Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist

Every non-liberal leftist—that is, nearly every Democrat running for president, New York Times and Washington Post columnist, CNN and MSNBC host, and your left-wing brother-in-law—labels every Trump supporter and, of course, President Donald Trump, a “racist.”

And they don’t stop there. Leftists don’t only label the half of the country that supports the president “racist,” they label all whites and America itself “racist.” If your son or daughter attends or recently attended an American university, it is close to certain he or she was repeatedly told that America and all whites are racist. According to the Left, whites are divided between those who admit they are racist and those who don’t admit it.

Every conservative and many liberals know this is a big lie. The great question is: Do leftists believe it? It is impossible to know. But this we do know: If you repeat something often enough, and if your Weltanschauung (worldview) and that which gives your life meaning are dependent upon believing something, you will eventually believe it.

So here is a way to show it is a lie.

Ask any white conservative, including one who supports Trump, the following three questions:

1) Do you have more in common with, and are you personally more comfortable in the company of, a white leftist or a black conservative?

2) Would you rather have nine white leftists or nine black conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court?

3) Would you rather your child marry a black Christian conservative or a white non-Christian liberal?

A white racist would prefer the whites in each case.

I have asked these questions of thousands of Trump supporters at lectures and on my radio show. Not once has a white Trump-supporting conservative said he or she would be more comfortable in the presence of a white leftist than a black conservative or would prefer an all-white liberal Supreme Court to an all-black conservative Supreme Court. Not once has a white Christian conservative said he or she would prefer their child marry a white non-Christian liberal to a black Christian conservative.

If you’re an honest leftist, this should present a powerful challenge to your belief that all white conservatives are racist.

But it won’t. Leftists have too much at stake to confront the truth about conservatives. Everything the left has ever believed has depended upon lying about opponents. From the day Stalin labeled Trotsky—who served as the head of the Red Army and who, along with Lenin, founded the Bolshevik Party—a “fascist,” leftists have lied about their opponents.

Some liberals lie and some conservatives lie, but the truth is both a liberal and conservative value. It has never been a left-wing value. Any leftist who would commit himself to the truth would cease being a leftist. He would either become an anti-left liberal or an anti-left conservative.

“America is racist.” “Whites are racist.” “Trump supporters are racist.” These are all big lies.

So, then, given how important it is to leftists to maintain the lie of conservative racism—along with xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and Islamophobia—how would they rebut conservatives’ answers to these questions?

Presumably, they would argue that every conservative who responds to these questions as I described is lying.

But these questions are important—no matter how much leftists ignore or dismiss them—because they perform an important service for conservatives.

I know this from Jewish history. There was so much Jew-hatred in the medieval Christian world that Jews sometimes wondered if there was any truth to the attacks on them. When a whole society denigrates a group, members of the denigrated group start wondering whether any of the attacks on them have any truth. But when the charge of blood libel—that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to bake matzos for Passover—arose, it liberated Jews from taking any of the anti-Semites’ attacks seriously. Every Jew knew the blood libel was a lie—Jews never consumed animal blood, let alone human blood.

Every conservative knows his responses to these three questions are heartfelt and true, so these questions can help conservatives come to see the Left’s charge of conservative racism as medieval Jews came to see the anti-Semites’ blood libel charge: as a lie.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: Jay Shaw Baker/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Intelligence Community • Post • Republicans • Russia • The Media

Democrats’ Attack Machine Revs Up Against Ratcliffe

Twenty minutes before President Trump announced Sunday afternoon on Twitter that Representative John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) would be his choice to replace Dan Coats as the director of national intelligence, the Democrats’ attack machine already was in action.

“John Ratcliffe, by one measure the second most conservative member of Congress, appears to believe that the Russia investigation was cooked up by Democrats who ‘committed crimes.’ Now Trump reportedly is considering placing atop the US intelligence community,” tweeted NBC News analyst Ken Dilanian, pejoratively known as “Fusion Ken” for his ties to the infamous opposition research shop, Fusion GPS.

(Take note of Dilanian’s scare quotes around “committed crimes” as if the whole thing was legit and not under criminal investigation by a U.S. attorney or a separate probe by the Justice Department inspector general.)

Trump then confirmed the pick on Twitter, saying Ratcliffe will “lead and inspire greatness for the Country he loves.”

Ratcliffe, a member of both the House Intelligence and House Judiciary committees, earned plaudits last week during the disastrous Robert Mueller hearings for his verbal vivisection of Mueller’s claims about not exonerating Donald Trump on alleged obstruction of justice offenses.

“The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence,” Ratcliffe told the bewildered prosecutor. “It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the special counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in Department of Justice manual.”

Pointing out that the president, like any other American, is entitled to a presumption of innocence immediately caused the Left to brand Ratcliffe a Trump shill, lackey and suck-up.

Now Trump foes are using Ratcliffe’s performance against him while lauding the work of Coats, who publicly made it clear in May that he intended to stonewall Trump’s directive to declassify all documents related to the corrupt origins of the Obama Administration’s investigation into Trump’s presidential campaign. Coats succeeded James Clapper, a known anti-Trump partisan, who was a key player in concocting the bogus Russian collusion hoax in 2016. Attorney General Bill Barr is investigating the entire scandal, which includes any involvement by Clapper or his surrogates.

The media and top Democrats, including Clapper’s partner-in-collusion, former CIA Director John Brennan, immediately started bashing Ratcliffe on Twitter while commending Coats as a courageous straight shooter.

“Dan Coats served ably & with deep integrity,” Brennan tweeted early Monday morning. “Ratcliffe showed abject subservience to Trump in Mueller hearings. The women & men in the Intelligence Community deserve a leader like Coats who puts nation first; not a servile Trump loyalist like Ratcliffe.”

Coats “has had the independence and strength to speak truth to power,” tweeted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that will preside over Ratcliffe’s confirmation hearing, tweeted that the “mission of the intelligence community is to speak truth to power. As DNI, Dan Coats stayed true to that mission.”

CNN contributor Garrett Graff mocked Ratcliffe while lauding his CNN colleague: “Before becoming DNI, Jim Clapper had worked in U.S. intelligence for nearly fifty years and personally headed two of the nation’s 17 intel agencies. By comparison, John Ratcliffe was the mayor of Heath, Texas, pop., 8000.”

The increasingly unstable Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” offered some public relations advice to those seeking to tank Ratcliffe’s nomination.

“Just start calling Ratcliffe a fascist,” Scarborough suggested on Monday morning’s show. “And call him a fascist throughout this entire process. Call him a fascist for the rest of his career until this fascist apologizes to capitalists who are Democrats who he has mislabeled.”

Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman insisted that the “ultra-conservative” Ratcliffe would make Russian interference in the next election “more likely.” Waldman’s perpetually hysterical colleague, NeverTrumper Max Boot, claimed that “Ratcliffe has no qualifications in the intelligence field, but he does have a history of slavish loyalty to Trump—as he demonstrated by berating and maligning special counsel Robert S. Mueller III during the House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.”

Ratcliffe, 53, is qualified to serve as DNI, a position created in 2004. (Coats, a former U.S. senator from Indiana, served for one term on the Senate Intelligence Committee.) The third-term congressman is a former U.S. attorney, federal terrorism prosecutor. and Texas mayor.

But the freakout about Ratcliffe has nothing to do with his qualifications or his appropriate excoriation of Robert Mueller last week. The Left and NeverTrump Republicans who’ve been fully invested in the now-discredited Russian collusion scam also have helped cover up the real scandal, which is how the most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the world were weaponized by the Obama administration against the Trump campaign and the incoming Trump administration. They are terrified that Ratcliffe, like Barr, will expose the abuse of power, widespread corruption and media complicity behind the hoax, just as the 2020 election gets underway.

Unlike the current deification of Coats for allegedly “speaking truth to power,” the real truth-seekers are people like Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Ratcliffe, Barr, and Trump who know that Americans are entitled to know exactly what went down in 2016 and 2017. Senate Republicans would be well-advised to make sure Ratcliffe’s nomination proceeds quickly, despite the egregious attacks.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Administrative State • Big Media • Deep State • Donald Trump • Political Parties • Post • The Media

The ‘Marlene Effect’: Why Our Reasonable Neighbors Are Blind to the Deep State

In an essay that I published recently at The American Mind, I argue that we need a conservative revolution to reclaim our constitutional republic. Exposing the deep state is a necessary condition for this revolution. By deep state, I mean a species of corruption exercised by a largely hidden elite almost completely insulated from the oversight of the sovereign people. This elite act in direct violation of the principles of limited and balanced government as well as democratic participation.

While the evidence for this corruption is overwhelming, the soft power of both the deep state and the institutions supporting it is so great that public opinion remains largely immune to evidence, even as those Americans who are “woke” to it, strive to resist. It is here where the most insidious consequences of the deep state begin to come into view.

How do people with reasonable and moderate political views and who possess the typical American generosity of soul refuse to believe something so obvious to so many others? I’ll call this the Marlene effect, after one concrete example of my acquaintance. Marlene has a general faith in the American government and in the public discourse about politics and issues found in legacy media outlets. 

So far as she is concerned, the news she gets every day is fair if not entirely unbiased. Her exposure to Donald Trump through the media, long before the election, sparked in her an aesthetic disgust with him.  He is not (or is not portrayed) as the sort of man she could admire. Because she shared this revulsion with those in her social circle, her views became hardened and, to her, altogether obvious. Every story amplifies her feelings. 

When Donald Trump was elected, this patriot of some 80 years could only be baffled by the results. By logical necessity, she had to assume that her proper disgust at the misogynist president ought to be extended to a great many citizens who have now become alien to her—the “other” who she thinks threatens the values that she associates with the America of her experience and the America of her dreams. 

Marlene has become, unexpectedly and suddenly, aware of a hidden America, a dangerous America, and now she is able to see in all manner of symbols (words, cars, hats, and so many more that suddenly fit her new social and moral map of America) the deplorables who are all around her: driving down the road, standing next to her in the grocery store, or fixing her plumbing. 

Fortunately, the most powerful institutions in America offered Marlene hope. Her most trusted news sources promised Marlene that this stain on America’s reputation, this global embarrassment of a president, would be brought down. The most respected people in her world—the FBI, Justice Department, and perhaps seasoned, wise public servants at other federal agencies—were taking their constitutional and moral duties seriously to remove the president for cause. Marlene sought information daily on the gossip and developments of the Mueller investigation and other efforts, but she did so through the news sources that she trusted. Insofar as she heard about any alternatives to these sources or was subjected to alternative interpretations, she was regularly reassured that they were conspiracy theorists and cranks who are not to be trusted—they were part of the problem, the philistines to be vanquished. 

When disconcerting evidence emerged and the facts lined up against the narrative that she had internalized, her trusted sources supplied her with odd and strained explanations and asserted a bit more loudly that whatever you think you see is not actually there. Only the narrative is true—trust the narrative, not the facts. The guardians of public opinion promise to make the crooked line of evidence straight for you. Marlene is reminded of the self-evident truth beneath the evidence: Trump is bad, the Democrats in Congress and their allies in the trusted government agencies are trying to protect American principles, and the media is there to supply you with a comforting and useful narrative. 

The deepest problem is that Marlene is not capable of challenging this narrative. To do so would be to risk both social alienation and her own sense of place in the world. 

The Marlene effect is particularly strong among educated (especially professional) people over age 50 who have long thought of themselves as moderate, practical, and deeply informed. They care about cultural, social, and aesthetic trends and plug into the most socially acceptable forms of information that keep them connected to the cosmopolitan trends appropriate to their actual or aspirational station. The more geographically distant from the center of cultural and social power, the more powerful the Marlene effect on those needing reliable sources to provide them with the right opinions, tastes, and styles.

The distance between Marlene and the evidence, coupled with the need to have the correct opinion on matters she is incapable of assessing directly, puts her completely at the mercy of the sources of authoritative information and assessment that she has chosen. More than perhaps any other segment of the population, those afflicted by the Marlene effect are most controlled by a public opinion generated by elite institutions rather than by their own experiences (indeed, as we noted before, their experiences are shaped by the opinions with which they are supplied). Like all provincials who aspire to be known for their cosmopolitanism, Marlene cannot question the authority of her sources without exposing her complete dependence on the work of others for her most cherished opinions and values. 

