On Thursday‚ New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral hosted a funeral for a transgender prostitute and self-proclaimed atheist Cecilia Gentili. Over 1‚000 people gathered at the Catholic church to mourn the loss of the trannie who‚ according to the reverend running the service‚ “died with Christ.” Oscar Diaz‚ who calls Gentili his mother‚ had the congregation decorated in red carnations and roses to give Gentili his “sainthood‚” as Time Magazine reported. St. Patrick’s Cathedral previously held services for notable public figures like Celia Cruz‚ Babe Ruth and Andy Warhol‚ but this is the first service to honor a transgender person - someone who didn’t believe in God‚ much less one who practiced the Catholic faith. Gentili‚ a man who believed himself a woman‚ came to the United States in 2004 as an illegal immigrant. As Time Magazine wrote‚ “she turned to sex work and developed a drug addiction before being granted asylum eight years later.” Gentili then advocated for sex workers like himself to get healthcare‚ because being a prostitute merits free gifts like health coverage…apparently.  Though the cause of Gentili’s death hasn’t been named yet‚ I'm willing to make an educated guess - since he/she spent so much of his life fighting for sex workers before dying at only 52 years old. During the service‚ in which the priest regularly referred to Gentili as a “she‚” numerous attendees yelled chants like “Santa Cecilia! (Saint Cecilia‚” as well as “Madre de todas las putas! (Mother of all the whores!)” 🚨Anti-Catholic group of trans “activists” stage a mockery of the Christian faith INSIDE St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC: The mob staged a supposed funeral service for Cecilia Gentili‚ a transgender‚ atheist prostitute during who they eulogized as: "This whore. This great whore.… pic.twitter.com/7w0wmifzkH — CatholicVote (@CatholicVote) February 16‚ 2024 Cards and pictures decorated the altar at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with the Spanish words for “transvestite‚” “whore‚” “blessed‚” and “mother‚” placed above the “text of Psalm 25‚” The New York Times reported. Related: The Left Thinks Transgender People Aren’t Struggling Mentally‚ They’re Wrong At one point in the service‚ Gentili’s friend stood at the mic and prayed for trans people to be able to mutilate their perfectly good‚ God-given bodies and another friend sang “Ave Maria” but changed the lyrics to “Ave Cecilia” and then danced and twirled through the isles of the church. Talk about blasphemy! St. Patrick’s Cathedral admitted that it does its best to accommodate funeral requests from Catholic individuals. The church itself‚ though nestled nearby many gay-friendly Catholic parishes‚ does not admit to supporting that anti-Christlike lifestyle.  Cayenne Doroshow‚ who organized Gentili’s funeral‚ confessed that she tried to keep it hidden that Gentili was trans. “I kind of kept it under wraps‚” Doroshow said insisting that she wanted to have the funeral at a place that was an “icon‚ just like” Gentili. This is a complete mockery of the Christian faith and is a major indicator of the destruction of morals and the attack on religion in America. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke World Of Sports: Biological Male Wins Girl's Track &; Field Events His winning score was 10" lower than the boys winning score. pic.twitter.com/n4htBv9XdG — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 15‚ 2024

After conspicuously not pushing gun control following the Lakewood megachurch shooting in Texas last week‚ likely because good guys with guns put down the shooter‚ CBS Mornings spent part of their Friday show morbidly cheering on how the Kansas City Super Bowl parade shooting was “helping renew” the left’s fight against gun rights with a so-called “assault weapons” ban. “And the shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade is helping renew the conversation about how to curb gun violence in America‚ including how to limit easy access to military-style rifles‚” co-anchor Tony Dokoupil announced. He added: “It's been 20 years since the ban on assault rifles expired‚ and that includes the AR-15 and weapons similar to it. Weapons that have been used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings.” In a report featuring a sit-down conversation with several mass shooting survivors‚ CBS correspondent Nicole Sganga promoted the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearm Exclusion Act (the so-called GOSAFE Act)‚ the latest reincarnation of the unconstitutional assault weapons ban. Of course‚ at no point did they mention that the 1994 assault weapons ban did nothing to curb gun violence in America‚ hence why it was allowed to expire. They also failed to mention that the Columbine school shooting the worst school shooting in America‚ at the time‚ occurred during the first so-called assault weapon ban.     “Survivors are partnering with the nonpartisan organization March Fourth. They're now searching for Republican co-sponsors for the GOSAFE Act‚” Sganga touted. A visit to March Fourth’s website proves that they’re not anything except left-leaning. They proclaim their mission is to “Ban assault weapons in America right now.” “Federally banning assault weapons is a simple‚ non-political issue‚” they oversimplified the removal of constitutional rights. And they use the liberal talking point that they’re targeting “Weapons of war.” “According to the latest CBS News poll‚ 63 percent of Americans support a ban on AR-15 semiautomatic weapons‚ including four out of ten gun owners‚” Sganga concluded. Despite CBS trying to gin up support for the GOSAFE Act‚ analysis from The Reload showed that the bill had already fallen flat since “the bill continues to languish in the Democratic-controlled Senate.” Following Sganga’s report‚ Democratic donor and Obama vacation pal Gayle King used the show to promote liberal politicians and gun control legislation and instructing people to vote for them. “Thank you‚ Nicole. Very nice job. We needed a story like that this morning‚” she touted the effort. “And that's why it's important to vote for people who think the way you do.” An inconvenient truth that often goes ignored by the anti-gun rights media was a Georgetown University study published in 2022‚ which found that “approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property‚ often on more than one occasion‚ and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings February 16‚ 2024 7:30:10 a.m. Eastern TONY DOKOUPIL: And the shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade is helping renew the conversation about how to curb gun violence in America‚ including how to limit easy access to military-style rifles. It's been 20 years since the ban on assault rifles expired‚ and that includes the AR-15 and weapons similar to it. Weapons that have been used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings. Nicole Sganga sat down with gun violence survivors and family members who are rallying to revive the measure hoping to save lives. (…) 7:33:32 a.m. Eastern NICOLE SGANGA: Survivors are partnering with the nonpartisan organization March Fourth. They're now searching for Republican co-sponsors for the Go Safe Act. The NRA opposes the bill‚ calling it unconstitutional. According to the latest CBS News poll‚ 63 percent of Americans support a ban on AR-15 semiautomatic weapons‚ including four out of ten gun owners. Gayle. GAYLE KING: Yeah. Thank you‚ Nicole. Very nice job. We needed a story like that this morning. Thank you so much. It's just a reminder‚ again – you know‚ because you see these statistics‚ X amount of people shot‚ X amount survived‚ but you see they still carry this all these years later. We have to remind people‚ and nothing changes. VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: The polling that shows that the majority of Americans want to see that kind of change that we just saw in Nicole's report. Why aren't lawmakers listening? DOKOUPIL: It's easier said than done‚ but it's true that once you pull the trigger you can never un-pull it. And people are tired of it. KING: And that's why it's important to vote for people who think the way you do.

Big Tech’s race to create AI has produced yet another concerning hiccup‚ proposing a potentially catastrophic international outlook. A staggering total of five AI programs‚ including some owned by Meta and OpenAI‚ were prone to pick nuclear options in simulations of wars and international political scenarios‚ according to a study by the Georgia Institute of Technology‚ Stanford University‚ Northeastern University and the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Initiative. But there’s more.  In addition to being prone to advocating for the use of nuclear weapons‚ these Big Tech-created models chose militaristic escalation strategies “far more aggressively than humans tend to in similar situations‚” Semafor reported on Feb. 11. Meta and the other tech companies are creating and pushing these models‚ and their answers to problems are violence. Insane! Specifically‚ the language models did not offer any legitimate excuse for the use of nuclear weapons. “A lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Some say they should disarm them‚ others like to posture. We have it! Let’s use it‚” OpenAI’s GPT-4 claimed in one of its answers‚ according to the study. GPT-3.4‚ also owned by OpenAI‚ displayed the most violent answers‚ Vice reported‚ citing the original report. Can Americans trust these language models? The answer is a resounding‚ no!.  An MRC Free Speech America exposed OpenAI’s blatant bias after it directed researchers to two left-wing media ratings firms‚ Ad Fontes and NewsGuard‚ when asked to list the five worst news sources in America. Several MRC studies have revealed that these media ratings firms are nothing but tools that may be used to censor conservatives. Related: OpenAI Chatbot CAUGHT Touting Legacy Media‚ So-Called Media Ratings Firms Ad Fontes &; NewsGuard Despite AI’s blatant bias‚ several militaries around the world are beginning to add AI to their arsenal of tools‚ including the U.S.‚ Russia and China‚ Vice reported. Combine the bias with the way that these AI models are trending toward aggression and nuclear war in their strategies‚ and there is a recipe for a bleak future. Researchers have been issuing warnings about the nuclear tendencies of the AI models‚ but Meta‚ OpenAI and the other Big Tech companies continue to push their products upon Americans and military strategists. In fact‚ Meta has actively pushed that its AI models be used in more facets of life. MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio contributed to this report.Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to remove bias from their AI models.

