Cabinet to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment.”

“Anotherpost shared by LaCivita was a stark message from a Republican Senate aide, which John McCormack, then a reporter for the conservative magazine National Review, shared on X”:

“Text message from a GOP Senate aide: ‘This is a disgusting tragedy. Someone literally lost their life because of a lie that Trump told, Cruz/Hawley capitalized on, and fringe media echoed. This is in no way shape or form sustainable.’”

Some of LaCivita’s posts were deleted, but CNN was able to view them through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Another post, since removed from LaCivita’s feed, was from a Republican political operative. It read: “They are not protestors. They are thugs.”

On social media, CNN’s Kaczynski writes, “The posts clash with Trump’s attempts to rewrite Jan 6. While Trump is spreading conspiracy theories about it being an inside job, LaCivita’s tweets from that day blame Trump for the violence, calling it an ‘insurrection’ fueled by his election lies.”

LaCivita is the GOP operative responsible for what became known as “Swiftboating.”

READ MORE: ‘Fascist’ Trump’s Rhetoric Fits ‘Textbook Definition of Fascism’: Journalist

Recently, Trump has referred to the violent and deadly January 6 insurrection as a “day of love.” He has called those who participated in storming the Capitol and were convicted and imprisoned, “hostages,” and has promised to pardon them. Trump has been criminally indicted on felony charges for his alleged role in the insurrection and surrounding election subversion.

In that indictment, prosecutors say, Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results,” and “perpetrated three criminal conspiracies,” according to Democracy Docket.

He is facing charges including:

HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte wrote: “The big question isn’t why LaCivita thought Trump’s coup attempt was an affront to America. It’s why he — like so many others — would choose to go work to return him to that office.”

Kaczynski also adds: “LaCivita now tells CNN, ‘Retweets and likes are not endorsements’ and some of the posts have since been removed.”

READ MORE: ‘Endorsing a Coup’: 3 in 10 Republicans Support ‘Patriot’ Violence to ‘Save Our Country’

---

an 7 24

Right-wing media outlets have repeatedly attacked the left for "cancel culture," and not all of the criticism has come from the right. Former President Barack Obama has complained that cancel culture has gone too far, and "Real Time" host Bill Maher has argued that progressives need to aggressively debate conservatives they disagree with — not try to silence them.

But in an article published on July 19, The Spectator's Brendan O'Neill cites an example of "cancel culture" coming from the right: Donald Trump supporters trying to shut down people who have made "tawdry" comments following the attempted assassination that Trump survived during a campaign rally in Western Pennsylvania on July 13.

"People who've made tawdry comments about the shooting are being hunted, doxxed, shamed, sacked," O'Neill observes. "Most decent folk will think it is wrong to make wisecracks about an incident in which a presidential candidate was targeted for death and an ordinary citizen was killed. I do. But should it be a cancellable offence, a reputation-shattering crime? I'm not sure it should."

READ MORE: **Economist Paul Krugman: Here’s the main thing Trump and Vance have 'in common'**

O'Neill cites the comedy duo Tenacious D as an example, noting that their tour was canceled after a tasteless joke about Trump during an appearance in Sydney, Australia.

"Crass? Yes," O'Neill writes. "Too soon? Sure. But a speech crime of such epic proportions that Tenacious D must now consider its future? That's an overreaction, surely?.... We need some perspective here."

The journalist adds, "A 64-year-old comedy rocker making fun of a tragic incident might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is not the end of the world."

O'Neill emphasizes that some far-right Trump supporters who decry "cancel culture" are guilty of the very thing they rail against.

READ MORE:**'Moment of shame': Teamsters president ripped for GOP convention speech**

"So this is what we have to look forward to if Trump ousts Biden?" O'Neill laments. "Four more years of cancel culture? Those of us whose commitment to free speech is principled rather than contingent, who think everyone from JK Rowling to the Home Depot lady should enjoy the liberty of expression, really do have our work cut out for us."

READ MORE:**Did the assassination attempt help Trump, and if so, how?**

*Read Brendan O'Neill's full article for The Spectator at this link.

===

White House calls out Rep. Boebert for taking 'credit for investments' she 'voted against'

Maya Boddie 5 24 an

---

===

newsweek has fairness meter/poll?]

billionaire Dan Snyder thought he was funding a movie that would portray former President Donald Trump in a positive light, but he is now reportedly fuming to learn the opposite is true.

The former owner of NFL team Washington Commanders invested in the film The Apprentice, in which Sebastian Stan portrays a young Trump.

The Apprenticepremiered this week at the Cannes Film Festival in France to a reported 11-minute standing ovation, and Snyder was one of the few people who had insight into the plot before its launch.

He is said to be furious at the portrayal of Trump, according to Variety.

Snyder has been a major donor to Trump's presidential campaigns, contributing more than $1.1 million in 2016 and $100,000 in 2020. It is unclear if he has donated to Trump's 2024 campaign.

The movie tells the story of Trump's younger years, including his relationship with political fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong) and his marriage to his first wife, Ivana (Maria Bakalova).

But a Snyder-backed company called Kinetics has gone to war with The Apprentice'sfilmmakers, including director Ali Abbasi, in hopes of changing the film.

Kinetics' boss, Emanuel Nuñez, told Variety that the conflict over the film was entirely between it and the filmmakers and that Snyder was not involved.

"All creative and business decisions involving The Apprentice have always been and continue to be solely made by Kinematics. Mark and I run our company without the involvement of any other third parties," he said.

READ MORE Donald Trump

Joe Rogan Fact Checks Himself Over His Hillary Clinton Remark

Newsweek reached out to Snyder and Trump via email for comment.

According to the media report, sources close to the drama said the film includes a scene where Trump sexually assaults his wife, Ivana, describing it as "violent" and "uncomfortable."

Ivana, who passed away in 2022, previously claimed during a deposition for their divorce that Trump had raped her while they were married. But she told CNN in a 2015 statement that, "The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of."

Snyder was mocked on X, formerly Twitter, after the news broke.

"BREAKING: A billionaire Donald Trump donor humiliates himself on the world stage as he realizes far too late that the movie he funded is actually anti-Trump — and then tries to scuttle it. This is just too funny..." wrote the official Occupy Democrats account, adding, "Apparently, Snyder mistakenly believed that he was funding a pro-Trump propaganda film."

"An insider told Variety that Snyder is furious about the film and has his lawyers working to block its release with desperate cease-and-desist letters and might skip the premiere," the post continued.

"Unfortunately for Snyder (and Trump), they have no control over the movie at this point. It will be released as planned."

Andy Barr, the managing director of Uplift, a media firm for Democratic campaigns and progressive political organizations, according to its website, posted, "Dan Snyder is an unintentional comedic genius."

But some defended Snyder and Trump, arguing it does not matter how a fictional film portrays the former president.

"Let's put it this way we do not give a dam about flattering etc we want a strong president with guts and that is Trump," wrote @Carol96208870.

"Dan Snyder probably isn't the only investor who financially supported a movie, then was surprised how different the finished movie was from what he expected," said @starwolf_oakley.

Snyder is not the only person unhappy with the movie. Trump plans to sue the filmmakers.

"We will be filing a lawsuit to address the blatantly false assertions from these pretend filmmakers," Trump's spokesperson, Steven Cheung, told Variety.

"This garbage is pure fiction which sensationalizes lies that have been long debunked. As with the illegal Biden Trials, this is election interference by Hollywood elites, who know that President Trump will retake the White House and beat their candidate of choice because nothing they have done has worked."

===

---

mma 5 24

fox personalities now claim that January 6 prosecutions are political. At the time, many condemned the attack: “Deplorable, reprehensible, downright criminal”

Laura Ingraham on January 7, 2021: “Many who stormed the Capitol will likely face jail time. Good. Anyone who broke the law should.” She now claims that prosecutions were “targeted” and “unfair.”