The Marlene effect makes people immune to evidence and dependent on a constructed narrative. The Marlene effect reveals that the most important battle is about who gets to define reality for the citizens of a self-ruling nation.

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Silicon Valley • Technology • The Left • The Media

America, Google, and Me: My Senate Speech

Last week, at the invitation of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), I spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Google’s having placed more than 60 Prager University videos on its restricted list. Any family that filters out pornography and violence cannot see those particular videos on YouTube (which is owned by Google); nor can any school or library.

This statement is as much about what PragerU and I stand for as it is about Google. Those interested in viewing the presentation can do so here:

It is an honor to be invited to speak in the United States Senate. But I wish I were not so honored. Because the subject of this hearing—Google and YouTube’s (and for that matter, Twitter and Facebook’s) suppression of internet content on ideological grounds—threatens the future of America more than any external enemy.

In fact, never in American history has there been as strong a threat to freedom of speech as there is today.

Before addressing this, however, I think it important that you know a bit about me and the organization I co-founded, Prager University—PragerU, as it often referred to.

I was born in Brooklyn, New York. My late father, Max Prager, was a CPA and an Orthodox Jew who volunteered to serve in the U.S. Navy at the start of World War II. My father’s senior class thesis at the City College of New York was on anti-Semitism in America. Yet, despite his keen awareness of the subject, he believed that Jews living in America were the luckiest Jews to have ever lived.

He was right. Having taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College, written a book on anti-Semitism and fought Jew-hatred my whole life, I thank God for living in America.

It breaks my heart that a vast number of young Americans have not only not been taught how lucky they are to be Americans but have been taught either how unlucky they are or how ashamed they should be.

It breaks my heart for them because contempt for one’s country leaves a terrible hole in one’s soul and because ungrateful people always become unhappy and angry people.

And it breaks my heart for America because no good country can survive when its people have contempt for it.

I have been communicating this appreciation of America for 35 years as a radio talk show host, the last 20 in national syndication with the Salem Radio Network—an organization that is a blessing in American life. One reason I started PragerU was to communicate America’s moral purpose and moral achievements, both to young Americans and to young people around the world. With a billion views a year, and with more than half of the viewers under age 35, PragerU has achieved some success.

My philosophy of life is easily summarized: God wants us to be good. Period. God without goodness is fanaticism and goodness without God will not long endure. Everything I and PragerU do emanates from belief in the importance of being a good person. That some label us extreme or “haters” only reflects on the character and the broken moral compass of those making such accusations. They are the haters and extremists.

PragerU releases a five-minute video every week. Our presenters include three former prime ministers, four Pulitzer Prize winners, liberals, conservatives, gays, blacks, Latinos, atheists, believers, Jews, Christians, Muslims and professors and scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and a dozen other universities.

Do you think the secretary-general of NATO; or the former prime ministers of Norway, Canada or Spain; or the late Charles Krauthammer; or Philip Hamburger, distinguished professor of law at Columbia Law School, would make a video for an extreme or hate-filled site? The idea is not only preposterous; it is a smear.

Yet, Google, which owns YouTube, has restricted access to 56 of our 320 five-minute videos and to other videos we produce. “Restricted” means families that have a filter to avoid pornography and violence cannot see that video. It also means that no school or library can show that video.

Google has even restricted access to a video on the Ten Commandments . . . Yes, the Ten Commandments!

We have repeatedly asked Google why our videos are restricted. No explanation is ever given.

But of course, we know why: because they come from a conservative perspective.

Liberals and conservatives differ on many issues. But they have always agreed that free speech must be preserved. While the left has never supported free speech, liberals always have. I, therefore, appeal to liberals to join us in fighting on behalf of America’s crowning glory: free speech. Otherwise, I promise you, one day you will say, “First they came after conservatives, and I said nothing. And then they came after me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Thank you.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

America • History • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • The Left • The Media

When ‘The Right Stuff’ Goes Wrong

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy committed the United States to put an American on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of the decade. 

Just to be clear, nothing like this had ever been attempted. Americans, though, were uniquely suited to the task, Kennedy said: “We choose to go to the moon . . . and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

In Kennedy’s day, it was understood the American he had in mind for this dangerous mission would be a man (or, as it turned out, men) expected to perform at the highest level.

In his speech Kennedy emphasized “hard,” as in something requiring great effort, now a word heard mostly in male-enhancement commercials. Sadly, the bedroom may be the one place these days where men’s performance gets any kind of public mention—and that’s to sell pharmaceuticals. 

American men live in a very different country from the one Apollo 11 came from on July 20, 1969. That was the day when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon while Michael Collins circled above in the lunar command module, hoping to take the three of them home. 

How different? Read The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe. The book is a celebration of old-fashioned manhood in all its rocket-powered glory. In other words, most of the astronauts Wolfe wrote about would never pass a human resources screening.

Their qualifications were tested, but not by having them fill out forms. These guys, many of them former combat pilots, had already proven they had balls. That’s part of what Wolfe meant by the book title. 

In the ultrasensitive work environment of today, the mere mention of similar male attributes would get you fired. On the flight of Apollo 11, they were among the things that mattered most.

Which explains why on this historic occasion there won’t be any mainstream media salutes to “the right stuff,” as Wolfe conceived it. Putting aside the Playboy lifestyle enjoyed by some astronauts, the idea that three white men, relying solely on know-how and pre-toxic masculinity, got from the earth to the moon and back might alarm certain people. Then there are “the optics.” In addition to being all male and active duty or ex-military, the Apollo 11 crew was not ethnically diverse, culturally inclusive, or gender fluid. 

Years later, there were rumors in some parts of the world that Armstrong had converted to Islam while taking his famous moonwalk. All officially denied by the U.S. State Department in 1983.

Speaking of spiritual matters, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which manages the U.S. space program, used to allow crews to mix science and religion. During the 1968 Christmas Eve flight of Apollo 8, astronauts broadcast the first live television pictures of an earthrise as they read a passage from Genesis. Atheists sued.

Armstrong and Aldrin have never been rebuked like Christopher Columbus and other well-known explorers, largely because they never encountered and/or enslaved any indigenous peoples on their 21-hour moon visit. But they did leave an American flag behind. And that was a problem.

“First Man,” the 2018 Neil Armstrong biopic, received generally favorable reviews, except from some conservatives, who complained the film omitted an important patriotic element by not depicting the planting of a U.S. flag on the lunar surface. 

Producers were probably concerned about the effect on ticket sales in countries that hate America, or maybe ticket sales to moviegoers in this country who hate America.

Just as Nike was concerned recently when it halted the sale of a new shoe decorated with a miniature version of the original U.S. flag. (On the advice of a washed-up football player who’s made a new career for himself trashing the country’s most cherished symbols.)

Given how much has changed, it’s not hard to imagine what America’s first mission to the moon would be like if it happened today. 

The spacecraft would have to be bigger to accommodate a larger, more diverse crew, including at least one unskilled illegal immigrant. 

Leading the mission would be a commander of color, with crew members chosen by NASA and a select panel of race, ethnicity, and gender identity consultants. 

In-flight meals would feature dehydrated multicultural entrees and a special vegan menu. Tang would also be served. 

The landing would be televised and show the mission commander climbing down a ladder to set foot on the moon, followed by the non-binary co-commander who would read the following statement:

“That’s one small step for they. One giant leap for them.”

Then, as the phone rang, signaling a call from the White House, xe would say, “If that’s Donald Trump, we’re not answering.” 

It makes you glad the real thing happened 50 years ago.

Photo credit: Corbis via Getty Images

Big Media • Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Welcome to the Democrats’ ‘Truman Show’

Last week’s congressional immigration and border security hearing was a microcosmic embodiment of the “The Truman Show” world of the Democratic Party.

Remember that 1998 film, when Jim Carrey was actually a good actor? When his character, Truman Burbank, discovers that his entire life had been scripted for television from birth, he forgoes his life of comfortable fantasy for the uncomfortable world of freedom; the other side of the door Burbank walks through is frightening, but worth it. 

U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who spoke (well, grandstanded is more like it) at the hearing, are the opposite of the Burbank character at the movie’s conclusion. They have spent the entirety of their brief political careers as Manchurian candidates and Manchurian congresswomen. They haven’t shunned their existences as political actresses who inhabit fantastical worlds of fake tears and faux outrage, which were on full display at the hearing; rather, they have lovingly embraced it. 

Yes, theatrics are inherent in politics; the political thespians, however, have wooed and wowed America’s useful idiots with Streepian smoothness. 

Every nanosecond of Burbank’s life was predetermined by Christof, the creator of “The Truman Show”; the taxpayer-funded activist actresses’ Christofs are the non-profits MoveOn and Justice Democrats, a political action committee formed in 2017 by Breadline Bernie Sanders alums and Cenk Uygur, one of the creators of “The Young Turks,” who was a Republican, before he was an independent, before he was a Democrat. 

Are Capitol Hill Republicans actually aware that Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, and Tlaib are taxpayer-funded activist actresses? If not, why not? If so, why not say so?

All the World’s a Stage
From crying-on-demand, to teeth cleanings, to haircuts, to sniffing hair, to cracking open coldies, to jerk chicken marinade in the kitchen and to men kissing their husbands, Democrats have created for their voters a world where truth and reality are indefinitely suspended, supplanted by fairy tales; this is manifested in their anti-American policy proposals. 

All the world’s a stage, and the men and women mere players; irrespective of influence and propaganda, adults are responsible for their own actions and decisions. But the Democrat delusions of grandeur pervasive throughout the republic—buttressed by lies, conspiracy theories and myths that the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) rarely challenge—are dangerous and deadly. 

Men are women. Hillary Clinton “won” the 2016 presidential election. Inequality is the new equality. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On and on. Democrats live in a politically manufactured world akin to Truman Burbank’s “reality” TV world.

Are Democrats incapable of recognizing truth when they see it? I’ve long said that Democrats don’t actually believe the bull dung they peddle, whether it be “fundamental transformation,” “democratic socialism” or “it takes a village.” What if I’m mistaken, however? The only people who frighten me more than those who spout but don’t believe the crap coming out of their mouths are the ones who do believe it.

Inequality Is the New Equality
When it comes to Democrats, there are myriad “Truman Show” examples to choose from, day in and day out. With all due respect, if any of you reading this can’t name one instantaneously, then you’re not paying attention. The Equality Act, passed two months ago by every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and eight Tessio Republicans, is particularly telling. (Inspired by Sal Tessio from “The Godfather,” who intentionally betrays the Corleone family, a Tessio Republican is one who intentionally betrays America First principles of nationalism, constitutional liberties, free markets, and common sense.) 

Democrats pushed the Equality Act through because their world is one where males who decide they’re females should be able to compete in women’s sports. Democrats sell this stranger-than-science-fiction narrative because it’s what they believe their voters want to buy. The bill isn’t going to become law, thank God, because it will fail in the Senate.  

It’s not just that Democrats destroy everything they touch, it’s that their supposed Midas touch never turns anything to gold. Does any Democrat in Congress, or any of their voters, realize that? 

The “party of science” couldn’t be more anti-science. The “party of women” couldn’t be any more misogynistic (and misandrist, for that matter). The “party of the youth” couldn’t be any more anti-child, as evidenced by its fetish for 40-week abortions, as well as their zealous political exploitation-engineering of the youth in our schools, culture, and media. 

Democrats spit in the faces of Naomi Fraley, who inspired the World War II-era poster girl “Rosie the Riveter,” women’s suffrage heroines Ida B. Wells and Susan B. Anthony, and every woman who demanded—and achieved—true equality. Wham bam thank you, ma’am! Or is it “sir”? With Democrats, it can be confusing. 

Democrats have set women’s equality back a century. Are there any prominent Democrats in the country willing to stand up against their party’s apparatus? If you want true diversity and equality, strive for excellence—not pseudo-science. “Transgender” men don’t need red carpets rolled out for them to compete against the weaker biological sex; they need an intervention that prevents them from becoming the next statistic in the rising transgender suicide body count.  