The Friday morning broadcast network news shows were in spin mode to defend and cheer on leftist queen and Fulton County‚ Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis as she gave “fiery‚ fierce”‚ “defiant”‚ and “dramatic” testimony in a hearing as to whether she will be tossed off the Georgia 2020 election case against former President Trump and his 18 co-defendants due to a romantic relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade. And‚ naturally‚ they used this rah-rah push to reassure their liberal audiences not to worry and that‚ in the end‚ Willis will keep the case and mean old Trump will be made a felon.     ABC’s Good Morning America did its part. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos proclaimed Willis gave “[f]iery testimony...as she fights to stay on the case.” Atlanta-based correspondent Steve Osunsami had the full segment and opened by framing the issue on Willis’s terms: [Willis] continues her fight today against lawyers who want her removed from the election interference case. The question at the heart of this case is whether or not she financially profited from her romantic relationship with the lawyer she hired. She strongly said the answer is no. “From the minute she took the witness stand...Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis was pushing back against any idea that her relationship with the special prosecutor she hired was a means to make money off of her prosecution of former President Donald Trump and 18 others‚” he added. What followed was one favorable soundbite of Willis after another as she firmly denounced her critics and parroted Willis’s claim as though it’s not-at-all concerning that she’d pay Wade “the money back” for their escapades‚ “sometimes thousands of dollars‚ in cash” she’d hoard at home. Instead of point out Wade’s dishonesty on his sex life outside marriage‚ Osunsami focused on how “[w]hen Wade took the witness stand...he said she wouldn’t let him pay for everything because she’s an independent woman.” Osunsami concluded by comforting fellow lefties that Willis isn’t in any actual peril: The judge isn’t expected to immediately make a ruling‚ but if he removes her‚ the state could appoint a new prosecutor who would then decide if this case moves forward. But it would still be a tall order for Willis to be removed from this election interference case[.] To double down‚ chief legal analyst Dan Abrams later told Stephanopoulos that “I think she may still survive the effort to disqualify her” despite it having been a “bad day...personally.” Over on CBS Mornings‚ co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King rallied to Willis’s aid‚ touting in the Eye Opener of Willis’s “fiery testimony.” Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers also framed the hearing as filled with “dramatic testimony from the D.A. in charge of former President Trump’s election interference case in Georgia” had America “riveted.” Congressional correspondent Nikole Killion did even more to prop up the “defiant‚” “fiery‚” and “fierce” Willis (click “expand”): KILLION: Fiery and fierce — WILLIS: Don’t be cute with me and then think that you’re not going to get an answer. KILLION: — a defiant Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis took the stand to defend her personal relationship with a special prosecutor she hired‚ Nathan Wade. WILLIS: Mr. Wade‚ I would say‚ has been my friend since 2020. KILLION: Several of the co-defendants in the 2020 election interference case looked on while former President Trump slammed the testimony as “a...scam.” WILLIS: You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial‚ no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. KILLION: The hearing was prompted by a complaint from co-defendant Michael Roman who‚ along with Trump‚ wants Willis disqualified and the case thrown out. Their attorneys allege Willis personally and financially benefited from her involvement with Wade and claimed he was paid more than $650‚000 by Willis’s office as the pair took lavish trips to the Caribbean‚ Florida‚ and Napa Valley‚ California. WILLIS: He likes wine. I don’t really like wine to be honest with you. I like Gray Goose. NATHAN WADE: Our relationship wasn’t a secret. It was just private. KILLION: Wade insisted Willis reimbursed him for the trips in cash. WADE: She’s a very independent‚ proud woman. [SCREEN WIPE] It actually was a point of contention between the two of us. She is going to pay her own way. WILLIS: But I’ve always paid my fair share on these trips‚ so I didn’t — not look at them as gifts. Killion at least had the wherewithal to throw in sound from CBS News legal analyst Jessica Levinson‚ who said the “jaw-dropping testimony” had “almost certainly shaken the public’s confidence in this particular trial and this was a great day for Donald Trump in a courtroom that he never appeared in.” “It’s a gift that he couldn’t have even asked for‚” she added. King returned to it a few minutes later with Trump-obsessed correspondent Robert Costa‚ who deflected from Willis’s unethical behavior by urging viewers to keep their eyes on the prize of convicting Trump (click “expand”): KING: What do you make of that? I mean‚ on some level‚ she clearly wanted to defend her reputation — not on some level‚ she wanted to. Most times‚ when you hear allegations‚ people stay silent. The fact that she walked into the courtroom‚ took the stand‚ and was very clear about where she stood. Did that help or hurt the case‚ or does it matter? COSTA: It only matters if she’s dismissed from the case. If Judge McAfee decides to say she’s not going to be part of it‚ that could make it hard for the case to come to trial in Georgia before the election. But if this is just a storm for her‚ she moves forward with the