WRITTEN BY JANE LEE, HELENA HIND, ALICIA SADOWSKI & ISABELLA CORRAO

PUBLISHED 05/21/24

On January 6 and in the immediate aftermath, Fox News took a strong stance condemning the insurrection, despite refusing to describe it as such. Hosts, contributors, and frequent guests alike denounced the insurrectionists for storming the Capitol building, drawing comparisons to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and insisting that conservatives stood for law and order and were above such criminal behavior. Some Fox personalities even went so far as to blame Trump directly for inciting his followers to attack the Capitol.

Now, three years later, Fox personalities downplay January 6 insurrectionists as peaceful and unarmed. (That rioters who sacked the Capitol building were all unarmed is a long-debunked claim.)

Fox News’ about-face on January 6 reflects the network’s return to its role as Trump’s top sycophant, supporting whatever the former president wants, even at the cost of democracy. Trump has pledged that pardoning January 6 “hostages” would be a priority for the first day of his second term, or, as he has also described it, his single day of dictatorship.

Below are numerous examples of Fox hosts, contributors, and regular guests denouncing January 6 as it occurred and in the days that followed, and then a series of Fox personalities defending the insurrectionists in the present:

In and immediately after January 6, Fox News condemned the insurrection, claiming that conservatives were for law and order and criminals should be charged

---

---

mma 4 24

Before anti-woke crusader Chris Rufo became a right-wing influencer and leading force driving moral panic around sex education and LGBTQ curriculum in our nation’s schools, his now-defunct nonprofit created a course that assisted students in making films about affirming and supporting gay youth and going through pregnancy in high school. A review of the student films reveal Rufo’s organization was involved in helping students produce the type of content that he now seeks to ban from schools, and he charged them hundreds of dollars for his services.

From 2009 to 2011, Rufo’s nonprofit Documentary Foundation ran a program called Doc School, a “community outreach and education initiative” intended to teach students how to make films on “important local topics” and gain skills necessary for “activism in the community.” (Rufo reportedly closed the foundation last year but not before he funneled at least $1.3 million in dark money to a new right-wing media nonprofit whose stated goal was to reveal “the implications of a far-left ideological takeover.”)

Media Matters reviewed student films posted to Doc School’s apparent Vimeo account — which bears the program’s name, location, and a link to Documentary Foundation’s now-defunct website — and tax filings for his organization, which show Rufo’s nonprofit earned more than $23,000 from the program in its first year.

Doc School student films celebrate gay youth and pregnant teens overcoming adversity

Before Rufo helped influence a Florida law that bars discussion of LGBTQ identity in schools, he and his collaborator Keith Ochwat assisted high school students in making a number of short documentaries highlighting the sorts of experiences Rufo fearmongers about today.

Gay Youth tells the story of a 17-year-old who discovered his sexuality in sixth grade and was removed from school by his parents after he came out. The short ends with an uplifting and affirming message describing how finally being able to come out gave him newfound confidence.

The filmmakers thanked Rufo by name in the credits.

pix

Other films feature underage high schoolers’ descriptions of their experience with sex and pregnancy, as well as sexually explicit descriptions of hazing.

Are You Ready? — A film about Teen Pregnancy features a 17-year-old girl recounting the difficulties of going through pregnancy as a high schooler. The film features discussion of both drug use and considerations about when to first have sex. A copy of the film found on YouTube lists both Doc School and Documentary Foundation as sponsors in the credits.

Another film, Hazing High, features high schoolers recounting their experiences with hazing, including being stripped and forced to consume bodily fluids.

In 2009, Rufo’s nonprofit earned nearly a quarter of its annual income — more than $23,000 — from Doc School

Rufo founded Documentary Foundation in 2007, billing it as an organization “dedicated to the production and support of documentary films.” Along with production and “community outreach,” the nonprofit also claimed its mission included “youth education.”

Youth education took the form of Doc School, which launched in 2009 in partnership with a Northern California PBS affiliate. A flier describing the course listed Rufo and Ochwat as instructors and filmmakers who “enjoy sharing their filmmaking experience with our communityʼs next generation of filmmakers.” Documentary Foundation described Doc School as an “integral part of the Foundationʼs community outreach and education initiative.”

For $390, local high school students met with Rufo and Ochwat every Saturday for two months to make their own documentary shorts. Students were instructed to pay their tuition directly to Rufo’s nonprofit. After the instruction and films were completed, the films were screened at a “Doc School Film Festival.”

According to Documentary Foundation’s 990 form from 2009, Doc School netted the foundation more than $23,000, nearly a quarter of its total revenue for the year. The organization said the program would be offered biannually going forward, and it lasted until 2011, per tax filings.

Rufo went from empowering gay youth to deploying culture warriors against them

Today Rufo endorses a completely different view of how students and teachers should express themselves.

He now insists that K-12 schools are weaponizing “principles of academic queer theory,” which he alleges teachers have translated into “K-12 pedagogy,” and he worked to pass Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits K-12 educators from discussing gender identity, sexual orientation, or reproductive health with students.

Rufo’s crusade has similarly inspired conservative parents and groups to harass and take over local school boards based on the perception that public schools are implementing “woke” curricula and policies.

When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Rufo to the board of trustees of New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college in Sarasota, Rufo pushed to abolish gender studies programs at the school, claiming that “gender studies and queer theory” were “explicitly opposed to the classical conceptions of the true, the good, and the beautiful.”

Rufo recently announced he would be leading a new program to fund the projects of aspiring culture warriors who seek to advance the right’s war on “gender ideology” and issues like “critical race theory” to reshape public policy. Rufo again promised to teach his students important skills for activism. This time around, though, he will be paying them.

---

Right-wing media display their utter hypocrisy by flip-flopping on the Senate immigration deal | Media Matters for America

---

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) was served a “reality check” by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on Friday, after the pro-Trump election-denying Republican repeatedly took credit this week for a massive infrastructure project in his home state, funded by President Joe Biden’s legislation the Minnesota Congressman voted against.

“Reality check: I approved this because it’s a deserving project, consistent with President Biden’s priorities. This is happening because the Biden infrastructure package passed, despite your ‘no’ vote,” wrote Secretary Buttigieg on social media, in response to Rep. Staubert’s video providing what he claimed was a “fact check.”

At issue is President Joe Biden’s signature Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which he signed into law in November of 2021. Although bipartisan, just 13 Republicans in the House and just 19 in the Senate voted for it.

“I was recently proud to announce that both Duluth, Minnesota and superior Wisconsin received over $1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge,” Congressman Stauber, a three-term backbench Republican, proudly declared in his social media video (below). “The Blatnik Bridge has helped drive our Twin Ports economy for the past six decades, and it needs repair and replacing. Securing the money to help replace this bridge has long been a priority of mine. And I am proud to help deliver over $1 billion in federal funds to the north.”

READ MORE: Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 Million

He also berated President Joe Biden and Democratic Governor Tim Walz. President Biden was a U.S. Senator for more than 35 years, and Governor Waltz was a U.S. Congressman for a dozen years.

“Now I know it’s been a while since the President and the governor worked in Congress. So maybe they need a little refresher on the legislative process, just because the infrastructure bill passed Congress and was signed into law that did not magically guarantee federal money for the Blatnik Bridge.”

Sec. Buttigieg’s “reality check” also came after Rep. Stauber earlier in the week posted on social media, “I’m proud to announce that Duluth, MN and Superior, WI have received over 1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge. This is a HUGE win for #MN08 and I was proud to advocate for these funds!”

That post earned a “Readers’ note” correction says: “Pete Stauber voted against the bill that is funding this project.”

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party blasted Stauber: “FACT CHECK: you said the law that’s funding the Blatnik Bridge replacement was a path to socialism and voted against it. Give it up.”

Minnesota author Eric Chandler also berated Congressman Stauber: “Shorter: I will vote against infrastructure. But when money is approved by others who realize infrastructure costs money, I will put out my hand for some.”