Democrats are actually the exact opposite of what they proclaim to be about; it’s why they constantly employ the first rule of propaganda: to accuse your opposition of that which you yourself are guilty. This illogic is the norm, not the exception, in the “Truman Show” habitat Democrats inhabit. 

Democrats view governing as a vanity project. The AOCs, Omars, and Tlaibs (among many others) are traitorous burdens to our country and serve zero legislative purpose. They seek not to govern, or achieve, or represent—they seek to take our money and take our freedoms, and invoke ideologies shaped and influenced by the worst ideologies in Man’s history. Look how pathetic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) are. Pelosi, 79, can barely get through a press conference. Nadler, 71, fainted a few months ago. I’m not an ageist, and I wish no ill will toward either, but rather than retire and spend time with the grandkids, they will spend their twilight years propagating Russian collusion/obstruction of justice/cover-up/whatever’s next-lies that they know are lies.

To bridge our divide, the Democrats must be conquered; perhaps then, there can be political peace. Truman Burbank overcame the false hope and tyranny of a life of fantasy and make-believe. It needs to end badly at the polls for the Democrats. We on the America First nationalist side seek calm, and to have our rights, our families, and our businesses left alone. Continue challenging us, though, and I promise we will fight back 10 times, 100 times, 1,000 times more fiercely than anything they want to toss at us from fantasyland.  

In the end, Truman defeated the world of la-la land. Conquer, or be conquered. 

Photo credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Donald Trump • Foreign Policy • North Korea • Post • The Media

Donald Trump the Statesman

When Donald Trump took office, his predecessor warned him that North Korea was going to be his biggest international headache. Within months of receiving that warning from Barack Obama, the Trump team was faced with escalating nuclear threats from Pyongyang. The world braced as a nuclear standoff appeared to unfold and as President Trump moved U.S. forces into the region, issuing threatening tweets in response to escalating North Korean provocations. 

Meanwhile, the hateful Left and its allies embedded within the so-called deep state, decried the president’s supposed “warmongering” against North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Once Trump stunned the world and met with Kim in Singapore last summer—without preconditions—those same Leftists and deep staters insisted Trump was appeasing an intractable dictator intent on acquiring nuclear weapons to use against the United States and its allies. 

In reality, Trump was pursuing an America First strategy that used all the tools of statecraft available to his—tools most of these “experts” had forgotten how to use. 

Those Who Want Respect Give Respect
For too long, American policymakers had an all-or-nothing view of foreign policy. Either the United States got everything it wanted through force or it got nothing. Threats, such as those from North Korea, festered. 

This was odd, considering that the United States, as the reputed global hegemon, had many other tools beyond the military that it could use to mitigate and deter threats. Trump, a man who until a few years ago was a real-estate-tycoon-turned-reality-television personality, somehow grasped this basic fact better than the supposed wise men and women who have spent their lives working in foreign policy. 

Trump did use military brinkmanship, and willingly, but he also was willing to consider other methods—notably sanctions and public diplomacy through his unpopular but effective tweets—to force Pyongyang to calm down. Once calm, Trump then offered Kim Jong-un the olive branch. Ever since the Singapore summit last summer, the situation between the West and North Korea has been improving.

Ignorami of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party
Unlike the foreign policy establishment, Trump is not beholden to the predominant theories and assumptions that most “experts” hold close. This might frustrate the elites, but it does allow Trump greater flexibility to achieve the ultimate objective: the mitigation of the North Korean nuclear weapons threat and, therefore, the reduction of the risk of war.

Since the North Korean nuclear threat became prevalent during the 1990s, the permanent bipartisan fusion party that runs Washington has been unable to do much in the way of ending that threat—while watching as Pyongyang worked itself closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump may not have permanently ended the North Korean threat, but he did stop all North Korean missile tests for more than 400 days. Even after the setback that happened during the second summit between Trump and Kim in Vietnam, there was only one North Korean missile test and it was conducted by a shorter-range missile than the ones that Pyongyang was launching before Trump met with Kim in Singapore last summer.

The people in Washington who run our foreign policy establishment fancy themselves statesmen (and women). They are not. These individuals are beholden to stodgy ideologies and methodologies formed in the previous century. While not everything they believe is wrong simply because they believe it, much of it is wrong nonetheless. North Korea is a terrible place run by an evil regime, true. It is undeserving, certainly, of the attention of the West. But simply ignoring the problem is not really a workable solution. By isolating North Korea, America has turned a festering threat into an implacable foe. 

These Are Not Real Foreign Policies
Virtue-signaling and thumping our chests at Pyongyang has done little to dissuade the Kim regime from pursuing its malicious foreign policy objectives. 

At the same time, the United States (and our regional allies, including South Korea and Japan) cannot afford a major war with North Korea right now. Should a conflict with North Korea erupt, it will also galvanize both Pyongyang’s main benefactor of China as well as Russia against the United States. 

It remains to be seen if the Trump Administration’s North Korea policy will work in the long-run. For the moment, however, North Korea is nowhere near the threat to the United States and our allies that it was just two years ago. This is explicitly because President Trump did not listen to the “experts” in foreign policy. Instead, he followed his instincts. Whatever happens next, the Americans will be dealing with North Korea from a much better position than the one in which the Obama Administration left us.

Far from being the Neville Chamberlain in Munich moment the NeverTrump buffoons had hoped for, the Trump-Kim relationship appears to have blossomed along similar lines to that of the Reagan-Gorbachev relationship. Thus, Trump is turning out to be a solid statesman. We are lucky to have him as president as opposed to those proud members of the permanent bipartisan fusion party who are running against him in 2020. 

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Conservatives • Democrats • First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Republicans • The Culture • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

A ‘Green Book’ for Conservatives?

Last year, an Oscar-winning movie made known to many of us what the “Green Book” was—a guidebook listing accommodations for the African American traveler during the days of Jim Crow segregation. 

Today, I fear, we may need a “Green Book” for conservatives and Republicans. 

Stephanie Wilkinson, co-owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, who last year had kicked out a White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and family simply for their political affiliation, recently defended and promoted that practice in a Washington Post op-ed. She compared it to Cracker Barrel barring Grayson Fitts, who advocates “the arrest and execution of LGBTQ people.” Citing the cases last year where other prominent Republicans, Kirstjen Nielsen, Stephen Miller, and Mitch McConnell, were mobbed and driven out of restaurants, she wrote, “restaurants are now part of the soundstage for our ongoing national spectacle.” Amazingly, she complained that “the business involved inevitably comes under attack.” Those inclined to “scold owners and managers” and express dismay at the loss of a perceived “politics-free zone” should just get used to it. 

Wilkinson can deny that she approves of the next step—physical assault—by cheering the fact that there has been more support for Cracker Barrel’s actions than for those of the server who spit in the face of Eric Trump recently. Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who criticized Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and her call for mob action—namely, forming “a crowd” and “push[ing] back” on all Trump Administration members at restaurants, gas stations, and department stores—can claim to be above the fray. In truth, however, mild statements of disapproval, are lost in the tsunami of actions against conservatives by businesses ranging from advertisers on the Tucker Carlson show, movie producers in Georgia, and censors on social media.

I take Stephanie Wilkinson’s exclusion policy personally, though. Lexington is the place of my overnight stays during my frequent drives to Atlanta.

As I decide where to have dinner, I have the uncomfortable thought: that there is a restaurant in Lexington where people with my political views are not welcome. The idea is so foreign to me. I spent several years supporting myself waiting on tables and tending bar in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, it was “no shoes, no shirt, no service,” or no service only for drunkenness, fighting, or nonpayment of a check. 

It is also troubling to me, given that I fled tyranny in the arms of my parents from Communist Yugoslavia. I grew up hearing their stories about political oppression. Imagine what it feels like to see things that resemble those stories in this country.

I have faced discrimination in academia. The “American dream” is to work your way up, right? I was “outed” as a conservative when the topic of my dissertation failed to advance the Marxist gender/race/class line contemporary English departments demand. As an adjunct instructor, I was expected to join in group conversations during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary speculating about who could beat the evil George W. Bush. My silence outed me. After I wrote columns, I was told that suddenly no more classes would be available for me to teach the following semester.

But back in 2004, it would never have occurred to me that such discrimination would occur outside of academia, that I could be legally discriminated against in restaurants.

It gives me little comfort that I am not easily recognizable like Sarah Sanders. Wilkinson has broadcast to the world that my kind are not welcome in her trendy establishment, a place that dare not refuse service to someone because of race. She feels righteous, claiming her actions are as justified as refusing service to someone who openly advocates murder. 

Would I feel comfortable in Wilkinson’s restaurant? What if a server overheard me expressing my political views? If I made a reservation, would staff Google my name? I might not get the boot, but would I have my food spit in, or worse? No doubt, other restaurant owners are taking note, and I wonder: how do other Lexington restaurateurs feel? Do they also not want my business? What about the hotel where I stay?

Where this will end? Will conservatives be excluded next from grocery stores and hotels (as Maxine Waters would have it)? Will we be forced to sleep in our cars when traveling? It is hard to imagine this happening, but we now have those who feel no shame in openly advocating it. The inconceivable has happened in my lifetime—in a “free country.”

The ironic thing is that I support the concept of farm-to-table restaurants. I am a regular customer of the organic farmers who come here on the village square in Clinton, New York. I am against tax-subsidized corporate farming—something started by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. I am opposed to it because it led to the near-starvation of many black farmers and tenant farmers who were excluded from Roosevelt’s New Deal subsidies. Yet, African Americans had to pay the higher taxes and inflated prices for these programs. It also bears repeating that it was a Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who imposed segregation in the federal workforce. His protégée, Franklin Roosevelt, continued the policies even as he wooed black voters with “relief” payments instead of jobs and denied black children afflicted with polio the opportunity to use his Warm Springs facility while his wife posed with them for campaign photo-ops.

Barack Obama took up FDR’s mantle and was even portrayed in a way that evoked his image on the cover of a prominent magazine. His proposed federal regulation of small farmers who sold at public markets was met with a letter of protest from a farmer who sold organic produce from his five acres at such markets throughout the Atlanta area where I was living. Under President Trump, businesses, including farm-to-table establishments, are thriving.

Breaking bread is a way for people to come together. Having a meal should not be a political act. Yet, liberals and the Democratic National Committee, beginning in 2015, encouraged “conversations” with family members over Thanksgiving dinner to point out how benighted they are to vote Republican. Now it’s OK to kick Republicans out of restaurants and your family gatherings.

Charles Murray, the author of Coming Apart, who is much vilified on our liberal campuses, could write an updated version of his book based on the new levels of exclusion that go beyond zip codes to businesses run by self-righteous, intolerant, well-to-do liberals. If we are “divided” as a nation as many say, it is not because of conservatives or what our president says. It is because of people like Wilkinson.

The Red Hen is off my places to patronize, no doubt to the pleasure of Stephanie Wilkinson. I am one person, without much financial clout.

So were the African Americans riding the buses in Montgomery, Alabama. The time has come for conservatives, and all Americans who value the freedom of association and policies of non-discrimination, to take a page out of the playbook of that boycott and others like it. This isn’t a fight that conservatives started, but it is one we must win. The branding, exclusion, and assaults must stop.

Photo credit: TKTKTKTK

First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Silicon Valley • Technology • The Left • The Media

Silicon Valley Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Rights

In case you haven’t been paying attention, the battle over personal data, free speech and the free flow of information between the American people and the tech giants is heating up. As the Googles and Facebooks of the world take an unconstitutional role in deciding what speech and information should be online, it’s becoming clear much more is at stake than first meets the eye. 

It’s also becoming apparent that there are some voices on the Right who are either deeply naïve and ignorant about what is at stake or they are in fact paid collaborators of the tech companies. 

Most people who use social media are not entirely sure what their personal data is being used for, or to what extent they’ve actually given permission for the use of such data. Fact is, most people have given far more permission to the tech companies than they may realize. 

As Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) pointed out, users of Facebook and other “free” services have been paying for them with their valuable personal information; there is nothing free in life, trust me. In light of the DASHBOARD Act, cosponsored by Warner and Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Facebook even changed the wording of its user agreement to acknowledge for the first time it is paid by companies to show those companies’ advertisements to you by using your personal data. 