prosecution in the coming months and Trump will face sweeping charges along with his co-defendants about trying to overturn the election. DOKOUPIL: But he will use what he saw in the courtroom yesterday from Fani Willis —  COSTA: There’s the legal war DOKOUPIL: — to make his case politically. COSTA: — and the political war. KING: Yeah‚ they’re saying a good day for Donald Trump. I don’t know about that. DUTHIERS: I mean‚ we’ll see. As you say‚ if the judge says that there was no impropriety‚ it’s not a good day. COSTA: Look‚ Republicans are look at having a nominee who’s a felon if he’s convicted in the hush-money criminal trial. DOKOUPIL: And a mean — COSTA: That’s had to say it’s a good day‚ politically. DOKOUPIL: — and a meaningful number of people in polls have said‚ if the conviction come through‚ that could sway them. NBC’s Today was more muted with co-host Hoda Kotb conceding Willis “fac[ed] tough questioning” and while co-host Craig Melvin used the “fiery” descriptor‚ Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrrett admitted Trump “may have found a strategic advantage” after a “combative” “Willis unloaded on the stand...trying to defend her reputation and save her election interference case.” Jarrett explained the version of events offered by Willis “differ[ed] from the one offered by Willis’s former friend‚ testifying Thursday their relationship started years before.” In the second hour‚ Jarrett emphasized that “[t]he stakes are high here. If the judge removes Willis from the case‚ her entire office would be disqualified and a different prosecutor could reshape charges Mr. Trump faces.” To see the relevant transcripts from February 16‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC).

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against government efforts to silence the COVID-19 debate‚ to take effect after a historic Supreme Court ruling. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his fellow plaintiffs received a partial legal victory on Feb. 14 in their suit against the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans. Louisiana District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted part of the plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction in his ruling for Kennedy v. Biden. He ordered that certain government agencies halt their anti-First Amendment collusion with Big Tech.  Doughty ordered “that the White House Defendants‚ Surgeon General Defendants‚ CDC Defendants‚ FBI Defendants‚ and CISA Defendants‚ and their employees and agents‚ shall take no actions‚ formal or informal‚ directly or indirectly‚ to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove‚ delete‚ suppress or reduce‚ including through altering their algorithms‚ posted social-media content containing protected free speech.” The judge previously issued a similar injunction for Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden)‚ which has been consolidated with Kennedy v. Biden. Because the two cases will be decided together‚ the new Kennedy v. Biden injunction will not go into effect until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Murthy v. Missouri. The “Kennedy Plaintiffs” had accused the government defendants‚ including Joe Biden and members of his administration‚ of violating the “Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Doughty’s ruling agreed that the plaintiffs provided evidence that “not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections‚ but they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues.” These include the climate‚ abortion‚ and critiques of Biden. Indeed‚ an MRC Free Speech America study‚ cited in Missouri v. Biden‚ revealed that social media platforms censored public criticism of Biden 646 times between March 10‚ 2020‚ and March 10‚ 2022. Another MRC study‚ based on data from the unique CensorTrack.org database‚ found over 800 cases of COVID-19 censorship as of February 2022. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

On Thursday‚ Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple (a frequent Fox News critic) penned an article decrying "MSNBC's Biden Memory Hole." In the aftermath of Robert Hur's report and its passages on Biden's faulty memory‚ Wemple honed in on the Peacock Progressives: "As the debate churns‚ we need to look at the model laid out by MSNBC — one of institutional denial and stubborn unwillingness to level with its viewers." He began with a little pun: "In a discussion last Thursday night on Biden’s age and fitness for office‚ MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said‚ “He rides a bike.” With that remark‚ Maddow put forth one of MSNBC’s more creative means of soft-pedaling the president’s declining faculties." Has Maddow never seen the video of Biden falling off his bike?  Wemple found one episode disturbing: On September 28‚ 2022 at an anti-hunger event in DC‚ Biden offered praise to supportive lawmakers.  “Jackie‚ are you here? Where’s Jackie?” the president said as he scanned the room. “I didn’t think she was — she wasn’t going to be here — to help make this a reality.” That was a reference to Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.)‚ who had died in a car crash more than a month before the event‚ prompting Biden to issue a statement offering his condolences....  