READ MORE: Not Just Trump: GOP Voters Cheer and Applaud Boebert and 5 GOP Rivals for Arrest Records

Jake Schwitzer, the executive director of Minnesota’s North Star Policy Action added, “It’s extremely funny that this guy thinks that Biden wasn’t going to fund this bridge, but then he was presented with a letter with Stauber’s name way down the list of signatures and was like HANG ON GIVE IT A BILLION DOLLARS. Just vote for the bill if you want credit man.”

See the social media posts below or at this link.

---

Now that Joe Biden is president, Sean Hannity doesn’t find a record high stock market all that impressive | Media Matters for America

---

aha alarmist is rubber glue reverse (fear is unmanly, women are hysterical/emotion irrational)

mma 12 23

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): It really has nothing to do with the environment when you hear "Green New Deal," does it?

MARC MORANO (GUEST): No, absolutely nothing. And as you mentioned, they freely admit that, whether it's AOC's architect or even the UN. They've actually said, they said, "You thought climate treaties had something to do with environmental policy? This is about redistribution of wealth. This is about empowering the bureaucrats." What they're trying to do, it's all about power. It's about making fewer and fewer decisions by fewer and fewer individuals -- more decisions by fewer individuals.

...

All of this is happening so that you can have a regulatory state that we've never experienced in America -- in our American history -- as they take over more and more swaths. This is the intentional collapse of energy, food, transportation, and as a bonus, our free speech, because remember, the UN last year announced, "We own the science on climate change, and that's why we partnered with Google to make sure only UN-approved results on climate science are returned."

This is a frightening world in which we're entering now. And, you know, we really need to push back hard because they are crushing the middle class, and they are literally doing everything they can with 15 minute cities to keep us locked in, the banning of gas-powered cars -- which, by the way, no one's ever voted to ban.

Fox News platforms climate denial and the Great Reset conspiracy theory during COP2711/14/22

  1. ### Fox brings on climate denier to downplay landmark IPCC climate report

:{08/09/21

  1. ### Merchant Of Doubt Marc Morano Concerned Google Won't Promote His Website's Climate Change Denial03/06/15 }:}:

===

===

hypoc

an 12 23 no lnx

Busted: Jim Jordan and James Comer have a new judicial plan

Matt Laslo

andRaw Story

December 25, 2023

WASHINGTON – Republicans in Congress aren’t just doing all they can to impeach the Biden name – and possibly President Joe Biden himself – they’re also going to extraordinary lengths to protect two billionaire GOP megadonors who helped the party remake the Supreme Court in recent years.

For one, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) are trying to stymie Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s investigation into Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo.

Schwalb is looking into allegations that Leo is illegally profiting off non-profits. Jordan and Comer have responded by threatening to subpoena Schwalb.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

Meanwhile on the other side of the U.S. Capitol, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee walked out en masse, boycotting Democrats’ effort to subpoena Leo and Republican jurisprudence sugar daddy Harlan Crow over the hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he’s given to Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni over the decades, according to a ProPublica investigation.

The GOP offensive to protect two billionaire donors is blatant hypocrisy, according to ethics watchdogs.

“There are many senators who will say anything. I mean, as long as it's their guy, they'll defend anything, and they have no consistency whatsoever and they're completely hypocritical,” Melanie Sloan, a senior adviser for nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, told Raw Story.

ALSO READ: Florida judge’s son is a neo-Nazi patron: data leak

In today’s tribal and perpetually warring Congress, it seems even pay-to-play politics are now partisan. While Senate Republicans are vowing to use all procedural tools at their disposal to block Leo and Crow from being subpoenaed, most in the party are also backing the Biden impeachment inquiry because they say Hunter Biden was selling access to his father — an accusation for which they’ve provided no evidence to date.

On paper – paper stamped with GOP letterhead, mind you – the impeachment inquiry is focused on buying access.

“It better be, because, quite honestly, Hunter Biden's personal problems aren't the issue. The issue is whether he was selling access to a vice president willing to provide that access, and whether the vice president at the time – the current president – was enriched by it,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Raw Story.

As for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in private jet travel, stays at his private retreat and luxurious free vacations aboard his 162-foot yacht that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni admitted to receiving from Harlan Crow?

“That's not enriching yourself, because you went on a boat ride for God's sake. That's not the same as cash in your checking account,” Cramer said of ProPublica’s revelations.

Cramer argues, if the trips weren’t free “maybe he wouldn't have gone on it.”

“The difference is … he’s a friend. Friends are allowed to provide hospitality for you in their home or on their boat. That's very different than a foreign adversary providing cash to a sitting vice president of the United States through his son. That's barely, barely even in the same ballpark, if at all,” Cramer said. “It’s a stretch, to say the least. It's just, it's not the same thing.”

That’s not even mentioning the free private school tuition Thomas’ nephew – who he raised like a son – received from Crow, which ProPublica estimates could have totaled upward of $150,000.

ALSO READ: Busted: These healthcare nonprofits are accepting millions from Big Tobacco

Senate Democrats, some of whom argue Thomas was in a prime position to rule on cases that effect Crow’s fortune, are particularly interested in whether Crow declared the lavish free vacations and travel as business expenses on his federal taxes.

For Leo – co-chairman of the Federalist Society, including the $1.6 billion fortune it now controls – Campaign for Accountability filed an IRS complaint alleging he’s funneling money from seven nonprofit entities he controls to his for-profit businesses, thus illegally profiting off campaign donations. The apparent interference from Jordan and Comer is appalling to watchdogs.

“Then, at the same time, they're screaming about the politicization of justice when they talk about Donald Trump, but they want to tell a sitting U.S. attorney – you know, the state's attorney for D.C. – who he can and can't look at because they don't want him looking at Leonard Leo,” Sloan said. “They just are bowing down at the altar of Leonard Leo and his $1.6 billion.”

House Republicans deny they’re interfering with an ongoing investigation.

“I’m confused. So it’s OK for Democrats to subpoena Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, but not OK for us to look into AG Schwalb? Isn’t that literally the definition of a double standard — a.k.a Democrats can do something, but we can’t?” Russell M. Dye, communications director and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, emailed Raw Story.

ALSO READ: ‘Too preposterous to be real’: College hires ‘pink slime’ publisher as journalism prof

Republicans say there’s no reason for an investigation, because the megadonors aren’t accused of trying to change the outcomes of specific cases before the Supreme Court.

“I really think there's like a fundamental difference here between trading favors and not, right? The difference here is the consideration. I've seen no evidence that any of the Supreme Court justices, least of all Clarence Thomas, offered to give anything back. To me, that’s the big difference,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) told Raw Story.

“Now look, if Harlan Crow or anybody else wrote $100 million to a Supreme Court Justice, and say, ‘Hey, please do this thing in my benefit’ — well, that raises some serious problems. But is it the standard that a Supreme Court justice can't have a rich friend?” Vance continued. “If they want to set that standard, it’s up to them, but I don't think that that raises nearly the same pay-to-play concerns as Joe Biden’s situation.”

Gifts are different than business appears to be the current GOP ethical standard for such matters.

“We're not talking about gifts. This is business. So with Hunter [Biden], this is, you know, he's on the Burisma board. He's doing these foreign business deals in Ukraine and China and lots of offices, and he is openly out there selling his dad,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Raw Story. “At the very least, he's clearly making money off his father. The question is, did the president benefit from that? That's what they need to answer. So that's why we have the inquiry.”

When pressed on the impeachment inquiry into Biden, former Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wasn’t up to date on the specifics, even as he proudly remembers getting the investigative ball rolling for House Republicans.

“You’re talking about the substance of it. I’m not sure I can talk about the substance of it,” Grassley told Raw Story. “Except, the process is necessary to complete what [Sen. Ron] Johnson (R-WI) and I started four years ago, and that is to get all the information that Congress is entitled to in our oversight capacity and that's what it's all about, as far as I know.”

The Supreme Court adopted a new code of ethics since the lavish gifts were first reported, so Democrats’ complaints are outdated, Grassley argues.