But that pales in comparison to what else Silicon Valley is using your personal data for when it comes to developing general artificial intelligence in pursuit of automation and singularity. Your data is like nitric oxide and jet fuel to the algorithms feeding general AI. Now add that to the premise of Moore’s Law, which is the idea that the speed of processors doubles every two years. Technology is advancing at an incredible pace. But our thinking—especially policymakers’ understanding—is lagging badly. 

We now see reports that robots will be replacing upwards to 20 million workers by 2030, most of which will be in manufacturing industries. What happens to the workers who are displaced? Where will they go? Even assuming a period of transition, what will become of an older generation of workers over the next 30 or 40 years? A universal basic income isn’t the solution for many different reasons, including the dignity that comes with actual work. I’ve suggested a new Great Works Program funded by royalties earned from energy exploration and use on federal lands. 

Regardless of what the solutions might be, no one is really discussing them. Nor is anyone really discussing what the end goal is for Big Tech and the Silicon Valley oligarchy lurking in the wings. These companies are betting hundreds of billions of dollars to realize their vision for the future, which is “the singularity” in which robots run the world. This isn’t a joke or the stuff of science fiction. This is fast becoming real life, funded by people and companies who are convinced they know how to make us all “happier and healthier.”

In exchange, our lives as a self-governing people would come to an end. Freedom of speech and assembly would disappear along with the free flow of information. And while our leaders dither, this self-appointed oligarchy is running full speed ahead. The monopolies that have been allowed to form are also accelerating the process, and yet we have some on the Right mumbling about “muh free market” and how that will solve the problem.

Some of those spouting these ideas are hardcore libertarians like the Koch brothers and their allied groups, who should be ostracized and ignored. I have some rules in life, which include little kids should not play with matches and libertarians should not play with real politics. Both end badly. 

There are others who are also spouting such idiocy, including David French and his colleagues at National Review, which has received, multiple times, direct funding from Google. Some of us think that perhaps French and his type are deeply ignorant (certainly plausible) or they’re just paid collaborators of the tech companies. Neither of those two scenarios is good. Any organization on the Right, whether a publication or think tank, that has accepted Big Tech money should be viewed with great suspicion on these questions. 

It is incumbent upon the American people to come fully awake on these issues and demand our elected officials, in the immediate, protect our rights. To delay is to ensure the demise of our freedoms and to submit to the coming singularity and tech oligarchy.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Jens Büttner/DPA via Getty Images

Cultural Marxism • Democrats • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post • The Left • The Media

Who’s the Radical? On Confidence and Common Sense

I just heard a fellow on CNN say that Donald Trump has radicalized the Republicans. Let’s be clear on what is and isn’t radical.

A well-patrolled border is not a radical policy. An open border is a radical policy.

To believe in two genders is not radical. To insert gender identity into Title IX is.

To praise Western Civilization as a legacy of political freedom and artistic genius is not a radical opinion.To regard it as promotion of white supremacy is a radical opinion.

To love America as an exceptional creation is not radical. To see America as founded on slavery and imperialism is radical.

For a president to express support for the outcome of a vote in a foreign country is not radical. For a president to threaten a unique ally with economic hardship if a popular vote goes in a certain way, as Barack Obama did before Brexit—that’s radical.

To cancel student debt is radical.

To make college free is radical.

To demand reparations 150 years after the end of slavery and 60 years after the end of Jim Crow is radical.

To demand more public attention to the tiny population that fits the label “transgender” is radical.

To introduce 5-year-olds to drag queens is radical.

To award a Pulitzer Prize to a rapper whose award-winning record includes the lyrics

I got so many theories and suspicions

I’m diagnosed with real n—- conditions

Today is the day I follow my intuition

Keep the family close, get money, f— b—-es . . .

is radical.

To mount campaigns to get people fired from their jobs because they donated money to a political campaign that ended up winning—that’s radical.

To deny a popular food franchise a license to operate because its owner upholds a biblical conception of marriage is radical.

It may appear ironic or hypocritical for liberals to charge the president with radicalism, but it quite predictably follows the Alinsky-like rule that says: “Always accuse your opponents of the foul play that you commit.”

The wilder the Democrat candidates get in their championship of pet projects of the hard Left, the more they and their mouthpieces in the media have to tar the other side with a worse extremism. That’s one way to legitimate a far-left proposal: concoct a far-right that blocks it, a far-right that is patently stupid and vicious. The way is then paved for more “justice” or, at any rate, more change.

Yes, keep pushing, get louder, never stop centralizing what is radical, normalizing the abnormal, defining deviancy downward. Eventually, the return of common sense does indeed look radical. Seize the institutions—schools, the press, the Boy Scouts, the Olympics—and punish participants who won’t go with the flow. Take a few scalps, publicize them well, and most everyone conforms.

It doesn’t matter if now and then it all looks nutty and barbaric. The maestros out to “transform” America expect it. They know that the occasional Jussie Smollett and Nathan Phillips embarrassment is bound to happen. When you are as venturesome as the Left is today, some rockets will fizzle. But so what? The fact that the entire establishment, both Right and Left, jumped on the Covington Boys straight away, and that so many public voices credited so outlandish a tale as Smollett’s, proves that the tactic is working.

This is what “tolerance” is for. It softens up the people, conservatives included, for another overturning of common sense.

It’s all so exciting, too, so edgy. Common sense is just that—common, ordinary, routine, unimaginative. Only two genders? Let’s try three, or four . . . oohh, interesting. Who’s more fun, the young gals in the House or the old white guys in the Senate? AOC isn’t an irresponsible Millennial who mutters “like” too much. No, she thinks outside the box, which makes what she has to say so much more camera-friendly than the laconic replies of Mitch McConnell.

The culture sphere sets it up that way. Many years ago, gender theorist Judith Butler explained in the New York Times:

. . . scholars are obliged to question common sense, interrogate its tacit presumptions and provoke new ways of looking at a familiar world.Many quite nefarious ideologies pass for common sense.  For decades of American history, it was ”common sense” in some quarters for white people to own slaves and for women not to vote.

Got that? Common sense, you see, isn’t based in nature or human nature or time-tested traditions. It is a form of repression, and once it is lifted, to reinstate common sense is to restore that repression. Common sense is disguised ideology. It must be fought tirelessly, not least because human beings are ever disposed to slip back into bias and scapegoating (so the progressive thinks). We need to find, therefore, new occasions by which to take down commonsensical notions, the “trans community” being the current favorite.

The culture sphere gives progressive politicians and commentators the vocabulary for doing so. Go into a modern art exhibition and check the wall text. “Subvert,” “transgress,” “challenge,” and “question” are everywhere, and common sense is the target. The schools constantly talk about instilling “critical thinking,” critical thinking usually meaning “interrogating” ordinary notions of life, history, nation, God, and humanity held by the man on the street. The 1960s gave us one “experiment in living” after another, and all the cool people went along with it even if they forged bourgeois lives in the ’80s and ’90s. The 2010s are at it again, this time with the powers of America behind them, from Yale to corporations to the Democratic Party leadership.

Of course, then, Donald Trump sounds radical to them. They see him as an anomaly, as atavistic. The current of History flows toward a sea of total openness—open borders, open sexualities, open access to all resources and pleasures—and they swim happily within it. Throwbacks such as Donald Trump are just boulders in river; we will pass them soon.

That profound confidence has been given to them by a thousand Hollywood films, Antifa, required courses and orientations in gender and diversity, women’s marches, blabbering musicians and celebrities, Pride Month, advertisers who pulled out of Tucker Carlson’s show, corporations and the NCAA that threatened Indiana if it held to its religious freedom restoration law, and, not least of all, the weak-kneed posture of peacetime conservatives.

Liberals accuse Donald Trump of radicalism, or of just plain off-the-chart outrageousness, not because of the substance of what he says. They do it because he stands up for common sense without apology or conciliation.

Progressives have managed to persuade a good portion of the citizenry that certain off-the-wall ideas are salient and practicable. They know it is a fragile consensus among every group except the social justice brigades. Trump’s common sense, launched with an equal and opposite confidence, raises a sharp needle to the identity politics/gender theory/socialism balloon. By now, we should have dozens of Republican politicians doing the same thing.

Photo Credit: iStock/Getty Images

Big Media • Democrats • Elections • Post • Progressivism • The Media

Beto Has Flash, Lots of Trust Fund Cash, and Little Else

Why was Robert O’Rourke—”The Beto,” as I like to call him—even on Wednesday night’s “debate” stage in Miami? How was it a debate when everyone there—including the moderators!—peddles almost identical anti-American and anti-nationalist policies? 

Answer: because The Beto is a creation of the Democrat Media Industrial Complex (DMIC). He is a kind of political Chia Pet: water him, nurture, cultivate, and voila, you have a liberal “icon.” Watch the vintage Chia Pet commercial, and insert The Beto’s name in the narration. Cha-cha-cha-chia! The-the-the-Beto!

The last person to make so much something out of so much nothing was God. 

Let’s review the events that got The Beto to the “debate” stage this week, in no particular order.  

The day after he announced his candidacy for 2020, The Beto appeared on “CBS This Morning.” Host Gayle King asked predictable peanut butter and fluff questions about Russian collusion—President Trump “tried” to collude with Russia, The Beto insisted—and whether he’s at a diversity disadvantage due to his Caucasian-colored XY chromosomes at birth. He doesn’t think he is, thank God!

Now, imagine if King had asked something like the following: 

  • “Beto, you’ve never won a competitive race; why do you believe the majority of people in the majority of states will want your political and policy proposals?” 
  • “Why do you believe a corn farmer in Nebraska, or a coal miner in Ohio, or Texans, who rejected your policies in November, would vote for you?” (In fairness to King, she touched upon the Lone Star State question, but a follow-up was warranted.) 
  • “You said El Paso, where you served as city councilman and congressman, represents the best of America. Would you consider a Congressional district whose voters have elected only Democrats for the last 19,000 consecutive days to be diverse?”
  • “How did you make your money? How about we investigate all your finances, just to ensure that you’re not a puppet of Vladimir Putin?”

Media Collusion
We’ll never get those questions, apparently. After Joe Hagan, in his Vanity Fair profile of The Beto in March, got done praising Beto for turning his bitter-tasting tap water into a syrah—fruity, with a slight hint of dryness—he penned the following: “Whether onstage or on Facebook Live or in person, O’Rourke has a preternatural ease.”

Preternatural ease? Barf meets LOL. Whiskey tango foxtrot does that even mean? He also touted his bipartisanship to Hagan, which is what all Democrat politicians do when campaigning, but I know that bipartisanship is the gateway drug to tyranny. 

I wonder if Hagan still believes his balderdash after The Beto’s bilingual fail in his first presidential “debate.” 

The organic, free-trade cherry on top, however, was the revelation that Reuters reporter Joseph Menn made a deal with The Beto during his campaign to unseat Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to withhold his involvement in a hacking group called the Cult of the Dead Cow. Reuters has since revealed the cover-up. 

As a former journalist, I had to make decisions all the time about whether a particular fact was pertinent to the story. Was The Beto’s hacktivism a “newsworthy” fact? That is, perhaps, a subjective question; what’s not subjective, however, is that a subject’s background is never off the record—only statements are. Had Menn omitted that fact due to a belief that it was irrelevant, he could have been at least forgiven somewhat. What should alarm everyone, though, is that Menn colluded with the candidate to protect his wannabe RFK image—as any good publicist would. 

The Making of a Democrat “Icon”
If there had been a DMIC 2018 midterms also-ran MVP trophy, The Beto undoubtedly would have been the recipient; the DMIC keeps telling us how impressive his loss was. 

But who is this guy, really? 

Here’s the skinny on Robert Francis O’Rourke: he’s an affluent, privileged white Democrat male with a $9 million net worth, who sells the usual Marxist gobbledygook about “income inequality,” “inequity” and “walls don’t save lives,” even though he had a tall, thick fence protecting him a few months ago during his Beto-palooza rally, where he spoke Spanish—foreshadowing the “highlight” of his debate performance this week. 