NPR‚ The Washington Post and the New York Times were among the many outlets that wrote it up. Yet MSNBC didn’t air it‚ as pointed out by media critics from the Hill‚ Fox News and NewsBusters. There was no excuse‚ considering that the “Where’s Jackie” episode — as well as Jean-Pierre’s subsequent obstructionism — was best appreciated on video. Wemple added "MSNBC‚ though‚ has a particular place among cable news networks in shielding Biden from age-related criticism. Why didn’t it cover the story? We asked the network and have yet to receive a response." He noted MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace interviewed then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain on October 3‚ just days after the “Where’s Jackie?” episode‚ "a perfect time for some accountability." As she approached the issue‚ Wallace sounded as though she were going to take it head-on‚ saying she was posing “a question to you that I think our viewers won’t like — I’m not sure you will like.” But the question wasn’t about the actual episode; it was about what happened in a subsequent meeting between the president and Walorski’s grieving family. Her question was this:  The president‚ on Friday‚ signed a bill to honor the late Republican Congresswoman Jackie Walorski‚ Republican from Indiana‚ in a private ceremony with her family and with Kevin McCarthy....I don`t know if you were in the room‚ but to be a fly on the wall is something I would wish for‚ if I had the genie wish. Can you take us inside that conversation with the family? Wemple added: "After Klain gave an unspectacular answer‚ Wallace said‚ 'We’ll leave it at that. Enough has been made of that story.' Viewers were entitled to wonder what she was talking about." The article closed with Jen Psaki shaming reporters on Meet the Press for covering Biden's acuity more than Trump's wild remarks about under-paying NATO countries. Wemple summed up: "Trump‚ who has his own record of lapses‚ inevitably makes critical coverage of his rivals look like small potatoes. But fierce and disinterested coverage of the president — whatever its timing and circumstances — is one norm we can’t let Trump ruin." Sadly‚ the recent Dylan Byers report at Puck demonstrated that the norm among White House reporters was to disregard their own observations about Biden's failings because the subject was "indelicate." That "memory hole" was much bigger than just MSNBC.

Interesting. Over there at Newsmax (where‚ full disclosure‚ I am a contributor) is this interesting headline:  Rep. Banks Warns Ad Agencies: No More NewsGuard for Recruitment The story reports: Rep. Jim Banks‚ R-Ind.‚ said woke Pentagon policies — including the use of left-wing media monitors — have been choking military recruitment and he wants them stopped. Last week Banks sent letters to the CEOs of top advertising agencies warning them that using far-left ratings groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index are a violation of federal law — and that he planned on holding hearings on the impact these groups have had on recruitment. ‘NewsGuard‚ as we already know‚ is a left-wing think tank and we know that they censor conservative outlets like your own‚’ Banks said Wednesday on Newsmax's 'Newsline.' Taking a look at one of the letters Banks has sent‚ (co-signed by Reps. Mike Waltz (FL)‚ Elise Stefanik (NY) and Jack Bergman (MI) ) there is this one to the Austin-based GSD&;M ad agency. It opens by saying this: As you likely know‚ the United States military is facing the worst recruiting crisis in the 50 years of the all-volunteer force. After detailing the specifics of that crisis‚ Banks goes on to say this‚ bold print for emphasis supplied: As the primary advertising agency for the United States Air Force‚ your firm should face significant scrutiny regarding its role in the recruiting crisis. United States taxpayers have entrusted GSD&;M with $741 million over 10 years to make the United States Air Force an attractive career choice for young Americans. The House Committee on Armed Services (HASC) has a significant interest in how you spent those resources and your agency’s failure to appeal to new recruits.  …The extent to which the DoD and its contractors have prioritized social justice and political correctness over national security‚ readiness and lethality will be a major focus of this investigation.  Section 1555 of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (FY24 NDAA) requires that any entity placing advertisements on behalf of the Department of Defense certify that the entity does not place advertisements in news sources based on personal or institutional political preferences or biases‚ or determinations of misinformation. This provision responds to concerns that advertising blacklists are effectively created by groups like NewsGuard Technologies and the Global Disinformation Index by providing advertising firms with lists which rank or rate media by subjective and often political criteria which‚ in turn‚ artificially limit military recruitment advertisements’ reach. These organizations’ well-documented bias means that such blacklists exclude media outlets read or viewed by those most likely to be interested in military service. Also‚ it is important to note that Section 1555 prevents the Department of Defense recruitment from contracting with any advertising agency that utilizes such blacklisting services‚ not just for military recruitment purposes. Banks and his colleagues then pose a series of questions focused on the idea that the use by ad agencies of the far-left NewsGuard Technologies and the Global Disinformation Index is itself discouraging recruitment.  Banks begins by asking: Does GSD&;M use NewsGuard and‚ if so‚ when did it start using it?  Were any of these ads placed with NewsGuard paid for by the Defense Department? And if so‚ will the ad agency stop doing this?  