ALSO READ: You blew it in New Hampshire, Joe Biden. Pray it doesn’t hurt you — and then some

“Because the judicial branch put out their … new regulation, and if that doesn’t take care of it – and we won't know that for a little while, maybe a year or two – then maybe that'd be a legitimate question,” Grassley said. “But right now it’s not a legitimate question considering the initiative of the Supreme Court.”

After all, 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee walked out of the vote to subpoena Leo and Crow on November 30 – allowing Democrats to pass the measure 11-0 – Senate Republicans argue the vote broke committee rules.

“They’re not legal,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Raw Story. “Anybody who knows a lawbook from a J. Crew catalog knows they can get those subpoenas quashed in one hearing.”

Because of wholesale GOP opposition, there doesn’t seem to be the votes to formalize the subpoenas on the Senate floor where Republicans are threatening to require a 60-vote threshold.

“You’ll never see this come to the floor,” Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Politico. “We’ll attack it legally, we’ll vote against it. It’d be a s—show.”

Even as the party hasn’t decided how it will proceed in the Senate, many Democrats expected this.

“We're going after the icons of the Republican Party, Leonard Leo, of course, and, to some, Justice Thomas. They’re very sensitive to that,” Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Raw Story. “Public sentiment is overwhelmingly in our favor, so they have got to be strident in opposition.”

The two different standards for Biden and GOP donors is remarkable to Democrats.

“Republicans want to protect the court that they have packed, and they protect the court by maintaining its status as an unaccountable highest court of the land,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) told Raw Story. “It looks like they're doing everything they can to keep hidden the secret relationships that are going on at the court with powerful interests that bring cases before the court.”

To the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), this made-for-Fox-and-Newsmax drama shows how completely former President Donald Trump has remade the GOP in his own image.

“It is just sad the way that Donald Trump has completed his stranglehold over the Republican Party,” Raskin told Raw Story. “Donald Trump has taught them – from the Charlottesville riot forward – that there should be no enemies on the right. And they have no enemies on the right, and they will take no principled stance against anybody on the right, no matter how fascistic they are.”

===

===

'Hypocrisy at its worst': Jim Jordan destroyed for slamming Hunter Biden's subpoena snub - Alternet.org

---

an badash 12 23

.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar is the latest Republican to be caught taking credit for federal funds despite voting against the legislation that provided them.

“I’m proud to have secured funding that will create hundreds of jobs and help dozens of businesses grow” in her Florida district, Congresswoman Salazar wrote on the social media site X. Her post includes photos of her signing a large mockup of a check for $650,000, and standing holding it up. “Today, I launched the BizGap program with [Florida International University] which will help small businesses with coaching, marketing, websites, and more!”

Under her signature she wrote in block letters, “U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar FL-27,” the number of her district.

IFrame Content

Yet Congresswoman Salazar voted against the legislation that provided those funds to her district, as Business Insider reports:

“That bill was the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, an ‘omnibus’ spending bill that passed at the end of last year, when Democrats still controlled both the House and the Senate.”

READ MORE: Fox News Hosts: ‘The Left’ Wants to Foment ‘Violence’ and ‘Civil Unrest’ With Colorado Ruling

She defended touting the $650,000 she voted against, which came from legislation passed by a Democratic House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Joe Biden, by telling Business Insider, “I can celebrate this victory because I fought for it and put my name on this Community Funding project.”

She added, “I voted against the Omnibus because Congressional Democrats, who had full control of Congress at the time, decided to advance reckless spending for an already bloated federal government.”

Last year Congresswoman Salazar also complained about a different kind of spending.

In a video she posted to social media, the Florida Republican complained about what she called the “through the roof” cost of back-to-school shopping, falsely telling her constituents that inflation was 40%. It was 8.3% at the time of her remarks. And while she blamed “Washington” for inflation, Congresswoman Salazar also joined with every House and Senate Republican in voting that year against the Inflation Reduction Act.

Salazar is an ally of the newly-elected far-right ultra-conservative president of Argentina, Javier Milei, and has several posts of her speaking in support of him on her social media account. She also re-posted an article touting her attendance at his inauguration.

Watch Congresswoman Salazar’s video below, and her social media photos above, or both at this link. buting pencils for kid but inflation twit?

---

---

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/former-anti-marijuana-congressman-and-top-trump-health-official-joins-cannabis-company-board-documents-show/

---

---

an 1123

on Tuesday, lawyers representing Hunter Biden said their client was willing to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to answer lawmakers' questions in response to their subpoena — but only if his testimony was conducted in full view of the public.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) had previously used closed-door committee meetings "to manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the public" and instead proposed "opening the door." Comer rejected the offer and said President Joe Biden's son must first appear before the committee in a closed-door session, but proposed a public hearing at an undetermined later date.

In a public statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), who is the ranking member of the oversight committee, said that Comer's "wailing and moaning" about a "vast unproven family conspiracy" proved that the chairman's inquiry was little more than partisan bluster.

"What an epic humiliation for our colleagues and what a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it," Raskin stated. "After the miserable failure of their impeachment hearing in September, Chairman Comer has now apparently decided to avoid all Committee hearings where the public can actually see for itself the logical, rhetorical and factual contortions they have tied themselves up in. The evidence has shown time and again President Biden has committed no wrongdoing, much less an impeachable offense."

"Chairman Comer’s insistence that Hunter Biden’s interview should happen behind closed doors proves it once again. What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth," he added.

While Comer has repeatedly assailed Biden over alleged corrupt behavior, he has bristled at accusations of impropriety within his own family. Earlier this month, Comer erupted at Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida) when the Democrat brought up unanswered questions regarding a $200,000 loan the Kentucky Republican made to his brother involving a land transaction made with an LLC.

"Why should they believe you? There’s there’s a different rule for the president and there’s a different rule for you? Why should they believe what you’re saying? Mr. Chairman, why?" Moskowitz said. "You go on Fox News and say, ‘loans and deals are a way to evade taxes,' we don’t know that’s what you’re doing or not? We don’t know. We have no idea."

---

---

an 11 23

when President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 into law, many Democrats hailed it as a recipe for job creation — including jobs in red states where GOP members of Congress bragged about voting against it.

In a report published on November 1, The Guardian's Oliver Milman describes Republicans who are vocal critics of the law yet hypocritically take full advantage of it.

"At least a dozen Republican members of Congress have welcomed clean energy investment flowing to their electorates following Joe Biden's landmark climate bill, even as they launch fresh attempts to dismantle the legislation," Milman explains. "The group of conservative lawmakers, including the House of Representatives members Nancy Mace, Clay Higgins and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have all recently praised the arrival of new renewable energy, battery or electric vehicle jobs in their districts even after voting against last year's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was loaded with incentives for clean energy projects."

Milman notes that the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has been tracking the "hypocrisy" of Republicans who have bashed the Inflation Reduction Act while trying to take credit for its benefits.

LCV Senior Government Affairs Advocate David Shadburn told The Guardian, "We are clearly seeing this disconnect House Republicans are feeling between their voters and their fossil fuel donors. Voters want clean energy jobs, but the donors in big oil and gas want the repeal of this stuff. These members are stuck between these two things."

Milman points out that Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), for example, has "called the bill 'absurd' and a 'fiasco' but, more recently, has issued glowing statements about the carmaker Volvo boosting its electric vehicle production and a scheme to further electrified public transit." And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) called the climate bill 'extremely dangerous' but then lauded the 'fantastic' decision of QCells, a solar company, to expand its manufacturing base in her district."

READ MORE:'Straight up communism': Nikki Haley echoes Marjorie Taylor Greene rhetoric to attack Democrats

===

---

demlabs

taking Credit Where It’s Not Due: Republicans flip flop on Infrastructure Bill

Republicans claim credit for 418 infrastructure projects they voted against. Flip flop! President Biden’s Infrastructure Bill includes $1.2 trillion for transportation, utilities and pollution...