O’Rourke married into a family with an estimated net worth of $500 million. In short, his political career was made possible through the riches of his wife, much like John Kerry, John McCain, and so many others before him. (Yet the Trump kids are maligned as benefitting from nepotism.)

The “White Obama”
Where have we seen this before? A young, “charismatic” peddler of fundamental transformation who comes out of nowhere, to be the hero Gotham needs, but doesn’t deserve—especially among the youth? The Beto has been heralded as the “white Obama,” an assessment with which the half-white President Obama concurred.

The Beto inserted himself into the mix because he believes his candidacy is sexy to America’s young voters. Remember: those most susceptible to the Marxism of class warfare, led by billionaires, are other affluent whites who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, as well as young people. His agitprop sells, and should not be underestimated even if his candidacy is foundering at the moment. 

Millennials are the largest generation in America’s electorate, and, any day now, will surpass the Baby Boomer generation as the largest potential voting bloc; at this time, they must be categorized as “potential” because Millennial turnout has historically been low, although it’s trending upward. 

Add Generation Z (or whatever they end up being called) into the Millennial mix, and the soon-to-be largest voting bloc in U.S. history will be young adults and 30-somethings who have been socially engineered into loving Communism, “free stuff,” hugging terrorists, “no human is illegal,” judicial activism, open borders, erosion of guaranteed constitutional rights and aborting babies on the day of delivery—only the finer things in life. 

The chickens of decades of leftist social engineering of our youth, in public education, colleges and universities, and mass media, are now coming home to roost.

The Beto, like most of the Democrat species, has nothing of substance to say. I wonder if the rest of the declared 2020 Leninist Democrats have been green with envy over the fawning media coverage he’s thus far received. Baby, The Beto was born to run! Here’s hoping his destiny is another loss. 

Photo credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Big Media • Democrats • Elections • Post • The Media

Where Were the Fact Checkers?

The first two Democratic “debates” were both flawed and MSNBC and NBC did a poor job managing them. But the amazing thing about the two-night show was the complete lack of fact checking by the “moderators.” 

It went without challenge that the economy is worse today than under Obama, for example. That’s a bald-faced lie. In fact if every lie spouted by the candidates had been challenged the debates would still be going on. 

Healthcare, the economy, and civil rights were portrayed by the candidates in ways that evoked only a fictional version of reality. Democrats alleged President Trump passed a tax cut only for the hated 1 percent, when in fact it benefited the vast majority of Americans. Following the law and denying entry to illegal aliens was accepted as an evil to be eradicated. Heck, we’re are all just citizens of the world, right?  

It shouldn’t be a surprise when major networks follow the Left’s narrative of the day with a religious zeal. After all, when reporting “news” we know that they are careful to omit actual facts when they conflict with the version of reality they would prefer to see. The lowest levels of Hispanic and black unemployment in decades?  Well that doesn’t square with their idea that President Trump is a racist, does it?

The real problem isn’t just that Democrats are out of touch with reality and with the majority of Americans; it is, rather, that the media is so political that they genuinely seem unaware of reality. 

No wonder polls are so skewed. President Trump stopped a reprisal attack on Iran because of his concern about civilian casualties. Very few credited him with restraint while the rest challenged his mental fitness to be president.

How can we engage in political discourse with people so out of touch with reality? When supposedly serious people are tossing around comparisons of border security measures to concentration camps? 

The lies go on and on and the “free” press needs to be held accountable. It’s true we need a media to keep our nation free, but when the media only serves one side as it has been doing for decades, it becomes detached and almost deranged. The good a free and independent media does for a nation is being denied to the American people because our corporate leftist media is now populated by people who see opposition political discourse as “hate speech.”  

Tech Giants, moreover, seem united to suppress conservative content and promote socialist thought. Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst president ever, now claims Donald Trump wasn’t actually elected. It all goes back to 2016, when Hillary lost and Democrats had to invent the Russian collusion narrative to explain what happened. Reality depends on what “is” is, I suppose. 

One would hope that low ratings might bring network news back to actual reality, but so far they only seem to be digging in. I would hope that there might be a few sane and honest voices in media, even if they are left of center, willing to speak up and insist upon factual and fair reporting. But I will not be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. 

In the meantime, Republicans would do well to consider: Do they really want to subject themselves to the insult of being fact-checked by people such as these?

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • Foreign Policy • Free Speech • Post • The Left • The Media

Nasty Media Lies About Trump Continue

In this era of Brexit, the European parliamentary elections, and a host of other matters of great geopolitical urgency and mutual interest, President Trump has embarked upon a state visit to America’s closest ally, Great Britain.

The focus of America’s press corps? Trump called the Duchess of Sussex “nasty.”

Except he didn’t. Let’s ignore issues that matter, and recap what actually happened.

On May 31, The Sun, a British tabloid, published an interview with President Trump, in which the reporter asked him what he thought about comments Meghan Markle made about him when he was running for president in 2016. Here is the complete segment from that interview:

Sun: Meghan who is now Duchess of Sussex, we have given her a different name, she can’t make it because she has got maternity leave. Are you sorry not to see her because she wasn’t so nice about you during the campaign? I don’t know if you saw that.

Trump: I didn’t know that. No. I didn’t know that. No, I hope she is OK. I did not know that, no.

Sun: She said she would move to Canada if you got elected. It turned out she moved to Britain.

Trump: A lot of people are moving here. So what can I say? No, I didn’t know that she was nasty. I’m sure she’ll do excellently. She’ll be very good. I hope she does well.

This innocuous bit of dialog has been used by nearly every major media outlet to smear Trump yet again. His crime? He called her “nasty.” And apparently, according to the anti-Trump media, by “nasty,” Trump was saying Meghan Markle was herself “nasty,” in the most obscene, sexually degrading, offensive meaning of that word.

Except he did not. Trump wasn’t using the word “nasty” to describe Meghan Markle as a person. He was describing the tone of her remarks about him. Clearly, the intent of Trump’s remark was that he didn’t know she had said nasty things about him. The definition of “nasty” that would apply to Trump’s comment, according to Merriam-Webster is “lacking in courtesy.”

But don’t try telling that to the mainstream anti-Trump media. As CNN has helpfully reported, “Meghan Markle is the new ‘nasty’ woman on President Trump’s list.” And the story gets juicier.

In response to Trump saying he did not call Meghan Markle nasty, because he was referring to comments she made, not her, the media offered proof. As ABC News anchor Tom Llamas breathlessly reported on June 2, “we have the president’s remarks on tape.” Or, as Time puts it “President Trump Denies Meghan Markle ‘Nasty’ Comment Despite Recording.”

Now there’s not only a crime but a cover-up. But not to worry, because it’s all on tape. And, of course, Americans never heard the whole transcript, because the media reports typically only played it up until the word “nasty” is uttered. The rest of Trump’s comment is not heard, where he says “I’m sure she’ll do excellently. She’ll be very good. I hope she does well.”

What we have here is a tawdry parody of the entire collusion-obstruction storyline. The crime that didn’t happen followed by the cover-up that wasn’t.

And this nonstory continues to generate “breaking news.” Prince Harry, a man who once titillated his aristocratic colleagues by wearing Nazi regalia to one of their swanky soirees, has “snubbed” Trump after he “branded” Meghan Markle “nasty.”

This would all be hilarious except for the fact that it works. For a while, painstaking clarifications of what really happened will bubble up here and there through the swamp of lies. But come 2020, this latest Trump transgression, along with countless other media concocted lies and distortions of Trump’s words and deeds, will stand as truth.

So it is in 2020 the establishment media aims to have successfully swayed the minds of just enough soccer moms and other undecided voters, driving them into the pastures of the partisan progressive herd.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire via Getty Images

Democrats • Elections • Post • The Media • the Presidency

Biden’s Problem Is Not That He’s Old and White

Joe Biden is the Democratic frontrunner for president. The big money donors say so. The pollsters all say so. The 95 percent of the media outlets that are little more than a public relations arm of the Democratic Party say so, too.

So where is he?

It is a mystery. The former vice president has no other job. Nothing distracts him from getting out there and maintaining a full campaign schedule. He has no Senate votes to attend, no committee hearings to yawn through, no international trips to make, no drone strikes to authorize, no congressional investigations to battle, no foreign dignitaries to host.

According to Biden, the 2020 election is a battle for the soul of the nation. One would expect him to focus all his time and energy on the campaign. And yet . . . Biden is virtually invisible.

Biden’s campaign website prominently displays a link to upcoming events. As of Monday, the page lists exactly four events through June 15. Two of them are in New Hampshire on Tuesday, one is in Pennsylvania (not far from Wilmington, Delaware, where Biden lives) on June 14, and the last one is in Nevada on June 15.

One of the New Hampshire events is at the Berlin City Hall Auditorium. Berlin is a fabulous town, I am sure, but it is a town of 10,000 residents. Judging from images in Google StreetView, the Berlin City Hall is about what you’d expect:

According to the Berlin municipal website, the city government has a number of departments—many of which are presumably housed in the same building, including: assessing, water works, the city clerk, city manager, code enforcement, emergency management services, the finance department, health department, housing, the inescapable human resources department, planning, and public works. And that’s only a partial list. How big could the city hall auditorium be? 150 seats? 200?

Now, pressing flesh and meeting New Hampshire voters in small venues is, no doubt, important (even if you can’t sniff their hair or massage their daughters), and New Hampshire is a small state with no expectations of 100,000 people showing up to a rally. But this is the best that Biden can do? Hoping to fill a tiny auditorium? Even the local elementary school’s gym is probably bigger.

Then, the same day, Biden moves on to Concord. Big campaign rally planned? No, not quite—it’s a small event at a union hall. Here is the venue:

How many people could fit into an event at that place? 75? 100? 150? The Democratic frontrunner can’t do better than a small union hall?

There is nothing wrong with trying to shore up your union support—but, in a city of 43,000 people, wouldn’t there be more people who want to see Biden? Sure, as the fake descendant of Welsh coal miners, Biden wants to emphasize his union “roots,” and Biden is (according to Biden) a “beloved figure” within the Democratic Party—but a tiny union hall is enough to fit all the Concordians who want to hear Biden speak?

Then Biden disappears from view for 10 days, until the next campaign event in Media, Pennsylvania (a 30-minute drive from his house in Delaware), on June 14. It’s not clear what exactly he plans to be doing those 10 days. Fundraising out of sight of the voters? Thinking big thoughts? Hasn’t he had two-and-a-half years since the 2016 election to think those big thoughts? This looks like a Rose Garden campaign strategy—without the Rose Garden.

Biden is certainly not burdening himself with the rigors of a national campaign, because the June 14 event in Media is a volunteer-organized “house party” at Sligo Irish Pub. Here is the pub—the tiny red and yellow one in the center:

According to the Sligo website, an upstairs room can accommodate up to 100 guests. There is nothing wrong with meeting your campaign volunteers, giving them a pep talk, shaking a few hands, and having a beer or two to pretend that you are just a regular guy (unless, of course, you’re Senator Elizabeth Warren trying to drink a beer to show that you’re just a regular gal—then you look manifestly ridiculous). But Media is a suburb of Philadelphia. Surely Biden could better spend his time addressing the tens of thousands of Philadelphians who desperately want to see him?

Pennsylvania is a swing state. What better time to try to make it swing your way (unlike 2016)?

Then Biden heads to Henderson, Nevada, a suburb of Las Vegas, for a “community event” on June 15. No venue information is listed on Biden’s website, but if it’s anything bigger than a local Barnes and Noble, presumably it would have to be reserved in advance. So let’s figure on another small venue for maybe 100 people.

No other campaign events are listed on Biden’s website. Nothing. Nada.

What the hell, man?

After doing his Hamlet routine for almost a year, Biden announced his run on April 25 in Philadelphia. His campaign claims 6,000 people showed up to his announcement. People who were actually there are deeply skeptical of that number. But this is Biden country! The bluest of the blue cities in the state where Biden was born! And Biden is making the Big Announcement! In a city not far from Scranton, where he came from!

And yet . . . maybe 4,000-5000 people showed up. In Philadelphia.