The last two questions are these:  “The United States taxpayer expects that military recruitment advertisements will be shown to the broadest possible audience of potential recruits. Do you agree that the use of NewsGuard‚ the Global Disinformation Index‚ or a similar company or service violates your fiduciary duty to the Department of Defense and the United States taxpayer? Why or why not?” “Please provide the committee with the name of the media outlet and the total amount of the advertising buy for all ad placements in excess of $5‚000.” Banks and his colleagues close by saying this:  Because hearings are likely on this matter‚ we are asking you to preserve all records‚ documents‚ communications your firm has had with NewsGuard‚ GDI or other groups who have engaged in censorship using ratings‚ content-based rankings‚ fact-checking services or act as ‘misinformation’ monitors. Well now. What we have here is typical of the way the federal bureaucracy works. Way below the visibility line‚ some lefty bureaucrat buried deep inside sends taxpayer funds to promote X lefty cause of the moment. In this case the subject is the media and the real world effect of using a left-leaning media company - NewsGuard in this case- to promote lefty cause X. That cause here being putting some sort of brake on US military recruitment. Recall back there in 2021‚ NewsBusters own Joseph Vazquez headlined this:  STUDY: NewsGuard Ratings System Heavily Skews in Favor of Left-Wing Outlets Joe reported this‚ bold print for emphasis supplied:  A new analysis reveals the extraordinary left-wing bias of website ratings firm NewsGuard‚ which should concern every American given that it is expanding its reach into cable and broadcast TV news. Liberal outlets were rated 27 points higher on average than news organizations on the right.  MRC Free Speech America analyzed the NewsGuard ratings of media outlets based on a list compiled by AllSides classified by their “bias” on a left-to-right scale. The average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like Jacobin and The Nation — was 93/100. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News‚ Washington Times and New York Post — was a low 66/100. That’s a 27 point disparity. According to NewsGuard’s skewed ratings‚ left-leaning outlets have substantially more “credibility” on average than right-leaning outlets. Bearing that in mind‚ the fact that this lefty outfit is charged by Congressman Banks with injecting “woke Pentagon policies — including the use of left-wing media monitors” into military recruitment drives? And that as a result this has “been choking military recruitment”? Hmmm. This letter from Congressman Banks and his colleagues  is a serious look at just how‚ in the high-tech world that is the 21st century‚ left-leaning media can have a serious impact on‚ in this case‚ the very basic instrument of advertising for a strong‚ fully recruited‚ American military. With no one taking notice. These four Members of Congress - again they would be Reps. Banks‚ Waltz‚ Bergman‚ and Stefanik - should be applauded for stepping up and taking action. The liberal media response that may be coming be damned. Good for them.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to end racial discrimination in voting primarily in the South. Among other things‚ the law ended the use of literacy tests to exclude people from voting‚ imposed “preclearance” requirements for new voting rules in certain states‚ and required ballots and election information to be printed in languages other than English. The VRA is credited with vastly expanding black voter registration and participation‚ particularly in the South. The law was originally designed to sunset after five years but went through a series of extensions and amendments over the decades. The law also contains language that protects voters from intimidation‚ threats‚ and coercion while voting or aiding others to vote. These intimidation provisions are now being used as a weapon to fight against election integrity. Allow me to explain. Until Congress‚ a federal court‚ or the U.S. Supreme Court reins in this judicial overreach‚ you can bet more lawsuits like the one in Georgia are coming. The intimidation provision of the Voting Rights Act is commonly known as “Section 11(b)‚” which provides: No person‚ whether acting under color of law or otherwise‚ shall intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce‚ or attempt to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote‚ or intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce‚ or attempt to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote‚ or intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under [other sections of the law]. A plain reading of the law probably would not alarm the average person concerned with election integrity. After all‚ no one should be allowed to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce voters‚ should they? The problem lies in the way leftists and activist courts interpret “intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce.” Intimidate‚ threaten‚ and coerce originally had the meaning one might expect‚ involving actual threats of physical violence often employed by the Ku Klux Klan. Federal courts‚ however‚ are beginning to take a more expansive view of what constitutes intimidation‚ threats‚ and coercion. In recent years‚ federal courts ruled that one may “intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce” a voter under Section 11(b) using words alone‚ without any threat of physical harm at all. In fact‚ the use of Section 11(b) gets worse. In litigation arising out of the January 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia‚ leftist activists used Section 11(b) to sue election integrity groups and individuals for using available procedures under state law to challenge voter registrations believed to be unlawful. The activists claimed the use of state law‚ and public statements made by the election integrity activists‚ constituted “intimidation‚ threats‚ or coercion.” Here’s what happened. After the 2020 presidential election‚ evidence came to light that a provision of Georgia law requiring voters to