---

aha when BO tries to make clean air and water or ACA tyrant commie federal exec overreach, vs trump authoritarian pjt 2025

---

an 7 23 student debt

...During the White House press conference following the court's decision, Cardona said, "Today, the court substituted itself for congress. It’s outrageous to me that Republicans in Congress and state offices fought so hard against a program that would have helped millions of their own constituents.They had no problem handing trillion dollar tax cuts to big corporations and the super-wealthy, and many had no problems accepting millions of dollars in forgiven pandemic loans.”

He continued, "Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma had more than $1.4 million in pandemic loans forgiven. He represents 489,000 eligible borrowers that were turned down today. Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky had more than $4.4 million forgiven. He represents more than 90,000 eligible borrowers that were turned down today. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia had more than $180,000 forgiven. She represents more than 91,800 borrowers who were turned down today."

---

---

https://www.alternet.org/registered-sex-offender-charlie-kirk/

no lnx

'Beyond hypocritical': Charlie Kirk’s recent Pastors Summit was funded by a 'registered sex offender'

Maya Boddie May 27, 2023

Right-wing host and Turning Point USA Chief Executive Officer Charlie Kirk' second-annual Pastors Summit, held in Nashville, Tennessee, was sponsored by "a registered sex offender," Rolling Stone reports.

Rolling Stone notes Kirk has been outspoken amid conservative-led criticism of Target for selling transgender-inclusive youth apparel, alleging the corporation shows "support for grooming kids."

The publication reports:

:{:{}:

}:

Rolling Stone has learned that one of the TPUSA summit's corporate sponsors is a Christian fashion company that is led by a registered sex offender, Shawn Bergstrand, who served time in federal prison for attempted 'coercion and enticement' after trying to persuade 'a minor female” to 'engage in sexual activity.'

:{:{}:

}:

READ MORE: Charlie Kirk’s attempt to call out left’s hypocrisy goes up in flames

:{:{}:

}:

CEO if Rightside Up — a "Christian 'lifestyle apparel' company" — Bergstrand is "a registered sex offender in North Dakota," after being "convicted in 2014 for attempted 'coercion and enticement.'"

:{:{}:

}:

Per Rolling Stone, "a redacted indictment shows" the CEO "was originally charged with attempting to 'entice and coerce a minor female … to engage in prostitution and sexual activity,'" and "despite facing a maximum of 20 years in jail," he "received a sentence of one year in prison, and five years of supervised release."

However, Bergstrand "was discharged from supervision more than a year early in 2018."

University of North Georgia professor Matthew Boedy revealed the sex offender's connection to TPUSA to Rolling Stone, saying, "I'm all for second chances and paying your debt to society. Even perhaps creating a brand based on how you overcame your own terrible decisions.But for Turning Point and Charlie Kirk to highlight this particular person — whose crime involved a child and attempted sexual acts — while decrying 'groomers' and sending mobs to stores who sell products they don’t like, is beyond hypocritical."

READ MORE: 'Spectacularly obtuse white supremacy': Charlie Kirk lambasted for asking if 'white people' get reparations

The professor added, "It's even more outrageous that this business was promoted to a group of pastors who likely had no idea of this person's story. I can only hope Kirk practices what he preaches and takes responsibility."

Kirk, in response to Rolling Stone's reporting, said during the summit, "First of all, it's not my Turning Point. It's the Lord’s Turning Point. I am both a Christian and a nationalist, but most importantly, I'm a Christian."

READ MORE: 'It's worth it': Charlie Kirk calls school shootings 'a prudent deal' to protect the Second Amendment

Rolling Stone's full report is available at this link (subscription required).

---

amanda an 2 23

...The PerryUndem research comports with another study published in Political Psychology in November, which examines the attitudes about abortion among self-described libertarians, who mostly tend to vote Republican. Researchers found that this group opposed reproductive rights, but only for women.They supported laws giving men veto power over women's abortions, as well as "financial abortion" laws that allow a man to opt out of financially supporting a child if a woman refuses to abort a pregnancy.Libertarians, researchers found, have "support for men's and not women's reproductive autonomy."

These findings help explain why Republican candidate for Georgia's Senate seat, Herschel Walker, lost very little Republican support during the 2022 election, despite widespread reports that he had demanded that two ex-girlfriends get abortions. The issue isn't abortion, but women's autonomy. If the perception is that a man made the abortion choice for a woman, most Republican voters will not hold it against him at the polls.

Sexist stereotypes about things other than abortion often get attached to bills restricting reproductive rights. In Tennessee, for instance, a bill allowing rape victims to get abortions comes with a poison pill provision that will likely prevent most, if not all, requests for the exception: If a patient makes a "false report or statement," they can go to prison for a minimum of three years. But, as journalist Jessica Valenti points out, "women across the country have been accused—and arrested!—for making false reports for reasons as simple as a police officer didn't believe them." So-called "false" allegations are often quite true, but victims get snared by the myth that women make up rape accusations to get revenge or conceal their own sexual activity. In reality, false rape reports are estimated to be about .5% of overall rape numbers. Lying about rape to the authorities is vanishingly rare. Fear of being accused of lying, however, will likely prevent women from seeking help....

---

---

an 1 23

Twitter CEO Elon Musk forced staffers to suspend the account of a "left-wing activist," as revealed in a "leaked internal Twitter message," Insider reports.

:{:{A screenshot of the message, Bloomberg reports, included the Twitter account for Chad Lodor along with an email that read: "Suspension: direct request from Elon Musk."}:

}:

According to Lodor’s Mastadon profile, they identify as a "community activist, cybersecurity expert, and citizen journalist.” Their Twitter account was one of the politically left-leaning accounts that Musk suspended in November.

READ MORE:Dr. Anthony Fauci weighs in on Elon Musk's call for him to be prosecuted

The activist told Insider they assume their profile was suspended as a result of "an organized mass-reporting campaign," by which a conservative group shared a Substack blog post that included "instructions on how to falsely report breaches of Twitter's rules by particular accounts" — which included Loder’s profile “at the top of the list.”

Although the billionaire CEO has referred to himself as "somewhere in the middle" when it comes to politics, social media extremism expert J.M. Berger told Insider he believes Musk is "intentionally empowering right-wing extremists."

This comes after Musk reinstated the Twitter account of right-wing extremist Nick Fuentes this week, which only lasted for a day.

Contrary to Musk's claim that he falls "in the middle" of the political spectrum, Insider reported in November that he urged his followers "to vote Republican the day before November's midterm elections."

READ MORE: Elon Musk did not vote in the midterms: report

---

---

an ah 1 23

Over the years, one of the GOP’s favorite economic talking points has been that “tax cuts pay for themselves.” The argument is that when the wealthy are given tax cuts, they create new jobs and stimulate growth — and the growth makes up for a decrease in tax revenue. That argument was used when Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 during Donald Trump’s presidency.

But Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell, in her recent column, argues that someHouse Republicans have unintentionally “admitted” that “tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.”

“The House rules package recently passed by the newly GOP-controlled House included some notable, occasionally troubling things,” Rampell explains. “For example, one set of measures would kneecap congressional ethics probes. Another provision would make it harder to swiftly raise the debt ceiling. But also tucked into the rules package, and attracting somewhat less attention, was a change to how lawmakers treat changes to tax law.”

READ MORE: GOP planning 'catastrophic default' if Democrats refuse to cut Social Security and Medicare

Rampell continues, “Specifically, they’ve rigged the system so that tax cuts will be much easier to pass, and tax rate increases harder to pass. On the other hand, investments in the poor and various other kinds of spending increases — on so-called mandatory programs, such as Medicare or food stamps — would be more challenging to get through.”

House Republicans, according to Rampell, have found “ways to stack the deck against raising taxes.”

“Under the new rules package,” Rampell observes, “the budgetary requirements are more one-sided — in favor of tax cuts. Going forward, tax cuts do not need to be offset with any sort of savings elsewhere in the budget. They can add trillions to the debt. No problem.But this is not true of spending programs. Spending program increases still have to be paid for.”