Where are the worshipful throngs, waiting in long lines to see their man? Where are the adoring crowds, eager to see their hero? Where are the mobs of supporters, desperate for a glimpse of their savior?

This doesn’t make any sense.

The Washington Post on May 26 claimed Biden has held 11 events since he announced. That’s one every three days—and from what I can tell, that number includes fundraisers. This is not just taking things slow and steady; it’s downright soporific.

The number through June 15 would be about 15 campaign events for about 50 days of campaigning. That’s less than one event every three days—surgery patients under anesthesia are more active than Joe Biden. But those patients aren’t running for president.

As an almost-octogenarian, doesn’t Biden think it’s important to show voters that he has what it takes, for a long, tough, brutal campaign? You can bet Trump won’t be doing one house party every three days for the next 18 months. With his schedule, it seems that getting out of bed in the morning is already a big achievement for Biden.

Biden’s PR flacks say he doesn’t need to campaign hard. Everyone knows who Uncle Joe is, they claim. He doesn’t need to introduce himself to voters—they already love him. His voters don’t come to rallies, they just come to vote for him. And he is, after all, the frontrunner in the polls (somewhere in the mid-30s now that his post-announcement bounce is fading—but that’s still well ahead of everyone else), so he must doing something right.

Perhaps.

Much has been said about Biden’s lack of intersectional bona fides. It is true that he is not a woman, he is not black, nor is he gay. He is not even Hispanic. But Biden’s problem is not that he is white—Biden’s problem is that he is dead.

Photo credit: Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

America • First Amendment • Free Speech • Infrastructure • Post • Silicon Valley • Technology • The Left • The Media

Political Bias in Big Tech Is a Major Problem

Suspicions of political bias in big tech companies are nothing new. Many people have suspected tech companies of being more left-leaning. Recent events and studies, however, are slowly turning these suspicions into facts. This political bias is detrimental not only to the companies and their users but also to the country.

A recent study by Northwestern University showed Google’s search engine ranked left-leaning political sites higher on its news feed. According to the survey, 86 percent of Google’s top stories over the course of a month came from 20 left-wing news sites. Out of these 20 sources, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post were leading the pack.

Google is not the only tech company credibly accused of bias. Facebook and Twitter have also been denounced for censoring right-leaning accounts and groups in their respective platforms. The three tech companies were summoned to a congressional hearing last year to explain themselves.

One might think that these cases of political bias are isolated to the big tech companies but nothing could be further from the truth. Silicon Valley, a region known to be at the vanguard of technological development in the United States, is a very left-leaning place located in a deep blue state.

The services these companies offer have become deeply rooted in our daily lives. This can give them the power to influence politics on a scale greater than any lobbying group could imagine. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 38 percent of Americans get their news from the internet. Among that group, roughly 50 percent of younger adults (ages 18-49) get their news online. Google’s preference for left-wing corporate media strongly shapes public opinion in ways not even television could.

A Nation at Risk?
Many tech companies face a backlash from their own employees when it comes to Pentagon contracts. Google employees rebelled, for example, when the company began work on an artificial intelligence system for drones called Project Maven. Microsoft workers resisted the company’s work on an augmented reality system for the Defense Department using their HoloLens technology for combat and training.

The dangers should be apparent. China is investing billions in A.I. projects with military applications while U.S. tech firms wring their hands. We know, too, that China is working hard on its cyber warfare capabilities while the U.S. military struggles to keep up its defenses. Recall how last year a U.S. Navy contractor working on undersea warfare projects lost 614 gigabytes of highly classified data as the result of a Chinese hack. More recently, worries over LockerGoga ransomware are growing in light of a March attack against raw materials producer Norsk Hydro as Congress debates a $2 billion infrastructure bill, which includes money for defenses against cyber attacks on vital civilian infrastructure.

Silicon Valley’s bias also affects right-leaning professionals trying to get into the tech industry. Prospective employees might feel discouraged from applying to a company with a strong political bias against their own beliefs while current workers have every reason to hide their political views for fear of backlash. Recall the case of James Damore, the Google engineer who lost his job after sharing a controversial memorandum questioning the company’s diversity hiring policies. (The company currently is facing a massive class-action lawsuit from 8,000 current and former female employees, who allege widespread sex discrimination.)

We could say that political bias has no place in giant tech companies, which ostensibly serve the general public regardless of political belief. We could say that, but it would be folly—putting hope over experience. Google, Facebook, and Twitter exercise an outsized influence on public discourse. With the 2020 presidential elections looming, these powerful corporations will shape voters’ perceptions of the race, just as they already influence our nation’s defense. How can a free, self-governing republic allow that to continue?

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • Mueller-Russia Witch Hunt • Post • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Media Distorts Trump’s Actions Yet Again

Competing investigations and alternative analyses offer partisans on both sides ample fodder to feed their biases, but a presumption that guilt can be manufactured if it doesn’t exist is the common thread pushing them. Just as the Soviets knew in Stalinist Russia, if you look at anyone long enough, you’re going to find something to use against them.

Instead of dispatching political opponents with bullets to the back of the head, however, we Americans fight with politicized investigations, attorneys, and political grandstanding. And on the side of America’s anti-Trump shadow government, deep state, establishment bureaucracy, the media closes ranks and takes every opportunity to distort the truth in favor of an agenda.

Recent reporting provides yet another example of the establishment media’s Stalinesque anti-Trump bias. President Trump on Wednesday canceled a meeting to discuss infrastructure legislation with House leadership, because immediately prior to the meeting, he was blindsided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) holding a meeting with pro-impeachment lawmakers, where she “emphasized that the White House is engaging in a ‘cover-up’.”

Some news accounts suggest that Trump planned to cancel the meeting and hold a press conference instead, based on the fact that a “no collusion, no obstruction” sign had been hung on the podium for when he spoke. Right. So what? Considering how many thousands of hours the ongoing investigations have consumed of Trump’s staff time, why not make Pelosi and Schumer waste a few hours? But the news accounts are what’s most interesting: Once again, the story is distorted, with help, predictably enough, from Google.

Here are the top three search results from the term, “Trump in Rose Garden May 22 Press Conference.”

First, from the Washington Post, a story headlined “A Trump Twitter-style diatribe,” written by anti-Trump hack Anne Gearan, which features this lead paragraph:

Usually, when President Trump is really steamed, he vents his spleen over a morning of disjointed tweets—a slow-mo meltdown. On Wednesday, it was the live-action movie version—on fast forward. Trump, ever the director and star of his own White House movie, staged his outburst in two acts. Act 1: Blow up a White House meeting with Democratic lawmakers that was over before the first handshake. Bye-bye, Infrastructure Day. Act 2: Stride to a podium at a hastily arranged Rose Garden news conference to say he won’t work with Democrats on infrastructure or anything else while they pursue the “investigation track.” (Emphasis added.) 

This is “news,” coming from a supposed journalist working for one of the biggest newspapers in the world.

The second Google result linked to an article in USA Today.

‘Achomlishments’: Photographer snaps look at Trump’s notes in Rose Garden news conference.” This bit of “news,” written by anti-Trump hack William Cummings, featured a photo that offered a telephoto look at Trump’s handwritten notes, including a misspelling of the word “accomplishments.”

It would be fair to ask Cummings if he has bothered to spell every word right when quickly preparing notes that only he will ever read. Moreover, often it isn’t bad spelling, but other words coming into focus faster than your penmanship can keep up, that causes typos. But that wouldn’t be “news” that’s fit for Cummings to publish.

The rest of Cumming’s article focused on tweets making fun of Trump’s spelling.

This is what passes as “news” in what ought to be a daily national newspaper of record, but instead is just another gossipy corporate left-wing propaganda rag.

Google’s third result is a video-only link from CNBC, with the title (emphasis added) “President Trump delivers surprise press conference as impeachment calls grow.”

According to a May 23 report in the New York Times, there are now 29 “federal, state and congressional investigations relating to Trump’s businesses, inauguration and presidency.”

Imagine if this degree of investigative scrutiny were applied to the Democratic Party or the Clinton organization? How can anyone see this level of harassment and not perceive the double standard; the dangerous institutionalized antipathy towards the Trump presidency?

Let’s be clear: The Democratic Party is controlled by public-employee unions, the plaintiff’s bar, the intersectional Left and the “diversity” industry, Wall Street, the leftist globalist high-tech oligarchy, multinational corporations, and environmentalist extremists including the “climate change” profiteers. These are crooks, thugs, kleptocrats, ambulance-chasers, liars, cheaters, and borderline traitors. They’ve targeted President Trump because people are making trillions of dollars keeping things just the way they are, and Donald Trump is a threat to their pocketbooks.

That’s the reason we’re seeing all these investigations.

Clearly, this characterization of the Democrat party is a biased opinion. But the USA Today’sGearan and the Washington Post’sCummings are invited to ask how their opinions, masquerading as reporting for some of the biggest news organizations on earth, are not equally biased.

And of course, if you watch the entire video of Trump’s news conference on Wednesday, you will not see any evidence of a “diatribe” (Washington Post), a “tantrum” (New York Times), a “tirade” (CNN), or a “stunt” (CBS). You will not perceive Trump to be “transparently mad,” or “lashing out” (CNBC); his behavior will not appear as “bizarre” (Vox); nor did he “spread false claims” as “reported” by CNN’s anti-Trump hack Marshall Cohen in his perversely named “Facts First” column on Thursday.

All of this reporting is completely unbalanced. It is not journalism, much less investigative journalism. It is blatant propaganda. And it typifies what we’ve seen throughout Trump’s candidacy and presidency. It is disgraceful and dangerous.

America’s preeminent news organizations are the gaslighters they claim to decry. They are the demonizers and propagandists they claim they oppose. If they were dropped into Soviet Russia eight decades ago, they would no doubt do their dirty jobs quite well.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Big Media • Identity Politics • Post • The Left • The Media

The Great Green Media Machine

Remember Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony? By now, it feels like ages ago. At the time, the media hyped what the president’s former attorney had to say into a really big deal.

In just a short time, Cohen’s highly dramatized hearing proved to be entirely inconsequential. Everyone forgot about Michael Cohen and his “bombshells.

Congress recently heard from William Barr, the attorney general who has had the role of Trump’s henchman kindly foisted upon him by malicious scriptwriters at MSNBC and the Democratic National Committee (is there a difference, really?). If that isn’t enough political theater to satiate the gossips at the big networks and their delusional followers, they might hear soon from former special counsel Robert Mueller, too.

It’s an odd paradox that the media, while so widely distrusted, somehow manages to wield the power to signify what is actually happening. This power to invent and erase events is also a power of legitimation, to determine what is politically and morally acceptable.

This really is the media’s first role—not to report facts, but to narrate—to present moral tales, to make up villains, whether the enemy is “whiteness,” Christendom, a bunch of Catholic high school boys, or the attorney general of the United States.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the media shapes not only public opinion, but public consciousness and even moral sensibility. After all, they’re the ones with the cameras and the fancy equipment.

Everything that’s “happening,” everything that is allowed to be acknowledged to have happened, is presented by them with scripts that they have written. If the media isn’t talking about it, it’s not happening. If it is and people are talking about it, but they’re not supposed to be, then they’re conspiracy theorists.

The Mueller report was supposed to be a turning point. The media had been discredited at last! They had been proven to be the conspiracy theorists. Two years of patent nonsense, exposed for what it truly was all along: political, baseless, hot garbage.

But what has happened in reality? The Great Green Media Machine’s appetite for nonsense has not been diminished a jot, and neither has its power to churn it out without accountability.

The media’s disappearing act has been on lurid display these past several weeks, as they have fabricated one national crisis after another, quickly forgotten or shoehorned into the next, to wring whatever scandal possible out of a report that has been public for a month now.

It seems scarcely possible that the media ever talked so much about collusion. For weeks, they have been consumed instead with obstruction of justice, and the villainous attorney general who covered it up. Barr’s a toady who just does Trump’s bidding, see—he decided to throw away an illustrious reputation to play second-fiddle to the most hated president in American history!

And just like that—poof! The collusion story is now unresolved, indefinitely. With Barr in charge, can we ever really know what happened between Trump and Russia?