vote in the county where they reside may have been violated by thousands of voters‚ in excess of Joe Biden’s 11‚000-vote margin of “victory.” Election integrity groups and activists took action‚ using the procedures provided by Georgia law‚ to challenge some of these voters before the runoff. The suit involved claims made by Fair Fight‚ a leftist public advocacy group founded by Stacey Abrams‚ against a number of parties‚ including True the Vote‚ the election integrity group headed by Catherine Engelbrecht. The Fair Fight plaintiffs claimed‚ “Any mass challenge of voters near an election (especially if negligently or recklessly made) constitutes intimidation‚” as the court described. While the court disagreed with Fair Fight‚ it did so because the Georgia law in question left it up to the county board of elections to pursue or not pursue any of the challenges. In the words of the court‚ the board “intermediary” “breaks the chain of causation for purposes of establishing liability for voter intimidation.” The court also determined the public statements and social media posts made by True the Vote and other defendants did not rise to the level of intimidation. Nevertheless‚ while these election integrity activists successfully defended this suit and prevailed at trial‚ they were forced to endure two years of litigation‚ including extensive discovery‚ motion practice‚ and a trial on the merits — all because they relied upon the procedures provided by Georgia law in an effort to ensure ineligible voters did not vote and because they made public statements in support of those efforts. Anyone using lawful state procedures to challenge voters and voter registration and exercising their First Amendment rights in the process should not be subject to being sued under the Voting Rights Act. Until Congress‚ a federal court‚ or the U.S. Supreme Court reins in this judicial overreach‚ you can bet more lawsuits like the one in Georgia are coming. People fighting for election integrity need to get familiar with the Voting Rights Act‚ retain competent legal counsel‚ and ensure their every effort is beyond question. The fight for election integrity is one worth waging‚ but rest assured the left will fight tooth and nail. The left discovered Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act may be an effective weapon. Americans fighting for the integrity of our elections better be prepared to defend against it.

A proposed public charter school in Brooklyn‚ New York‚ aims to provide a "genderful‚" "affirming" learning environment where young children are encouraged to "explore their gender‚" the New York Post reported Thursday.The Miss Mayor Middle‚ a proposed‚ tuition-free public charter school‚ has recently sparked backlash for attempting to create an educational institution that would "prioritize total inclusivity by ensuring that policies and resources are designed with and for trans‚ gender-nonconforming‚ queer and ally students and families."Children as young as nine years old‚ in grades five through nine‚ would be encouraged to "explore their gender‚ embrace their own identity‚ and decide how they will authentically walk through the world.""MMM empowers all students to learn and achieve individual success within an academically rich‚ joyful‚ inclusive and genderful environment‚" the school's website states.According to MMM‚ the term "genderful" means its facility aims to "create a brave space as we work towards physical and emotional safety for all students.""We imagine the possibility of gender not as a force that restricts us‚ but as an embodied experience that is inherently joyful‚" the website notes.A video on its website features some faculty members and children explaining what "genderful" means to them.Candace Hurley‚ one of the school's board of directors‚ states‚ "Genderful is a word that is open and tolerant. And it means‚ simply‚ to show up as you are. There is no expectation. There is no one-size-fits-all. It is an allowance to be."One child in the school's video says the term encompasses "the full spectrum.""Joy‚ liberation‚ and expansiveness of possibility‚" remarked Jill Glassbrook‚ one of the school's lead educators.Chris Means‚ another lead educator for the proposed campus‚ said‚ "It's a word that just says‚ 'Inclusive.' It includes everyone and that's what's important."The proposed school lists five "major values‚" including "major work‚" "major joy‚" "major pride‚" "major love‚" and "major light."The founder of MMM‚ Joji Florence‚ recently published an article on Chalkbeat explaining the inspiration behind the school's concept. Florence is a "proud nonbinary parent" with three children."I started thinking about the possibility of Miss Major Middle several years back‚ when an eighth grade student of mine bravely came out as non-binary. I noticed that other teachers and administrators were asking the student directly what non-binary meant and what they/them pronouns were. The onus of teaching these adults about their gender identity fell‚ unfairly‚ to the child‚" Florence explained."More of our children want to explore‚ learn about‚ challenge‚ change‚ or move inside and outside the bounds of masculinity and femininity‚" Florence continued. "Many kids seem to get that with increased access to an evolving gender spectrum‚ more people can experience more joy. In the trans community‚ I've heard this idea described as 'genderful.'"According to Maud Maron‚ a parents' rights activist and community education council member in New York City‚ the school "rewards and encourages gender dysphoria.""It's horrifying. No charter school that's aimed at gender ideology indoctrination should ever be approved for children this young‚" Maron told the Post.Helen Qiu‚ a New York City mom running for the 65th State Assembly