Rampell continues, “Not only that, but the savings to offset expansions of mandatory programs have to come from cuts to other spending programs. They cannot be offset by tax revenue increases. In practical terms: An expansion of food stamps can’t be paid for by raising taxes on the rich — only by cutting, say, Medicaid or disability benefits. So basically, any attempt to provide more support for poor or middle-income people is likely to come from other programs that help those same group. A separate portion of the House’s rules package says that any increase in tax rates would require a three-fifths vote rather than a simple majority, as in years past.”

READ MORE:Paul Krugman: House Republicans will risk a 'financial crisis' to 'slash Social Security and Medicare'

On Friday, January 13, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned, in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, that she expects the U.S. to reach its $31.4 borrowing limit on Thursday, January 19. Yellen noted that there is a “limited amount of time” and urged Congress to “act in a timely matter.”

Rampell argues, “If you read between the lines, you’ll learn that even Republicans don’t believe their own longstanding promise that tax cuts will pay for themselves. After all, if the GOP genuinely believed this, they wouldn’t need to make it easier to pass tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves. Because such tax cuts would not exist.”

READ MORE:Republicans would rather tank the global economy than stop corporations from destroying the planet

---

---

aha myth of pinko prof and liberal media // coastal elite, pseudo-populism,  enemy of the ppl thus musk targets, tho free sp absolutists

https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-elon-musk-suspending-journalists-you-will-get-no-sympathy-me

https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/newsmaxs-benny-johnson-people-suspended-twitter-claim-be-reporters-they-are-not

---

---

an 12 22

In right-wing media, it isn’t hard to find pundits who relentlessly rail against “woke culture,” “cancel culture” and “the thought police” — only to turn around and exclude the viewpoints of Rep. Liz Cheney, attorney George Conway and anyone else on the right who is critical of Trumpism and the MAGA movement. Countless right-wing pundits view themselves as enemies of groupthink, but Fox News, Fox Business and Newsmax TV are hardly full of hosts who go out of their way to hear what non-MAGA conservatives, let alone liberals and progressives, have to say.

Media Matters has often argued that right-wing media are redundant and predictable because they don’t welcome a wide range of viewpoints, even within the conservative/libertarian realm.

In an op-ed published by the Daily Beast on December 19, journalist Kali Holloway emphasizes that many right-wing “free thinkers” are guilty of the type of groupthink that they are quick to accuse liberals and progressives of.

READ MORE: 'Are we free to say Jews will not replace us?' Geraldo Rivera rebuffs Jeanine Pirro's defense of hate speech

“The ‘free thinkers’ see themselves as valiant truth-tellers in a time of overwhelming leftist wokeism — the last brave holdouts against liberal orthodoxy and social justice warriors who have pushed things too far,” Holloway writes. “They claim that left-wing overreach has quashed new ideas and open debate, and many of them profess to be one-time liberals who did not defect from the left, but were instead left behind by a movement gone off the rails and now careening toward a cliff built on meaningless politically-correct terminology and safe space obsessions.”

Holloway continues, “They have proclaimed themselves victims — no, wait, martyrs — of an all-powerful censorious and illiberal left that controls the universities, the media, the social media platforms, and Hollywood — demanding unthinking, lockstep ideological agreement. Worse, they say, this cabal punishes those who disagree by banishing them to the fringes of society, turning them into friendless and untouchable political lepers. It’s all very the-left-can’t-handle-the-truth. Yet despite all this, they boldly carry on, bucking the system, man, and defying the close-minded gender warriors and race-obsessives. It’s all such bu****t.”

Holloway cites Tesla CEO and Twitter owner Elon Musk as a prime example of a self-described “free speech absolutist” who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Others she names range from Milo Yiannopoulos to rapper Kanye West.

The journalist writes, “Musk tweeted not too long ago that ‘the woke mind virus has thoroughly penetrated entertainment and is pushing civilization towards suicide,’ because, I dunno, there are black hobbits now…. The Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX boss went on to add that there ‘needs to be a counter-narrative’ to all this wokeism, as if conservatives haven’t been legally outlawing classroom discussions of race, and school boards haven’t banned books about racism and LGBT rights. As if Fox News doesn’t have a massive audience of ventriloquist dummies, some of whom have taken it upon themselves to threaten people’s lives for putting on drag shows or just living their authentic lives. As if ‘freeze peach’ absolutist Musk, himself, isn’t banning journalists whose coverage makes him feel bad while welcoming literal neo-Nazis back onto Twitter, essentially ensuring that a site that brought about the arrests of Ahmaud Arbery’s murderers and the groundswell that was #MeToo never does that again?”

READ MORE:'Anti-woke' right-wing bank GloriFi shuts down a month after launch

ref https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-do-anti-woke-free-thinkers-have-the-same-opinions

we seem to be living in the Age of the Self-Identified “Free Thinker.”

Kanye “Ye” West, as far back as 2009—a few years before anti-Blackness became his brand, but after his idolization of Hitler and Nazis had reportedly begun—was already predicting he would “spark a generation of thinkers who will question traditional thought until they find the absolute truth.”

In a recent speech, Former Democratic congresswoman turned Fox News contributor Tulsi Gabbard reminded her audience, lest they forget, that she is “an independent thinker.” Joe Rogan’s entire brand is being a “free thinker,” his mind is so gapingly wide open it might be mistaken for a wind tunnel.

CLOWN NOSE ON

Anthony L. Fisher]

The “free thinkers” see themselves as valiant truth-tellers in a time of overwhelming leftist wokeism—the last brave holdouts against liberal orthodoxy and social justice warriors who have pushed things too far. They claim that left-wing overreach has quashed new ideas and open debate, and many of them profess to be one-time liberals who did not defect from the left, but were instead left behind by a movement gone off the rails and now careening toward a cliff built on meaningless politically-correct terminology and safe space obsessions.

They have proclaimed themselves victims—no, wait, martyrs—of an all-powerful censorious and illiberal left that controls the universities, the media, the social media platforms, and Hollywood—demanding unthinking, lockstep ideological agreement. Worse, they say, this cabal punishes those who disagree by banishing them to the fringes of society, turning them into friendless and untouchable political lepers. It’s all very the left can’t handle the truth.Yet despite all this, they boldly carry on, bucking the system, man, and defying the close-minded gender warriors and race-obsessives.

It’s all such bullshit. And yet, here’s Elon Musk, former richest man in the world and recent proprietor of Twitter, claiming that criticism of his friend Dave Chappelle’s transphobic jokes is evidence that “wokeness" basically wants to make comedy illegal.” (These would have nothing without hyperbole.)

YES, LABELS

Anthony L. Fisher

Noted Harvard professor Steven Pinker wrote in his book, Enlightenment Now, that “intellectuals who call themselves ‘progressive’ really hate progress,” then blithely promoted the idea that heritable biological difference makes Ashkenazi Jews very smart and Black people… mmm, not so much. (I admit to not having read Pinker’s book, just like he admits to not having read Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist while in the same breath accusing it of creating an academic “spiral of silence.”) I could, but won’t, go on.

Instead, let’s focus on what’s so funny about the “free thinkers,” which is their delusional victimhood and overblown estimation of their own iconoclasm.For starters, none of these people are actually suffering from being canceled—they all have large platforms and huge audiences of people who nod in agreement with every inane point they make. Netflix, Spotify, and Substack are not no-man’s lands, and most of them continue to collect plenty of money and audience adulation from like-minded “debate me” bros, “free speech absolutists,” Intellectual Dark Web aspirants, libertarian edgelords, professional devil’s advocates, “I’m just asking questions” dudes, right-wing trolls, and garden-variety shitposters.

GAFFE, APOLOGY, REPEAT

Kali Holloway

Somehow, all these “free thinkers” let their minds explore forbidden psychic territories and still arrived at the most conservative, traditional conclusions. Anti-racism has gone too far! Transgender people should just pick a sex! The old identity politics—the ones that centered whiteness—were cool, but the new identity politics are bad! Black people’s absolute refusal to entertain derailing tactics like “Black-on-Black crime” and “but Chicago,” and debates over whether they deserve the rights conferred upon whiteness, are chilling my speech! (As if Black and other marginalized folks’ speech hasn’t always been chilled, sometimes under penalty of death, or at minimum, loss of livelihood. Maybe ask Colin Kaepernick about it. See if Fred Hampton is available for comment.) I mean, these people offer the most boring fucking thoughts ever, and somehow, they want to be applauded for them.