For weeks, countless media outlets have followed the same smear-William Barr-style guide, questioning his use of the term “spying” and slandering him as Trump’s “personal lawyer” and a traitor to his country.

The Barr “cover up” story has only grown more elaborate since his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1. One has to wonder if a fired “Game of Thrones” writer is coming up with all these talking points.

It has now been established that Barr is some kind of corrupt henchman to the mad king Trump, who, in his refusal to comply with the Democrats’ “oversight,” has brought America to the brink of autocracy.

The latest narrative is that President Trump and the villainous Barr have precipitated a “constitutional crisis.” How? By refusing to release the unredacted version of a report that anyone with an Internet connection can access.

Of course, none of this hysteria about the imminent “Drumpf dictatorship” is new, nor does it matter, but that’s not the point. Fabricated outrage is the media’s lifeblood.

As the lie has grown more involved, the media has gone from mere slander to coercive threats. Barr must now be held in contempt of Congress and possibly arrested, and every one of Trump’s officials who refuses to comply with even one subpoena, however bad the intent, must be arrested, too. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

From where does all this hysteria originate? Might it have something to do with Barr’s statement that “spying did occur?” Or that he appointed a U.S. attorney to look into said spying?

Might it actually be possible that the fraudsters in the media will be forced to account for the lie they told yesterday, before they tell a new one today? They’re determined to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Like always, the media is bringing on their all-star cast of disgraced deep state “experts” to pontificate about values and integrity and whatnot. CNN gave former FBI Director James Comey a forum last week to assure the public that spying and investigating are two different things, which makes the FBI’s “investigation” of the Trump campaign perfectly normal.

The media is again playing their vanishing act on spying that actually occurred—you know, something that might constitute a bona fide constitutional and political crisis—while fabricating a complicated morality tale about the president and his attorney general to keep the biggest lie in the history of yellow journalism alive more than a month past its expiration date.

A recent survey of media duplicity shows the same double standard of suppression and amplification being applied on a wider cultural scale. The media didn’t let anyone forget who was really responsible for the mosque shooting in Christchurch: President Trump, Islamophobes, gun nuts—some even suggested all white Australians were to blame.

But when hundreds of Sri Lankan Christians were murdered on Easter Sunday by Islamists, we heard no similar calls for soul-searching in the Muslim community. It was instead decided by decree from the woke demiurge in a midnight email chain at the DNC that the victims were not, in fact, Christians at all, but “Easter worshippers.”

The media snapped to attention. “Christianity under attack? Sri Lanka church bombings stoke far-right anger in the West,” read a Washington Post headline.

The message here is insidious: not only are Christians not under attack but anyone who thinks so, or cares, is a conspiracy theorist—and probably racist, too.

To even acknowledge that Christians can be victims is to mark oneself as a political untouchable. Likewise, anyone who dabbles in that stuff about the border crisis or Trump being spied on is not only insane, but immoral.

In the media’s narrative, certain people, the erstwhile “oppressors,” are pre-determined as having lesser moral worth. Enforcing that narrative involves not only shaping perceptions of fact, but casting moral judgment.

The media is now carrying out the same moral role with the Barr-Trump “scandal” that they played during Russiagate, and Covington Catholic, and so many before.

The slander can be read in chyrons and headlines at elite news organizations all across America: Barr is a liar. He can’t be trusted. He’s a disgrace. He threw his reputation away to become Trump’s “personal lawyer.”

This is such obvious nonsense! But it’s all the media is talking about, and they’ve taken the rest of the country hostage in their fever dream.

The Barr cover up and “constitutional crisis” narrative is just their latest delusional fabrication, but it isn’t going to stop. For as long as there are villains for them to destroy, the media will be there to slander them. The Great Green Media Machine has many, many more lies to tell.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

America • Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Post • The Left • The Media

Journalism is Dead—Long Live the Media!

There still exists a physical media in the sense of airing current events. But it is not journalism as we once understood the disinterested reporting of the news. Journalism is now dead. The media lives on.

Reporters today believe that their coverage serves higher agendas of social justice, identity politics, “equality,” and diversity. To the degree a news account is expanded or ignored, praised or blasted, depends on its supposed utility to the effort to fundamentally transform the country into something unlike its founding.

At the recent third president-less White House Correspondents’ Dinner, passive-aggressive journalists whined that they were victims, standing on the barricades against the all-powerful, all-evil—and all absent—Donald Trump. If the attempt was to return professionalism to the evening and eschew the pathological celebrity obsessions of the past, the result was only more confirmation of the self-referential and narcissistic culture of the Washington press corps.

Why should we believe reporters suddenly worried about ethics, free inquiry, and speech?

No journalist who pontificates now about the supposedly First Amendment-violating Trump ever mentions that Barack Obama had Fox News’s James Rosen (and his relatives) monitored, that he surveilled the communications records of Associated Press reporters, or that he spoke with the press far less often than did Trump, and often fixated on Fox News.

Journalists themselves had no problem with colleagues colluding with the Clinton campaign as evidenced in the Wikileaks Podesta trove. There was never much introspection about why the elite press and media corps—loudly progressive and feminist—was decimated by #MeToo Movement allegations of long-standing sexual harassment and assault.

Were there serious worries voiced over journalistic ethics when CNN’s Donna Brazile leaked primary debate questions to the 2016 Clinton campaign? Did journalists speak out when journalist Candy Crowley abandoned her moderator role and turned into an Obama partisan in the 2012 second presidential debate? Were reporters at all worried when the Shorenstein Center cited 90 percent negative media coverage of the Trump campaign and presidency? Did they object much when Twitter and Facebook exiled conservative voices that they found inconvenient?

Are journalists concerned when campuses shout down visiting lecturers or pass speech codes to restrict free expression? Was the strange Obama-era state surveillance of fellow journalist Sharyl Attkisson of any importance to the journalistic brotherhood? Did they fret that the Obama-era FBI likely inserted informants into a political campaign, or deliberately deceived a FISA court to spy on an American citizen?

Have journalists signed any of their accustomed collective outrage letters over the New York Times’ Nazi-like anti-Semitic cartoons, and its pathetic sort of, sort of not initial apologies?

Concerning the three great psychodramas of the last two years—the Kavanaugh hearings, the Covington kids fiasco, and the Jussie Smollett fantasy—the media for too long trafficked in the lies of the discredited and predicated their coverage on ideology: feminists, Native Americans, and African-Americans as noble victims; their white male oppressors not so much, regardless of the actual facts of the case.

During the Duke lacrosse team mess, the University of Virginia fraternity hoax, and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin drama the public first began to sense the old implicit media bias had become something new—an outright distortion of evidence to serve a higher cause. We are now at the point that the news consumer has little expectation that journalists will report the facts, but assumes that they will massage, distort, and misrepresent narratives for purposes of supposed social utility.

The media does not just mislead in what it reports; it also chooses not to report news it finds antithetical to its social justice mission. Voters never learned about what Barack Obama actually had said at a dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi because journalists suppressed his speech, in the same fashion the public never knew that then-Senator Obama had posed for a photo-op with Louis Farrakhan, a picture also never released until after Obama had left office. In a new condemnatory account of media misbehavior, Unfreedom of the Press, Mark Levin inter alia devotes a discussion to what we might call the “un-news,” the long history of deliberate suppression of important stories that do not advance the media’s ideological objectives that transcend simply reporting the facts of important daily events.

We might call their modus operandi “critical journalistic theory” that postulates there are few disinterested facts, only interpretations constructed by white male elites. So, to get at a different “truth,” journalists must deconstruct the story by changing or omitting bothersome facts to transmit the “true” essence of an event.

Recently, the media was faced with an existential decision over whether to own up to its peddling myths about Russian collusion or to double down on them. So they perpetuated the farce by bragging on their own contributions to it, and by extension sought to ensure their tarnished reputations by further tarnishing them.

There was never any evidence to support the collusion hoax. Despite denials, the yarn arose mostly from Hillary Clinton’s (illegal) hiring of British subject Christopher Steele (albeit through the intermediaries of the DNC, Perkins-Coie, and Fusion GPS) to smear her election opponent. After all, presidential candidates are not supposed to hire foreign nationals to work with other foreign nationals to conduct espionage to undermine an opponent’s campaign—and then illegally hide the nature of such a “campaign expense” through three firewalls.

After her defeat, “collusion” morphed into a progressive and media generated mechanism at first to account for the inexplicable Clinton defeat, then to abort the unpalatable Trump transition and presidency, and finally as a desperate preemptive effort to thwart investigation of high crimes of Obama-era officials. And the collusion myth caused the nation a great deal of harm until even the onetime progressive heartthrob Robert Mueller’s “dream team” found no evidence for it whatsoever.

In response, did the media in introspective fashion, reexamine why they had peddled collusion through leaks, groupthink, and self-righteous sermons about their own wounded fawn egos? Hardly. No sooner had Mueller found no collusion and no case for prosecuting “obstruction” of such a non-crime than the media first declared itself correct and righteous for peddling the Russian conspiracy theory, and, second, moved immediately to “tax returns,” in essence learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

Lately, a tiny few progressive journalists have tried to warn their colleagues that the collusion farce and other frauds have all but ruined what was left of the reputation of American journalism. The leftist anti-Trump Nation has just published Aaron Matés exhaustive account of the falsities, smears, and sheer ridiculousness of the media obsession with collusion.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, another progressive anti-Trumper, had earlier done the same. And a few journalists, despite being deeply embedded within the Democratic-media nexus, have voiced warnings on other fronts.

CNN’s Jake Tapper finally had to remind his television audience that, contra the Joe Biden rollout campaign video and the progressive gospel, Donald Trump did not excuse white nationalists and Klansmen during the 2017 Charlottesville violence.

Recent polls of likely voters, of all Americans, and even of the Washington press corps itself, show an overwhelming consensus the media is both biased in general and in particular against the Trump presidency.

“Fake news” is not just a Trump talking point or obsession. It is a factual account of what journalism has become—so often an arm of the progressive movement and an incestuous and inbred group of New York and Washington coastal elite mediocrities, or what former Obama official Ben Rhodes cynically wrote off as an “echo chamber” of greenhorn know-nothings.

CNN’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta can delude himself into thinking the media got it right on collusion fantasies, but his own act as a disruptive and shallow performance artist has discredited him as a serious journalist.  His own network has all but ruined its reputation and lost much of its former audience by reporting outright falsities, and employing entertainment and news hosts in a wide variety of shows who descended into gross buffoonery—from Kathy Griffin’s decapitation video to Anderson Cooper’s on-air Trump defecation metaphor to Reza Aslan’s “piece of s—t” commentary to the late Anthony Bourdain’s quip about poisoning Trump.

Do we still remember the CNN news team in December 2014 doing an on-air “hands-up” charade in honor of the Ferguson shooting victim Michael Brown? Note that even Eric Holder’s Justice Department found that Michael Brown never so attempted to surrender to police. CNN never apologized for its news team trafficking in false news that only inflamed passions at a time of increased national tensions.

CNN reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all have peddled false rumors and gossip passed off as fact.

CNN “analyst” James Clapper, himself an admitted liar who has deliberately misled Congress while under oath, for months claimed that Trump was a virtual Putin asset. He never recanted. Finally, he and others have ended up attacking the idea that members of the Obama intelligence team “spied” on the Trump campaign, in effect defending himself on air by ridiculing charges against people like himself.  None of these journalists wondered why they seemed to have repeated the same errors in the same fashion with the same denials of culpability.

What destroyed the present generation of journalism was not just that they live in coastal corridors of progressive groupthink. It was not just because they almost all graduated from liberal journalism programs that still regurgitate ossified Watergate psychodramas of investigative reporters as comic book heroes. Nor is the cause of their decline even their own hair-trigger and social media snark or the pushback from Donald J. Trump.

Instead, over the last 20 years, marquee journalists saw themselves as wannabe celebrities who were to make news, not to report it, to massage stories in such a fashion to serve their social justice agendas, and to virtue signal their superior morality, as many revolved in and out of government.

What have they become instead? People with enormous self-regard, but with little experience with the public whom they were supposed to serve.