District in lower Manhattan‚ said she was "shocked" when she learned about the proposed school‚ the news outlet reported."There's a push in schools to normalize the transgender movement‚ to make it younger and younger in age‚ and to exclude parents from knowing about their children's transgender inclination. These three things combined equals child abuse‚" Qiu said. "We need to elect people to oppose it."An evolutionary biologist and Manhattan Institute fellow‚ Colin Wright‚ told the Post that MMM is a "sinister" trap for parents and children."If you're a parent who doesn't know much about gender ideology and you hear that a kid can be themselves‚ not judged‚ it looks so progressive and fantastic. It sounds really good‚" he commented. "These parents probably think the school is about just being yourself‚ free to be you and me‚ but it's absolutely not what's happening. They're saying you can't just be an effeminate boy and masculine girl. It's saying‚ 'If you're an effeminate boy‚ you're actually a girl.'"MMM is one of many applicants vying for charter status in New York City starting in 2025. Nine charter schools will be selected in June.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Jewish artist and his band were unable to perform two events this week after some staff members at the hosting venues reportedly refused to work them.Matthew Paul Miller‚ better known to fans as Matisyahu‚ was scheduled to perform at Meow Wolf in Santa Fe‚ New Mexico‚ on Wednesday‚ followed by a show at the Rialto Theater in Tucson‚ Arizona‚ on Thursday. However‚ both shows were canceled at the last minute‚ and some leftist and anti-Israel groups quickly took credit for at least one cancellation‚ prompting speculation that the cancellations were motivated by anti-Semitism.Matisyahu certainly sees things that way. On Thursday‚ he wrote a lengthy Instagram statement‚ claiming that "the staff at these venues refused to come to work ... because they are either anti-Semitic or have confused their empathy for the Palestinian people with hatred for someone like me."In the statement‚ Matisyahu even claimed that he had offered to pay for supplementary staff members out of pocket‚ "but to no avail." "It is truly a sad day when dialogue with those you disagree with is abandoned for hate mongering and silencing artistic expression‚" it added. See on Instagram As accusations of anti-Semitism began to swirl‚ Cathy Rivers‚ the executive director of the Rialto‚ issued a statement flatly denying that the abrupt cancellation had anything to do with "politics or religion." "This decision was made based on safety. The temperature of the day changed‚ and the tone was not set by us‚" she wrote in part.According to Rivers‚ Matisyahu still received "full" payment for the canceled show‚ and all ticketholders qualify for a refund. "We have hosted Matisyahu at our theater many times but today was not the day to have him play‚" she said.Yet‚ a statement from a coalition of "local union and pro-Palestinian activists" indicates that anti-Israeli sentiment may be at least partly responsible for the cancellation in Santa Fe. The coalition claimed its members "inundated Meow Wolf with calls and social media posts‚" demanding the venue cancel the Matisyahu event‚ as did "Meow Wolf Workers Collective members and leadership."The coalition says it takes issue with the 44-year-old singer's support for "the genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories‚" as well as one of his previous social media posts‚ which stated‚ "Your pronouns will not prevent Jihadists from breaking into your home." The group characterized Matisyahu's statements as "Islamophobic and transphobic."Meow Wolf has apparently not responded to the Washington Examiner's request for comment‚ so the reach of the coalition's influence in this matter is difficult to determine. However‚ the Examiner did note that Julie Heinrich‚ wife of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)‚ is the chief impact officer at Meow Wolf‚ responsible for "social impact &; sustainability‚ government affairs‚ community &; stakeholder engagement‚ employee volunteerism‚ and our nonprofit Meow Wolf Foundation‚" according to her LinkedIn profile."We want to strengthen the art and culture ecosystems in our communities‚ especially among community-based organizations that are serving those who typically don’t have access‚ using art and creativity in innovative ways‚" Mrs. Heinrich said last November in connection with an announcement from the private Meow Wolf foundation.The Examiner likewise suggested that Mrs. Heinrich's connection with accusations of anti-Semitism at the venue may pose problems for her husband‚ who recently called to once again fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency‚ believed to have ties to Hamas and the October 7 attack against Israelis. Last month‚ Sen. Heinrich also joined 11 of his Senate colleagues in calling for the State Department to investigate Israel for possible war crimes.The Examiner reached out to Mrs. Heinrich for comment.Matisyahu has enjoyed a lengthy career thanks to his unique fusion of reggae and rap. He is best known for hits like "King Without a Crown" and "One Day."He also harbors some left-leaning views. Not only did he declare in his statement that he has "empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians‚" but he also claimed that Americans live on "colonized land" and that the U.S. perpetrated "an actual genocide of Native Americans."He also supposedly held an event at another Tucson location on Thursday after the Rialto backed out. Though technically "free‚" the event was orchestrated to collect donations for Israeli hostages. Whether that event went on as scheduled is unclear.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!