There is nothing “punk rock” or transgressive about literally rattling off the same tired and exclusionary opinions that have shaped, and continue to define, our dominant oppressive culture. There’s no radicalism in punching down on the same marginalized people who have always been used for cheap laughs. Race science isn’t new, trans people have existed forever, and reverse racism is some bullshit y’all made up to account for having to compete on a widened playing field still slanted in your favor. It’s almost like the free-thinker label is self-applied by people whose opinions are so tired and worn that they need the label to seem interesting.

NO SAFE TWITTER SPACES

Matt Lewis

Musk tweeted not too long ago that “the woke mind virus has thoroughly penetrated entertainment and is pushing civilization towards suicide,” because, I dunno, there are black hobbits now? People keep wanting to make Idris Elba the new James Bond even though he has said he doesn’t want the role and honestly, we should really just stop trying to make fetch happen? (Don’t worry, Elon. Hollywood is rethinking all that equal opportunity stuff already.)

The Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX boss went on to add that there “needs to be a counter-narrative” to all this wokeism, as if conservatives haven’t been legally outlawing classroom discussions of race, and school boards haven’t banned books about racism and LGBT rights. As if Fox News doesn’t have a massive audience of ventriloquist dummies, some of whom have taken it upon themselves to threaten people’s lives for putting on drag shows or just living their authentic lives. As if “freeze peach” absolutist Musk, himself, isn’t banning journalists whose coverage makes him feel bad while welcoming literal neo-Nazis back onto Twitter, essentially ensuring that a site that brought about the arrests of Ahmaud Arbery’s murderers and the groundswell that was #MeToo never does thatagain?

SEEN THIS BEFORE

Kali Holloway

The truth is, the “free thinkers” are pissed that the rules have changed and accountability exists for saying wild racist, transphobic, and otherwise crazy shit. They’re especially pissed that the people pushing back on that wildly offensive shit are people they never dreamed they’d be accountable to before. They finally have to consider what they say in the same way marginalized folks have always had to do.

Maybe more than anything, they want to pretend that the weight of history has no bearing on the present. That their own victimology supersedes those of folks driving the movements they claim are going too far. But all those people are really trying to do is get free.

---

---

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/8/2121649/-Electric-utilities-join-Big-Oil-in-engaging-in-climate-dishonesty-campaigns-to-benefit-polluters

no lnx gfx

Electric utilities join Big Oil in engaging in climate dishonesty campaigns to benefit polluters

April Siese

Daily Kos Staff

Thursday September 08, 2022

Findings from a new study, titled "The American electric utility industry's role in promoting climate denial, doubt, and delay" show that utility companies, trade associations, and front groups did their damnedest to downplay climate change over the past few decades.

April Siese

Daily Kos

Big Oil isn’t the only industry using a nefarious playbook to keep profits up along with pollution, according to a new study in Environmental Research Letters. The study examines the ways that utility companies have shifted their rhetoric from aligning with scientific findings to pushing doubt and denial from 1990 to 2000 to then calling for delayed action and shifting the blame to other industries rather than dealing with their own roles in the climate crisis.

This includes electric companies like Entergy, Duke, and Dominion, as well as trade organizations like the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) andElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The tactics mirror much of the activity seen by the likes of Exxon and Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and faux coalitions set up by the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the electric utility sector draws a parallel in its game plan to some of Exxon’s own misdeeds, the study authors found.

“After 2000, while EEI and EPRI no longer publicly doubted or denied climate change, these organizations continued to argue for delayed action,” researchers wrote. “This rhetoric deflected focus onto other countries and sectors and uplifted approaches such as CCS that have proven unviable to date in the power sector, distracting attention from the energy transition. This shift from doubt to delay is the same pattern that was identified in ExxonMobil's communications”

Since 2020, electric utilities have found “delay” tactics to be their favorite strategy, with researchers finding that “the 79 utilities that generated a majority of U.S. electricity from fossil fuels [only] pledged to retire a quarter of their coal generation by 2030, while proposing over 36 GW of new gas plants.” You can see these tactics in action with entities like the Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s insistence, which recently pushed the false claim that gas must continue flowing in order to generate any gaps in capacity created by retiring fossil fuel plants.

Big Oil, meanwhile, has moved onto a different strategy in its playbook. Oil and gas companies no longer push the so-called positive qualities of their energy sources but rather discuss just how seriously they take the climate crisis, though their actions wholly contradict that.In a new InfluenceMap study, the watchdog found that BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and TotalEnergies talked a big game about green initiatives.

In reality, none of those companies’ “forecasted oil production appears in line with the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (as of Q4 2021), with several companies planning to increase oil and gas production between 2021 and 2026.” These companies are shelling out a cumulative $750 million annually to keep from reducing emissions. The utility industry operates similarly and has devoted more than $500 million to lobbying against renewables and climate policy over the past 20 years.

lnx

big Oil isn’t the only industry using a nefarious playbook to keep profits up along with pollution, according to a new study inEnvironmental Research Letters. The study examines the ways that utility companies have shifted their rhetoric from aligning with scientific findings to pushing doubt and denial from 1990 to 2000 to then calling for delayed action and shifting the blame to other industries rather than dealing with their own roles in the climate crisis.

This includes electric companies like Entergy, Duke, and Dominion, as well as trade organizations like the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The tactics mirror much of the activity seen by the likes of Exxon and Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and faux coalitions set up by the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the electric utility sector draws a parallel in its game plan to some of Exxon’s own misdeeds, the study authors found.

https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-on-Climate-Change-2022-19585

Following up on InfluenceMap's 2019 edition of 'Big Oil's Real Agenda', this latest report compares and contrasts the public communications, business operations, and policy engagement of 5 'supermajor' oil companies: BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies.

Extensive analysis finds that the five supermajors are spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on a systematic strategy to portray themselves as positive and proactive on the climate change emergency. This is found to be inconsistent with the companies' plans for capital investment in their business.It is also found to be misaligned from the detailed policy engagement activities of the companies and their industry associations on climate change.

Across 3,421 items of public communications materials from the five companies in 2021, 60% contained at least one green claim, while only 23% contained claims promoting oil and gas. Claims highlighting the companies' support of, or involvement with, efforts to transition the energy mix were by far the most popular type of green claim.

None of the companies assessed disclosed the strategies that inform their public messaging on climate change, nor the resources dedicated to related activities. Using cost estimates based on the number of communications and media staff the companies employ, InfluenceMap’s analysis suggests that the companies are spending around $750 million each year cumulatively on climate-related communication activities

In contrast, only 12% of the five companies' 2022 capital expenditure (CAPEX) is forecasted to be dedicated to 'low carbon' activities.Additionally, none of the supermajors' forecasted oil production appears in line with the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (as of Q4 2021), with several companies planning to increase oil and gas production between 2021 and 2026.

At the same time, InfluenceMap found that none of the companies have aligned their climate policy engagement activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and retain a dense and global network of industry associations globally, which are highly active in their opposition to Paris Aligned climate policies

The findings raise serious and persistent questions for regulators and the companies’ shareholders, as well as PR and advertising agencies, media, and social media platforms that work with the companies. It is noted that this analysis focuses on the companies’ main corporate communications channels and thus is focused on their North American/European communications. Future research will focus on how the companies communicate in the Global South.

In addition to the report, Integrated Climate Profiles detailing each companies' public communications strategies, policy engagement, and business operations can be downloaded from this page.

---

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/big-companies-are-funding-campaign-kill-climate-bill/620278/

no lnx

SCIENCE

Big Business Is Bankrolling an Effort to Kill the Democratic Climate Bill

The trade group that represents Apple, Walmart, Nike, and dozens of other companies is trying to kneecap the U.S.’s final chance to meet its 2025 climate goals.