They espouse opinions on nearly everything while knowing almost nothing. They believe Washington and New York are the centers of the universe, while the universe is making both more irrelevant. As their ethics dissipated, their vocabularies shrank. Their poor communication skills grew ever poorer, and they displayed little knowledge of the history and culture of the people they reported on. Most could give an in-depth lecture on Botox, but are ignorant about the U.S. Constitution or basic facts of American history.

The people finally are tiring of their bias, their incompetence and their arrogance—and are finally beginning to ignore most of what they say and write.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

America • First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Silicon Valley • Technology • The Culture • The Media

Understanding Google’s Military Mindset

Google tried to censor the Claremont Institute last week. The tech giant backed off under pressure, but the tactical maneuver was hardly a failure. To see why, we only have to think strategically.

The Claremont Institute is a conservative think tank devoted to preserving the original meaning and vitality of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Claremont has launched a new campaign against the dangers of multiculturalism, as Institute President Ryan Williams announced in an essay last month in its digital publication, The American Mind. The essay explains how multiculturalism and identity politics are anathema to the American principles of equal natural rights.

Google decreed that essay, and indeed Claremont’s whole American Mind site, to be “a racially oriented publication”—an absurdity belied by Claremont’s long-standing fight against racial classifications, and Google’s indifference to rampant leftist obsessions with racial and ethnic differences.

When the Institute responded aggressively, publicly challenging Google, several conservative outlets expressed outrage.

Google backed off, claiming it had made a “mistake.” Given the facts and applying the most basic logic, this is obviously false.

The most relevant fact is that Institute staff had to spend two hours on the phone asking Google how its ban (on paid advertisements for the Institute’s upcoming banquet) could be appealed, and for clarification about the grounds of the ban. Google responded that there was no appeal. Further, the ban would be withdrawn only upon complete capitulation to Google’s political correctness: the Institute would have to censor itself and repudiate four decades of patriotic scholarship and advocacy.

To understand what’s happening here, one has to think strategically. We are in a cold war with the Left. That war is heating up. Many soft-headed conservatives and libertarians either fail to see this or they’re clinging to the tiniest shreds of information they hope will allow them to ignore what’s happening. Even those of us who appreciate what is going on, do not always see how the other side really is thinking and acting in terms of war.

A military mindset is at work behind Google’s action—which represents the censorship and propaganda agenda of the whole social media conglomerate. To see this, it helps to reflect on a few lessons from one of the 20th century’s great but under-appreciated teachers of war and strategy, Harold W. Rood. Fittingly, Rood himself (who passed away in 2011) was affiliated with the Claremont Institute and taught for many years at Claremont McKenna College.

He had two sayings he was fond of repeating to his students: “Politics is war by other means,” and, “There are no coincidences.”

Take the second one first: The targeting of Claremont was no mistake and no accident. Scholars and activists associated with the Claremont Institute were among the earliest supporters of Donald Trump. The Institute’s Claremont Review of Books published Michael Anton’s famous “The Flight 93 Election”—the only essay that arguably had a significant effect on the 2016 election. And the Institute, more so than any other conservative think tank, has devoted its entire existence to explaining and defending what it means to be an American—an identity grounded in our founding principles of color-blind equal rights.

If Google could have bullied the Claremont Institute into submission, it would have been a massive victory for the regressive Left, and laid the foundation for a vastly more intense and aggressive censorship campaign.

But that wasn’t really what Google expected to happen, which brings up Rood’s second aphorism. The Left’s unrelenting propaganda, intimidation, censorship, de-funding and de-platforming are all tactics as part of a strategy in a “war by other means.” Google’s attempt to ban Claremont’s ads was a classic reconnaissance operation: initiate a small provocative skirmish with the enemy to probe his defenses and see how he responds; then pull back, analyze, and plan for the next (bigger) assault.

Google’s claim that it had made a “mistake” is a transparent falsehood. They were testing the perimeter. Thank goodness, Claremont stood its ground. That was necessary and important. Google has learned that at least one of its targets isn’t soft. But this simply means that the next assault will incorporate what the company learned this week; so it will strike harder.

Will you be ready?

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Donald Trump • Post • The Left • The Media

If Deplatforming Hoaxsters Is OK, the News Media Should Be in Big Trouble

Without much explanation, Facebook last Thursday banned several high-profile users amid accusations they violated the company’s subjective rules about violence and hate speech. The ban applied to InfoWars founder Alex Jones; YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson; Laura Loomer, a 25-year-old journalist and conservative activist, and others accounts loosely aligned with the political Right. (Loomer and Jones already have been kicked off Twitter.)

The company offered little in the way of specifics about why these so-called “dangerous individuals” were banished from the world’s most active social media site. “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” the company said in a statement.

The corporation’s vague condemnation prompted widespread speculation from journalists about the real reason why these online menaces got the axe: Jones, Watson, Loomer, et. al. are conspiracy theorists, they warned. From 9/11 to Pizzagate, these alleged villains have peddled their own sinister version of reality and spread false information to their followers.

“President Donald Trump on Saturday retweeted messages from conspiracy theorists and far-right figures after Facebook banned several right-wing personalities for promoting violence and hate,” scoffed CNBC online reporter Tom DiChristopher in response to Trump’s weekend tweets criticizing Facebook’s move.

Other well-known defenders of free speech with fancy bylines at the country’s top news organizations cheered Facebook’s censorship:

MSNBC’s Katy Tur reported on May 2 that, “Facebook has banned a number of conspiracy theorists” then wondered aloud why it had taken the tech company so long to do it. An editorial in the Washington Post over the weekend applauded Facebook’s censure of Jones, a “conservative conspiracy theorist,” and commended the company for “viewing its latest outcasts in the broader context of their role both on its site and in society.”

Now, that kind of chutzpah requires a heavy dose of magical thinking laced with a stunning lack of self-awareness and doused with a toxic level of hypocrisy. And it would be amusing if it wasn’t so enraging.

Because these reporters hail from the very same news organizations that have intentionally misled the American public about three destructive hoaxes in the past year alone: The Trump-Russian election collusion ruse; the Brett Kavanaugh rape allegations; and the Covington Catholic High School “smirking” myth.

CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and NBC News used every ounce of their considerable influence and reach, including social media, to promote each fraud for one collective purpose: To destroy the presidency of Donald Trump and defame anyone associated with the president including pro-life teenagers.

Further, these journalists and their employers don’t come from the fringe of the internet with far-flung audiences and zero influence in the halls of power. Our ruling class takes their daily cues from contributors to the New York Times and CNN; their bleatings and outbursts, unlike those of Alex Jones, drive policy and public sentiment. These well-connected influencers, unlike Laura Loomer, have the ability to destroy careers, reputations, and lives. And they do just that. Regularly.

The Times and the Post have published thousands of articles speculating that Donald Trump and his campaign team coordinated with the Kremlin to manipulate the 2016 presidential election. Celebrated columnists have suggested that Trump is a Russian agent, a Putin puppet, even a traitor, for his supposed ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Maggie Haberman, a Trump-bashing reporter for the Times who seems to agree with Facebook’s decision to shut down conspiracy theorists, has written more than one hundred articles and made countless television news appearances attempting to legitimize the collusion conspiracy theory.

It would be impossible to calculate how many hours CNN and MSNBC have devoted to breathlessly agitating the Russian collusion narrative. This includes CNN’s Ana Navarro, who has trafficked in every bogus collusion storyline since 2017. As late as March 2019, Navarro claimed that Trump committed multiple crimes while working with the Russians to “hack democratic institutions in the United States and compromise the integrity of the election.”

MSNBC has offered nearly wall-to-wall coverage, from Joe Scarborough in the morning to Rachel Maddow at night, on the Russian collusion story.

But, as we now know, the whole story not only was a scam, it was a set-up by the Obama administration. There was no collusion. And unlike some weird chatter about a D.C. pizza place, this conspiracy theory has inflicted real damage to our body politic, our government, and on innocent people caught up in the scheme. Yet to date, not one journalists or newspaper or cable outlet has been censured by Big Tech for taking part in the collusion conspiracy theory.

Recall that the Washington Post was the first to report on the spurious allegations from Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, igniting an unprecedented political war in Washington while stoking rage and discord across the country. Story after story followed in the Post, which kept an ongoing list of sordid and baseless accusations against Kavanaugh. No claim was too far-fetched, no accuser was too sketchy.

NBC News aired a lengthy interview with Julie Swetnick, a known liar and obvious lunatic whose outlandish claims against Kavanaugh never could be substantiated. The New York Times even published a ludicrous piece about an alleged ice-throwing incident from more than 30 years ago. CNN gave ample air time to lowlife lawyer Michael Avenatti, who made more threats against Kavanaugh.

But Ford’s story, and the claims that followed were never substantiated. Her congressional testimony was unconvincing on the facts; others directly refuted her account. The media scrum then devolved into questions about whether Kavanaugh was a drunk. (A rich character test applied by the alcoholic headcases in the press.)

The media then concocted their own conspiracy theory: Donald Trump’s FBI was covering up for Kavanaugh, refusing to engage in thorough investigation as each claim materialized. “The investigation was always unlikely to prove whether Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual misconduct decades ago,” the Post reported on October 4, 2018. “But the inquiry’s limited scope—which was dictated by the White House—is likely to exacerbate the partisan tension surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

Kavanaugh and his family forever will have to live with the consequences of the grotesque assault unleashed against him by the news media. He, his family, and lawmakers supporting his nomination were subjected to harassment and death threats. Yet no apology has been issued, and no deplatforming of those who propagated the most outrageous charges against him has been announced. Crickets from Silicon Valley.

But just to show that there is no depth to which the hoaxsters in the media people are pleased to call “mainstream” (but is actually nothing more than corporate and leftist) won’t sink, consider the Covington Catholic hoax. It would be almost impossible to come up with a more despicable example of fake news than the hoax that tore through social media last January claiming a group of high school students disrespected a “native elder.” A screenshot of one Kentucky teenager wearing a Make America Great Again hat and attending the March for Life appeared to show him “smirking” in the face of the innocent man. The photo and a video clip that turned out to be doctored went viral, with major news outlets such as CNN and the Washington Post instantly reporting the phony storyline with such similarity of language that it was impossible not to notice. (The scam was later shown to be what appeared an orchestrated social media campaign bolstered by Democratic operatives.)

“Nothing justifies what the Covington students did,” opined Jonathan Capehart in the Post. (Capehart later compared the “smirking” teen, Nicholas Sandmann, to Kavanaugh.) The New York Times quickly proclaimed that the doctored video was representative of Trump’s America. “The encounter became the latest touchpoint for racial tensions in America, particularly under Mr. Trump,” the Times reported the morning after the first images were posted on Twitter. “Across the country, Mr. Trump’s name [has] been used to goad minorities.”

CNN’s S.E. Cupp, who now wishes good riddance to the banned Facebook villians, exploited the bogus Covington story, interviewing the “native elder” as a legitimate victim and hate-tweeting the teenagers. (Only after the full story was revealed did Cupp offer a mealy-mouthed apology on Twitter.)

Sandmann and his family now are suing CNN, NBC News and the Washington Post for defamation against “the agenda-driven mainstream and social media mob of bullies who attacked, vilified and threatened a child.”

So, while people like Jones and Watson are banished from social media platforms and branded by one of the most powerful corporations in the world as “dangerous individuals” who stoke hate and violence, there is no such censure against insidious, massive news organizations that arguably have inflicted far more serious and irrevocable damage upon innocent people and on our nation at large. All of their inflammatory content still can be found on Facebook and Twitter.

So, how is Rachel Maddow any less dangerous than Paul Watson or Laura Loomer? How are the daily rantings at the Post and the Times about the president of the United States, his family, and his supporters any less malicious than the maniacal postings at InfoWars? How is the hate spewed on CNN toward anyone associated with the political Right less provocative than anything said by Milo Yiannopoulos?

Someone needs to ask these tech titans to explain the difference. Only then will we find out whether their censorship truly has nothing to do with “ideology” and objectively is applied to all users, regardless of politics or power. But at this point, it’s hard to square their protestations with the facts.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images