By Robinson Meyer

OCTOBER 1, 2021

Four years ago, when President Donald Trump announced that he would take the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the world’s largest companies leapt into action.

Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, personally beseeched Trump to remain in the pact. Bob Iger, Disney’s chief executive, resigned from a White House advisory council in protest. Goldman Sachs’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, sent his first-ever tweet just to denounce the exit. Within days, hundreds of U.S. companies had signed their own Paris Agreement pledge, promising to cut their climate pollution more than 26 percent by 2025, as compared with 2005 levels.

Today, many of those same companies—including Apple, Amazon, Walmart, Nike, Target, and dozens of others—are funding efforts to kill the Democratic reconciliation bill, which contains significant climate provisions that would allow the U.S. to meet its Paris Agreement goals.

This campaign is a quieter one. The companies are financing it through their membership fees in pro-business trade groups such as the Business Roundtable, a coalition of CEOs that lobbies for corporate-friendly policy.

That campaign seems to violate those same companies’ climate commitments. The bill would eliminate nearly 1 billion tons of carbon in the next decade, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group, an energy-research firm. Its climate provisions “would be the largest single portion of a comprehensive plan for the U.S. to meet its nationally determined contribution” under the Paris Agreement, Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium, told me.

Because of the long timelines involved in actually building zero-carbon infrastructure—it can take several years to permit, construct, and connect a solar or wind plant to the power grid—the bill almost certainly represents the country’s final chance to meet those 2025 goals, Jesse Jenkins, a mechanical-engineering professor at Princeton, told me. “We’re already talking about 2022 spending, which leaves just three years ’til 2025. If this bill doesn’t pass now, the window to move the needle has closed,” he said.

“It’s either this [bill] or no federal policy, and that means that we would miss the 2025 Paris goals, and the 2030 ones too, probably,” he said.

The Business Roundtable is one of the leaders in the fight against the bill. It has dispatched C-suite executives to meet with lawmakers, and it has orchestrated an expansive opposition campaign that includes TV and radio commercials, in-person lobbying, and more than $150,000 in Facebook ads displayed to users in purple states. In one such ad, the group warned that the reconciliation bill would be “bad for Montana workers and the economy.”

If a worried Montanan went to see who ran that ad, a list of the Business Roundtable’s well-credentialed members was only a few clicks away. It includes Tim Cook, the Apple CEO; Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google’s parent company; Doug McMillon, Walmart’s president and CEO; and the leaders of Target, Nike, 3M, and more.

The Business Roundtable says that it opposes the bill because it would raise taxes on companies and some high-income spending. “Congress has unnecessarily tied climate action with $1 trillion in tax increases on job creators, which we strongly oppose, and trillions in non-climate-related spending,” Joshua Bolten, its president and CEO, told me. “There is no policy reason to link strong action to address climate change with unrelated, harmful tax policy and substantial spending, which would not only worsen Americans’ already dangerous debt burden but also undercut the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, businesses, and workers.”

It’s true that Democrats are pursuing their entire domestic agenda in a single bill, as a procedural move to avoid some of the strictures of the Senate filibuster, which Senate moderates such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia have said that they will not alter. Because that move can only be used several times at most during a session, the party’s program has been crammed into one piece of legislation.

But while the substance of the Business Roundtable’s concern seems to dwell on the reconciliation bill’s new tax measures, the group is not distinguishing between its climate programs and its tax measures in its advertisements.Its intent is to kill the partisan reconciliation bill while preserving the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which does not contain the same robust climate policies.

The reconciliation bill’s tax provisions—which would finance some of the climate spending—are also opposed by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, a fossil-fuel trade group. Those oil giants have run hundreds of thousands in Facebook ads opposing the reconciliation bill’s tax hikes, according to Axios.

The Business Roundtable’s opposition is surprising because, in 2019, the group issued an influential statement rejecting the idea that corporations are accountable solely to their shareholders. Companies should also “protect the environment” and respect their workers, suppliers, and communities, the statement said.

Some members of the Business Roundtable have distinguished the climate programs in the bill from its tax policy. Lisa Jackson, a vice president at Apple and a former EPA administrator, has said that Apple supports a clean-electricity standard, a mechanism in the bill that would require utilities to generate more of their electricity from zero-carbon sources every year. After receiving an inquiry related to this story, Amazon announced that it supported “investments in the infrastructure and [reconciliation] bills to lower emissions in key sectors like energy and transportation.” (Earlier this year, it also endorsed raising the corporate tax rate.)

Netflix, LinkedIn, and 3M, three other members of the Business Roundtable, have also explicitly endorsed a clean-electricity standard.

But none of those companies has left the Business Roundtable, meaning their membership dues are still funding an effort to kneecap the bill. “We can engage with organizations—even when we might have differing perspectives on certain issues—to raise awareness and understanding on issues of importance and drive collective action,” Sean Lynch, a spokesperson for 3M, told me.

Apple declined to comment on the record for this story. Target and Nike did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Other members of the Business Roundtable said that the group does not speak for them. ​​“Walmart continues to support the Paris Agreement and advocate for strong and cohesive U.S. climate policy, but has not taken a position on any specific bill,” a spokesperson told me in an email.

Jenkins, the Princeton professor, said that these comments didn’t go far enough when those companies remained in the Business Roundtable, which is “actively working to sink the whole thing.”

“It’s one thing to say, ‘We have legitimate, serious concerns about the corporate-tax increase, but we support the climate provisions’—but that’s not how [the Business Roundtable] has approached the reconciliation bill at all,” he said.

“A bunch of firms have been publicly supportive of this bill or some federal climate policy. They’re stepping out and trying to lead. But I don’t think you can do that while supporting trade groups that are actively trying to tank the policy.”

Jenkins contrasted the Business Roundtable with the Edison Electric Institute,the trade group that represents investor-owned utilities. Like the Business Roundtable, its membership is divided on the bill: Some, such as Exelon, the country’s largest utility, have enthusiastically endorsed it; others, such as the Ohio-based American Electric Power, are more skeptical or openly opposed. As such, the institute had stayed “lukewarmly neutral” on the bill, Jenkins said.

It’s not 2001 or even 2009 anymore. With rare exceptions, the largest companies in America no longer bankroll explicit climate denial as they once did, either directly or indirectly. Dozens of powerful firms have committed to reducing their climate pollution in the next decade and achieving net-zero by 2050 or earlier. Many executives have also pledged support for some sort of ideal, though curiously unspecified, federal climate policy.

But that hypothetical support isn’t enough to reduce emissions, and with climate change so far advanced, delay and procrastination amount, in practice, to a kind of denial. As much as executives might want to wait for a perfect climate bill, packed only with inexpensive provisions and stripped of all inconveniences, 40 years of federal inaction on climate change should make it clear that no such bill is coming. Climate change is a difficult problem and it will require powerful people—the ones who care, at least—to compromise. If this reconciliation bill fails, then the history of climate action in the U.S. suggests that lawmakers will not try again until 2032. By that time, the world’s average temperature will have likely already cruised past 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Executives may not like some aspect of the reconciliation bill, and they should say so: That’s life in a democracy. But if this bill fails in its entirety—which is the outcome that the Business Roundtable hopes to achieve—then that would be a damning indictment of U.S.-style liberal capitalism.It will be clear to people at home and abroad that American society circa 2021 cannot sufficiently organize itself to actually fight climate change, and the CEOs’ platitudes about the Paris Agreement will be revealed as just that. The hotter, angrier, and poorer world that will result will not take them seriously, and neither should we.

Robinson Meyer is a staff writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of the newsletter The Weekly Planet, and a co-founder of the COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic.

---

MORE FROM PLANET

A Recipe for Climate Disaster

KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS

American Companies Can’t Sugarcoat Their Carbon Pollution Anymore

ROBINSON MEYER

America’s Approach to Energy Security Is Broken

ROBINSON MEYER

The Global Oil Market Is Based on a Fiction

ROBINSON MEYER

---

---